INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

ADVANTAGE CP’SADVANTAGE CP’S.........................................................................................................................1***WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE CP***..........................................................................4

Molten Salt Reactors CP..........................................................................................................5Strategy note.....................................................................................................................................................................51nc.....................................................................................................................................................................................62NC spillover....................................................................................................................................................................72NC China/Competitiveness mod....................................................................................................................................8AT: generic nuclear power fails........................................................................................................................................9

Real Trees CP..........................................................................................................................101NC Let’s Plant Trees CP...............................................................................................................................................102NC Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................112NC Spending NB..........................................................................................................................................................12AFF - Not enough...........................................................................................................................................................13AFF - Deforestation good...............................................................................................................................................14

Fake Trees CP.........................................................................................................................151NC Artificial Trees CP.................................................................................................................................................152NC solvency cards........................................................................................................................................................16Aff answers.....................................................................................................................................................................17

Aerosols CP..............................................................................................................................181NC.................................................................................................................................................................................182NC Solvency-Extensions..............................................................................................................................................19AT: Links to Politics.......................................................................................................................................................20AT: Geoengineering Doesn’t Solve Permanently..........................................................................................................21AT: Drought Turn...........................................................................................................................................................22AT: Ozone Depletion Turn.............................................................................................................................................23Aff-Ozone Turn..............................................................................................................................................................24Aff-Solvency Deficit.......................................................................................................................................................25Aff-Solvency Deficit.......................................................................................................................................................26Aff-Solvency Turn..........................................................................................................................................................27Aff – Solvency Deficit – Cost.........................................................................................................................................28Aff – Links to Politics.....................................................................................................................................................29

Renewable Portfolio Standards CP.......................................................................................301NC Renewable Portfolio Standards CP........................................................................................................................30Solves Renewable Energy..............................................................................................................................................31Solves Oil Dependence...................................................................................................................................................33Solves Competitiveness..................................................................................................................................................33Solves Economy.............................................................................................................................................................34AT: Perm.........................................................................................................................................................................35AT: RPS increases energy prices....................................................................................................................................35AT: Kills Electric Utilities..............................................................................................................................................36AT: Only helps some regions.........................................................................................................................................36AT: Transition Difficult..................................................................................................................................................37AT: Implementation Fails...............................................................................................................................................37AT: Doesn’t solve infrastructure....................................................................................................................................37AT: Links to Politics.......................................................................................................................................................38AFF - Solvency...............................................................................................................................................................39

1

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF - Links to politics....................................................................................................................................................40

1NC Ocean Fertilization CP...................................................................................................41Ocean Fertilization CP – Solvency.................................................................................................................................42Ocean Fertilization CP – Politics NB.............................................................................................................................43Ocean Fertilization CP – Politics NB – CEOs................................................................................................................43Ocean Fertilization CP – Spending NB..........................................................................................................................44Ocean Fertilization CP – AT: U.N. Regulations............................................................................................................46

1NC Peridotite CP...................................................................................................................47Peridotite CP – Spending NB.........................................................................................................................................48

1NC Solar Radiation Management CP.................................................................................49SRM CP – Spending NB................................................................................................................................................50

***HEG***.................................................................................................................................511NC Seabasing CP...................................................................................................................52

Seabasing CP – Solvency...............................................................................................................................................53Seabasing CP – AT: No Capability................................................................................................................................582NC PTX – Net Benefit..................................................................................................................................................592NC AT: Asymmetric Threats........................................................................................................................................602NC AT: No Capabilities...............................................................................................................................................612NC AT: Vulnerable.......................................................................................................................................................622NC AT: Allied Cooperation..........................................................................................................................................622NC AT: Econ Key to Heg.............................................................................................................................................632NC AT: Power Projection Not Key..............................................................................................................................63

1NC F-35 CP............................................................................................................................64F-35 Extensions..............................................................................................................................................................662NC Solvency/Avoids Politics.......................................................................................................................................67

***SOFT POWER***...............................................................................................................681NC Foreign Aid CP.......................................................................................................................................................68XT: Foreign Aid Key......................................................................................................................................................70XT: healthcare solves......................................................................................................................................................70XT: communications solves............................................................................................................................................70XT: econ incentives solves.............................................................................................................................................71

***TERRORISM***.................................................................................................................72MPCA/GTRL CP 1NC...................................................................................................................................................72CP SOL...........................................................................................................................................................................73Solves Terror...................................................................................................................................................................73

***OIL DEPDENDENCE***...................................................................................................75State Building Codes CP 1NC................................................................................................76

Solvency – Dependence..................................................................................................................................................77Solvency – Dependence..................................................................................................................................................78Solvency – A2: No Oil In Buildings...............................................................................................................................79Solvency – Economy/Warming......................................................................................................................................80Solvency – Economy/Warming......................................................................................................................................81Solvency – Economy/Warming......................................................................................................................................82Solvency – Economy......................................................................................................................................................82Solvency – Warming......................................................................................................................................................83A2: State Spending DA...................................................................................................................................................84FYI – How States Adopt Energy Codes.........................................................................................................................84

Bio Fuels...................................................................................................................................851NC.................................................................................................................................................................................85

2

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC Solvency – Dependence.........................................................................................................................................862NC Solvency – Environment........................................................................................................................................882NC Solvency – Incentives.............................................................................................................................................89

***ECON***..............................................................................................................................91Corporate Tax Reform 1NC..................................................................................................92

2NC Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................95Elections – CP Popular...................................................................................................................................................96AT: Hurts revenue..........................................................................................................................................................96AT: Doesn’t Solve Competitiveness...............................................................................................................................98

National Sales Tax...................................................................................................................991NC.................................................................................................................................................................................99

***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY***............................................................................................1031NC Science Diplomacy Adv CP.........................................................................................1042NC Solves Science Diplomacy............................................................................................105

3

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE CP***

4

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

MOLTEN SALT REACTORS CPSTRATEGY NOTE

MSR = molten salt reactor – a type of small nuclear reactor that dissolves the nuclear material into the coolant (a molten fluoride salt, hence the name). This means when the reactor heats up above normal operating temperatures, the coolant-reactant mixture expands, the nuclear molecules grow too far apart, and the reaction stops. This allows nuclear fuel to be used for much longer, and ensures meltdowns are physically impossible.

SMR = small modular reactor. Some of the 2NC evidence talks about SMRs. A MSR is a type of SMR (confusing, I know).

5

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS1NC

THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS INVESTMENT IN MOLTEN SALT NUCLEAR REACTORS. WE’LL CLARIFY.MSR CAN POWER THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR 70 YEARS USING ONLY EXISTING NUCLEAR WASTE, AND ARE COMPLETELY SAFE

Tarantola 13 [“The Future of Nuclear Power Runs on the Waste of Our Nuclear Past” published 3/14/13, accessed 3/15/13 at http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past. Gizmodo staff writer citing two MIT scientists.]//JGAmerica alone produces about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste annually and our best solution for disposing of it: bury it deep in the Earth. However, a pair of MIT scientists believe they've found not only a better way of eliminating nuclear waste but recycling the deadly detritus into enough clean electricity to power the entire world until 2083. Win, meet win. The conventional nuclear power method involves inserting radioactive rods into a reactor core where their fissionable material is converted into energy. Problem is, it's not particularly efficient. Over the four years or so that a rod will remain in use, only about three percent of its available nuclear material is expended, leaving 97 percent as "waste." And since nobody seems particularly willing to just fling it into the Sun, this waste must be disposed of in a nuclear repository site like Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Over the past forty years or so, the US has generated 67,500 metric tons of the stuff—enough to cover a football field with spent fuel rods to a depth of seven yards. But what if there were a way to recycle the waste and recapture the remaining energy? There is. Molten salt reactors are nuclear reactors which use a molten fluoride salt mixture as the primary coolant. These salts have proven to be far superior heat sinks than the helium used in light-water reactors, which greatly reduces the need for supplementary cooling. The nuclear fuel (uranium tetrafluoride) can also be dissolved directly into the coolant as well. When the fluid is inserted into a graphite core, the mix goes critical and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unlike conventional light-water reactors, an MSR operates at very high temperatures to achieve thermodynamic efficiency but remain at atmospheric pressure to reduce mechanical stress on the system. The US military has been experimenting with MSRs since the mid '50s, producing both the Aircraft Reactor Experiment in 1954 and the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) of 1965 conducted at Oak Ridge National Labs. The MSRE produced 7.4 MWth from epithermal thorium molten salts at 650 degrees C—enough to easily power a closed-cycle gas turbine while minimizing the amount of nuclear waste remaining. However, since MSR systems tend to take up more floor space than light-water reactors, the military opted for the latter when installing nuclear power in its subs and ships. Designed by Transatomic co-founders and former MIT researchers Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) updates the technology utilized in the original Oak Ridge experiment. However, the new system is fuel-agnostic and can run on either the uranium or thorium leftovers from light-water reactors. According to Transatomic's website, their MSR is incredibly efficient—capable of utilizing as much as 98 percent of the remaining fuel's energy (though even a rate of just 50 percent would be a huge improvement)—since fuel suspended in a liquid medium can remain in a reactor for far longer than as a rod, allowing more of the fuel to be used. What's more, reusing this waste as a fuel source would reduce their radioactive lifetimes from hundreds of thousands of years to just hundreds. The Tansatomic system is also reputedly very user friendly thanks to a pair of idiot-proof safety features. The design of the MSR itself avoids many potential issues by keeping the pressure of the reaction low, this allows the fuel mixture to expand as it heats and self-regulate the fission reaction. If the system gets too hot, the mix will expand far enough to fall below criticality and automatically stop the nuclear reaction. The system also features a freeze-plug, an actively-cooled barrier that leads to a fortified, underground storage vault for the fuel mix. If there's a major power interruption, the active-cooling maintaining the barrier stops, the barrier melts, and the molten salt mix drains into the vault for safe storage until systems can be restored. The company claims that each reactor will be capable of generating 500 megawatts of power at a price of $1.5 billion apiece. That may sound like a lot but realize Westinghouse's new AP1000 light-water reactor only produces double that output and costs a cool $7 billion. What's more, these reactors are expected to be small enough to be constructed at a factory and shipped whole to the installation site where they can start chewing through the $7.1 trillion worth of untapped electricity sitting in our nuclear stockpiles.

6

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SPILLOVER

EXPANSION OF MSR’S KICK-START NUCLEAR POWER GLOBALLY Taso 11 (Firas Eugen Taso, “21st Century Civilian Nuclear Power and the Role of Small Modular Reactors”, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; Tufts University, May 2011 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/877618836) JDIn recent years there has been a renewed interest, both private and public according to Matthew Bunn, in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Some of them are new concepts and technologies, like the Hyperion or Toshiba 4S reactors, or existing technologies scaled down from large PWR or LWR reactors, like the NuScale or mPower. In the eyes of some experts and proponents of nuclear power, these new designs and new approach from the industry could change the playing field and help promote a resurgence of nuclear power not just in the United States, but worldwide, opening the field to countries that were thus far not considering nuclear for economic or capacity reasons. SMRs could, in theory, help promote nuclear power and give it the jump start that has been talked about for decades in the US and other nuclear states. In order to understand SMRs, and arguments for and against them, this section will describe the technology, look at current models and regulatory and political environment on SMRs and analyze them from benefits and costs perspectives.

7

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC CHINA/COMPETITIVENESS MOD

CHINA’S WINNING MSR RACE NOW – CP KEY TO COMPETITIVENESS

Morrow 14 [Jon, Treasurer & Economic Advisor at Sustainable Abundance Center and Energy From Thorium Foundation, 3/21/14: “THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR RACE: WILL AMERICA JOIN THE RACE?,” accessed 6/26/14 at http://energyfromthorium.com/2014/03/21/the-molten-salt-reactor-race-will-america-join-the-race/] //JGThe South China Post reported on March 18th that the Chinese government has greatly accelerated its plans to produce a commercialized LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), which is a type of MSR Molten Salt Reactor. The previous goal set for the development of this reactor was within 25 years and that goal has now been reduced to just 10 years.¶ In the past, the development of a LFTR by China was due to a massive energy shortage in China. China’s energy shortage is the result of millions of Chinese living in the third world that are dreaming and reaching for a first world lifestyle (that a majority of many Americans and Europeans today enjoy). The adoption of a very shrewd brand of American capitalism by the China government has allowed China the prosperity and wherewithal to pursue scientific endeavors such as the LFTR. These types of projects were previously reserved to capitalist countries like the United States, France, and Canada.¶ Unfortunately, the economy of America and many other countries has not allowed the pursuit of their own technologies due to their struggling economies. Many economist blame this upon a very expensive regulatory burden that has been imposed upon American companies. Business tend be be like water and tend to flow to countries that have the least costly regulatory burdens. This allows companies to be more competitive in a world with everything else being equal.¶ The reason given for the acceleration of the LFTR program by the China government is due to smog and air pollution brought on by the massive amount of manufacturing that has left America’s shores and other countries to set up business in China. Many out of work Americans in our struggling economy would like to have that problem. While China is exploiting its natural resources to produce prosperity for its citizens, America has adopted a policy of putting many of its natural resources off limits to protect the environment.¶ What is particularly ironic is that MSR technology was invented by America and Americans conceived the LFTR, but the same regulatory environment in America that has pushed American jobs overseas also prevents American companies from commercializing its own conceptual technology. A technology that could make many dirtier forms of energy naturally obsolete in a free market economy and give America a competitive edge. ¶ China’s commercialization of LFTR would be a game changer that would allow an already very competitive China to have much more affordable energy and have a pollution free environment.¶ America’s energy policy is currently largely focused upon the development of renewables, and in particular, those renewable technologies that are not concentrated, base-load, or are power upon demand. Arguably, this means America has set its energy policy upon developing the most inefficient forms of renewable energy (wind and solar as compared to hydro or geothermal), which to economist (that are not scientifically biased and believe in the free-market system), means America is building energy expense and inefficiency into the foundation of its already struggling and un-competetive manufacturing arsenal.¶ China produces many of the solar panels and wind turbine generators (due to China’s near monopoly of rare earth elements used in their construction) used in America’s fleet of renewables, while China itself has gambled its present day prosperity and its future upon the development of nuclear technologies to provide safe, reliable, and clean energy.¶ Wind and solar in America struggle just to compete with coal and natural gas, LFTR is predicted to produce electricity at half that of natural gas and coal (and do so with less environmental harm to the planet than the large footprint of wind and solar) while producing no long-lived waste. Many Americans are used to living with Washington making bad energy policy decisions but, many cannot understand why we are aiding the Chinese in the development of commercializing MSR technology. To the layperson and even many experts this seems to be akin to shooting ourselves in our own foot. While America struggles to climb the ladder out of economic recession our legislators have adopted a policy of pursuing clean energy at any cost and a policy of assisting China at pursuing the development of clean and safe energy at an affordably competetive cost.

8

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: GENERIC NUCLEAR POWER FAILS

MSR ARE 100% SAFE, SMALLER, AND MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE – OVERCOMES BARRIERS TO NUCLEAR SUCCESS

Templeton 13 [“The 500MW molten salt nuclear reactor: Safe, half the price of light water, and shipped to order” published 3/13/13. Accessed 3/15/13 at http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150551-the-500mw-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-safe-half-the-price-of-light-water-and-shipped-to-order. Graham, BS in Molecular Biology and science writer for several publications.]//JGEnter Transatomic’s molten salt reactor (MSR). Researchers have actually had working models of the MSRs since the ’60s, but they’ve never been used for commercial purposes. One reason is that much of nuclear’s research capital comes from the military, and bulky MSR technology has traditionally been less desirable for submarines and aircraft carriers than their relatively slim light-water cousins. Another is that the plants require a separate facility to filter their core mixture. Still, for the purposes of mass land power production, the MSR design has some serious advantages, most importantly with respect to our two key issues: safety and cost. The safety advantages of this project are mostly features of molten salt reactors in general. Using high boiling-point coolants like fluoride or chloride salts in place of light or heavy water negates the need to pressurize the system and instantly reduces the dangers associated with super-heated, pressurized liquids. Keeping the fuel-coolant mixture at a reasonable pressure also allows the mixture to expand — if the system overheats, the medium expands and holds fuel atoms too far apart for continuation of the nuclear reaction. This is called a passive safety system, and in a post-Fukushima industry such disaster-proof measures simply must be the future of nuclear power. In the same vein, Transatomic’s proposed reactor would also have a so-called freeze plug — an actively cooled barrier that melts in the event of a power failure, leading all nuclear material to automatically drain into a reinforced holding tank. These reactors are “walk away safe,” meaning that a power failure, a runaway heat cascade, and a general worker’s strike could all happen on the same day — and the worst we’d suffer is loss of service. Fukushima’s problems stemmed (mostly) from the fact that the tsunami knocked out its diesel coolant pumps. MSR reactors replace such delicate systems with rugged ones: gravity, heat, and the most basic chemical properties of their materials. Then, there are the costs. Transatomic claims their reactor will be capable of pumping out 500 megawatts for a total initial cost of about $1.7 billion. By comparison, the super-advanced light water Westinghouse AP1000 pumps out a little over 1000 megawatts for an estimated $7 billion. That’s about half the cost per megawatt, at least on paper. The new reactor would also be small enough to be built in a central factory and then shipped to its destination, rather than requiring that the plant’s eventual location be made into an expensive, multi-year construction site.

9

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

REAL TREES CP1NC LET’S PLANT TREES CP

THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS INVESTMENT IN TREE PLANTING.PLANTING TREES SOLVES WARMING

Arnold Nadler, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught at universities, consulted/written on energy, environment, economics and technologies, June 2004, “Carbon Sequestration: Can It Help Beat Back Global Climate Change?” Public Power, magazine of the American Public Power Association http://www.publicpower.org/Media/magazine/ArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2104Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life. However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase, there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the oceans. If a growing tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant, should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions of trees and a coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Analyzing NASA satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nation’s carbon absorption rates and therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted, this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of CO2 annually, about 3 percent of the U.S. total. The power industry estimates that building cleaner power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided. AEP estimates that growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered. Assuming that eventually the United States would adopt a carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid-1990s several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is cheap. It was assumed that carbon credits would apply globally.

10

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SOLVENCY

TREE PLANTING EFFECTIVE IN THE SQ.RAZAQ AYINLA, Thursday, 19 April 2012, “Global Warming: Ogun to plant 1.5m trees,” Business Day News, http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/city-file/city-file/36122-global-warming-ogun-to-plant-15m-treesOgun State government says it is set to combat the destructive effects of global warming, desert encroachment and deforestation with the planting of 1.5 million trees across the state under an afforestation programme, tagged ‘’Green Revolution’’. Falilu Sabitu, the state commissioner for Forestry, disclosed in Abeokuta that state government planned to plant 1.5 million trees in order to stem the tide of the global climate change as climatic condition continues to reverberate in the forms of rising temperatures and sea levels, leaving behind its trail disasters in the form of floods, desertification and other environmental degradation. Falilu stated that the state government would achieve its set target on afforestation through the massive utilisation of 1.5 million tree seedlings allotted to Ogun State by the Federal Government under the National Afforestation Programme. The forestry boss, who was represented at a stakeholders’ forum held in Abeokuta by the Director of Horticulture in the ministry, Oladipo Odeyemi, confirmed that about 1.5 million tree seedlings that were allotted to the state, would be distributed freely to schools, churches, and mosques in addition to other stakeholders in the forestry business. He stated that the step was necessary to combat serious desertification and deforestation coupled with the green house effect resulting from gas emission, domestic and industrial pollution, adding that indiscriminate human action had contributed in no small measure to complicating the present climate change that characterised the global weather. The commissioner, however, declared that tree planting was a panacea to the present condition, stating that “trees on their own have the ability to absorb green house effects”.

11

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SPENDING NB

PLANTING TREES IS VERY CHEAP.Arnold Nadler, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught at universities, consulted/written on energy, environment, economics and technologies, June 2004, “Carbon Sequestration: Can It Help Beat Back Global Climate Change?” Public Power, magazine of the American Public Power Association http://www.publicpower.org/Media/magazine/ArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2104Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life. However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase, there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the oceans. If a growing tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant, should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions of trees and a coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Analyzing NASA satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nation’s carbon absorption rates and therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted, this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of CO2 annually, about 3 percent of the U.S. total. The power industry estimates that

building cleaner power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided . AEP estimates that growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered . Assuming that eventually the United States would adopt a carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid-1990s

several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is cheap. It was assumed that carbon credits would apply globally.

12

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF - NOT ENOUGH

TREES NOT ENOUGH TO SOLVE

Chemistry Daily, 2012, “Carbon dioxide sink,” http://chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Carbon_dioxide_sinkIn effect, forests are carbon dioxide stores, and the sink effect exists only when they grow in size: it is thus naturally limited. It seems clear that the use of forests to curb climate change can only be a temporary measure. Even optimistic estimates come to the conclusion that the planting of new forests is not enough to counter-balance the current level of greenhouse gas emissions. Although a forest is a net CO2 sink over time, the plantation of new forests may also initially be a source of carbon dioxide emission when carbon from the soil is released into the atmosphere. Other studies indicate that the cooling effect of removing carbon by forest growth can be counteracted by the effects of the forest on albedo. Mid-to-high latitude forests have a much lower albedo during snow seasons than flat ground, and this contributes to warming. To prevent the stored carbon from being released into the atmosphere when the trees die, there have been suggestions of sinking the trees into the ocean. Such suggestions raise serious questions about feasibility.

SINKS ALONE DON’T SOLVE

E.T. Cloyd, 2012, “U.S. Climate Change Science Program,” SOCCR Scientific Coordination Team, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/us_climate_change_abstract.pdfThe large difference between current sources and sinks and the expectation that the difference could become larger if the growth of fossil-fuel emissions continues and land sinks decline suggest that addressing imbalances in the North American carbon budget will likely require actions focused on reducing fossil-fuel emissions. Options to enhance sinks (growing forests or sequestering carbon in agricultural soils) can contribute, but enhancing sinks alone is likely insufficient to deal with either the current or future imbalance. Options to reduce emissions include efficiency improvement, fuel switching, and technologies such as carbon capture and geological storage. Implementing these options will likely require an array of policy instruments at local, regional, national, and international levels, ranging from the encouragement of voluntary actions to economic incentives, tradable emissions permits, and regulations. Meeting the demand for information by decision makers will likely require new modes of research characterized by close collaboration between scientists and carbon management stakeholders.

13

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF - DEFORESTATION GOOD

DEFORESTATION IS GOOD Brett Vander Velden and Shawn Nauman, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics Department of Chemical & Biochemical Engineering The University of Iowa “Reforestation” Fall 2000. http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/people/carmichael/atmos_course/ATMOS_PROJ_00/vander/atmos-website.htmlTrees use more CO2 through photosynthesis than they release through respiration. CO2 that is not used in the photosynthetic process and is not released by respiration is then stored in the cells of the tree. This CO2 is not released again until the tree decomposes or stops growing. As a matter of fact, one growing tree can consume about 50 pounds of CO2 in one year. For every ton of wood grown, trees uptake about 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide and give off a little more than a ton of oxygen for up to about 40 years. For example, one acre of pine will grow about 3 tons of wood and give off 3.2 tons of oxygen. This means that the trees will consume close to 4.4 tons of CO2 in photosynthetic processes and in their cells in a period of only one year! This surprising statistic is even greater for deciduous trees. So, how much of a volume of air do trees effect? Statistically, a forest growing at the rate of 10 m3 of wood per hectare per year is absorbing the CO2 from 14 million m3 of air. Because of these surprising facts, trees increase the rate at which greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere. These facts sound very pleasing on paper, however trees can also release carbon dioxide and uptake oxygen. This happens most commonly in the decay process. Trees will not experience this type of situation until they are much older, stop growing, or are left to rot. The decay process requires oxygen and gives off relatively high levels of methane. Methane is also a greenhouse gas and absorbs almost 20 times more radiation than does carbon dioxide. Therefore, in order to maintain a proper balance and to reduce global warming, steps should be taken to harvest the trees. This harvesting would ensure a continuous cycle of birth, growth, and death. This would also ensure proper reforestation of harvested lands.

14

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

FAKE TREES CP1NC ARTIFICIAL TREES CP

Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its investment in at-the-site artificial tree technology. ARTIFICIAL TREES SOLVE WARMING THROUGH CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION – WITHOUT NEEDING MASSIVE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

Bland 9 (Eric, April 16, Eric Bland writes about science and technology for Discovery News, ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD COOL CLIMATE, http://news.discovery.com/tech/artificial-trees-cool-climate.htmlA new kind of tree could cool the planet by removing a major greenhouse gas from the planet's atmosphere.¶ What researchers are calling artificial trees, actually towers filled with various materials that adsorb carbon dioxide from the air, could play a major role in reducing climate change -- if they prove profitable.¶ "This is an industry still in its infancy," said Billy Gridley of Global Research Technologies, LLC, the company creating the C02-scrubbing towers. "This will eventually rival the size of today's energy markets."¶ GRT's artificial tree is based on an environmentally friendly resin, originally developed by Klaus Lackner, a professor at Columbia University in New York. The alkaline resin reacts with acidic carbon dioxide, holding it in place. After one hour exposed to the air, the resin is completely saturated with CO2.¶ Dry resin soaks up the CO2. Adding water releases the CO2, which is then captured and stored. Drying the resin again restores its abilities, a cycle that can be repeated indefinitely.¶ Over 24 hours Gridley estimates an artificial tree, containing about 32,800 feet of resin, will harvest about one ton of CO2 each day.¶ When the first artificial tree is ready, two to three years from now, it will cost about $150 for each ton, Gridley estimates. When the technology is fully mature, the price will be as low as $20.¶ GRT plans to sell the purified CO2 to a range of buyers. Oil and natural gas companies are probably the biggest customers for the artificial trees. Petroleum companies pump CO2 underground to raise the pressure and force oil to the surface. Greenhouses could pump in extra C02 to help plants grow. Fizzy soda drinks and sanding auto parts also require concentrated CO2.¶ All of these customers currently get CO2 by truck or by pipeline, most of which originates in Texas. The advantage of the artificial trees is that they can be placed next to whatever factory needs CO2 without having to ship it in. ¶ Another use for the artificial trees would be in the cap-and-trade carbon credit system. The idea is that companies that produce CO2 would pay another company, like GRT, to get rid of it. The most likely place to put the C02 is in the salt-lined caverns that once held oil, a process known as carbon sequestration.¶ Wherever the CO2 is placed, at least it is out of the atmosphere, said David Keith, a professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, who developed his own artificial, C02-catching towers years ago and is working to refine his models. Keith, GRT, and other organizations aren't trying to profit from climate change; they are looking to prevent or at least slow it.¶ "Nobody doubts that this is doable," said Keith. "It's a matter of doing it at cost, and right now it's still unclear how that can be done."

15

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SOLVENCY CARDS

BUILDING ARTIFICIAL IS THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE WARMING Banks 9 (Michael, April 27, Michael Banks is news editor of Physics World, Engineers call for 'artificial trees' to reduce CO2, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/aug/27/engineers-call-for-artificial-trees-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide)Constructing a forest of 'artificial trees' is one of the most promising technologies to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, according to a report published by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK. The report also calls for a national UK programme for research and development into "geoengineering" projects that could provide a better understanding of the risks and costs of manipulating the climate. ¶ Most attempts to deal with climate change involve reducing emissions of CO2 and in December the United Nations Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen will attempt to set binding targets for lowering such emissions for the first time. Yet even an agreement to cut CO2 emission by 50% by 2050 may not be enough to stop the planet's average temperature rising by 2 °C by the end of the century.¶ Geoengineering – deliberate intervention into the climate system to counteract man-made global warming – offers an alternative approach. The new report, Geoengineering – Giving us Time to Act?, looks at different geoengineering options for tackling climate change, including adding iron to the oceans to produce phytoplankton blooms that then absorb CO2 and constructing giant sunshades in space that can reflect the Sun's rays.The authors – led by Tim Fox, head of environment and climate change at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers – found that constructing fly-swat-shaped "artificial trees" is the most promising approach to reducing CO2. Such a tree would work by letting air pass through into the structure and then catching the CO2 via a "sorbant" material, such as sodium hydroxide. The CO2 is then removed and buried underground in a similar manner to conventional carbon capture and storage.¶ According to the report, constructing 100,000 such "trees" – each costing around $20,000 – would require 600 hectares of land but would be enough to remove the CO2 from the UK's homes and transport system.

ARTIFICIAL TREES SOLVE BETTER THAN THE AFF, WE CAN TAKE CO2 OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE

MSNBC 12 (“Green-energy ideas so crazy they just might work,” published 6/29/12, accessed 10/26/13 at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730065/ns/technology_and_science-future_of_energy/t/green-energy-ideas-so-crazy-they-just-might-work/)Chances are that CO2-emitting forms of energy generation are not going to completely go away any time soon, and even if they do, the atmosphere would retain their legacy of greenhouse gases. That's where the structure shown in this drawing comes into play. Researchers are hoping it will behave like a tree and scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The so-called artificial tree is one of several ideas under development that use a proprietary absorbent material to trap carbon dioxide from the air. The gas is then stored, and the absorbent material is recycled to capture even more carbon dioxide.

16

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF ANSWERS

IT TAKES 100 YEARS TO FULLY DEVELOP ARTIFICIAL TREES TILL THEY START WORKING AND MAKING AN IMPACT

McDermott 9 (Mat, October 8, Mat edits the Business and Energy sections of TreeHugger, as well as writing about resource consumption, animal welfare issues, and the response of religious communities to our current environmental problems. , CO2 Scrubbing Artificial Trees Won't Save Us - Need

Massive Investment, Colossal Infrastructure, http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/co2-scrubbing-artificial-trees-wont-save-us-need-massive-investment-colossal-infrastructure.html)First of all, though the tech has been tested on a small scale, we're probably five years away from a small scale deployment and two decades from wide scale implementation. And then, if the high costs can be overcome (more on this further down...), according to oceanographer John Sheppard, who led the Royal Society's recent examination of different geoengineering schemes, you'll need "100 years of deployment before you start to see the effect your looking for." If there ever was a quote that places this into the Plan C category of emission reductions, I'm not sure what it would be. Not that it shouldn't be investigated, but don't hold out hope that this is an emergency response to emission reductions -- more like a long term strategic response to supplement other reduction strategies.

IT COSTS TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT A STRATEGY OF ARTIFICIAL TREES

McDermott 9 (Mat, October 8, Mat edits the Business and Energy sections of TreeHugger, as well as writing about resource consumption, animal welfare issues, and the response of religious communities to our current environmental problems. , CO2 Scrubbing Artificial Trees Won't Save Us - Need

Massive Investment, Colossal Infrastructure, http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/co2-scrubbing-artificial-trees-wont-save-us-need-massive-investment-colossal-infrastructure.html)Which brings us to cost: Author David Biello reminds us that the Royal Society estimates that the infrastructure required to deploy the millions of the these CO2 scrubbers required to 650 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere by 2100 to keep CO2 to 450 ppm (not the increasingly recommended 350 ppm) will be "as large, or larger than, that of the current fossil fuel extraction." James Hansen estimates that to cost be 50 ppm of CO2 removal to be in the range of $20 trillion. Yes, trillion.

ARTIFICIAL TREES CAUSE MORE CO2 AND COST AN INSANE AMOUNT OF MONEY

Biello 9 (David, October 8, an associate editor at Scientific American., Pulling CO2 from the Air: Promising Idea, Big Price Tag,

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/pulling_co2_from_the_air_promising_idea_big_price_tag/2197/)“The cost estimates for capturing CO2 from ambient air are gross underestimates,” says principal research engineer Howard Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s actually still a question whether it will take more energy to capture CO2 than the CO2 associated with [fossil fuel] energy in the first place.” Even if artificial trees do prove capable of pulling large amounts of CO2 from the air, scientists then face the problem of what to do with that carbon dioxide. Underground sequestration — one possible solution — is still in the experimental stages. And deploying such artificial trees on a mass scale will have significant environmental costs, including producing the electricity needed to run them, the large land area the air capture devices would occupy, and the manufacture and installation of devices using resins, plastics, and other substances that could release air pollutants. As the Royal Society report notes, air capture could “require the creation of an industry that moves material on a scale as large as (if not larger than) that of current fossil fuel extraction, with the risk of substantial local environmental degradation and significant energy requirements.” In short, to extract enough CO2 from the atmosphere to begin to lower temperatures would require decades of building millions of air-capture devices that have been refined to minimize their environmental impact. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado-Boulder estimates that 650 billion tons of carbon will need to be disposed of by 2100 to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 around 450 parts per million, a level that could easily lead to temperature rises of 2 degrees C (3.6 F) or higher. “You need 30 years of development time and 100 years of deployment before you start to see the effect you’re looking for,” says oceanographer John Shepherd, who led the Royal Society study of air capture and other geoengineering technologies.

17

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

AEROSOLS CP1NC

Text: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should adopt a policy that dismisses sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to enhance the quasi-cooling mechanism as per the climate model CM2.1CP SOLVES WARMING-VOLCANOES PROVE Stenchikov et al ‘8 ]L.; Ramaswamy, V.; Delworth, T. L.; Stouffer, R. J. Use of Volcanic Eruptions as a Natural Analog for Evaluating Effectsof Stratospheric Geoengineering on the Hydrological Cycle, OceanHeat Content, and Sea Level American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #U41E-06]Large-scale human intervention into natural systems, geoengineering, is considered as a means to counterforce global warming. Among the discussed geoengineering schemes one of the most feasible (because of its relatively low cost and existing natural analog) is based on injection of sulfur aerosols or their precursors into the stratosphere (therefore here we call it "stratospheric geoengineering") to increase the Earth's planetary albedo and cool the Earth. Recent model studies, however, indicated reduction of precipitation as a side effect of injection of scattering aerosols in the lower stratosphere, and did not assess the forced long-term effect on ocean circulation and thermal structure. In this study we take advantage of the analogy between stratospheric geoengineering and volcanic impacts to better quantify the effects of geoengineering on hydrological cycle and the ocean that are crucial for assessing biospheric and economic consequences of geoengineering. We employ the coupled climate model CM2.1, developed at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and simulate responses to quasi-permanent geoengineering forcing, as well as transient impacts of the 1991 Pinatubo and 1815 Tambora eruptions. Testing volcanic model simulations against observations allows us to more reliably estimate the range of climate system responses to stratospheric aerosols, their dependence on the magnitude of forcing, and associated characteristic times. We found that stratospheric aerosol cooling intensifies ocean vertical mixing and tends to strengthen the meridional overturning circulation. Sea ice appears to be sensitive to volcanic forcing, especially during the warm season. Volcanic ocean temperature signals scale roughly linearly with respect to radiative forcing, but ocean overturning circulation response is less than linear. In two-three years after injection of aerosols, while ocean temperatures decrease and the global hydrological cycle remains suppressed, precipitation over land tends to recover. The quasi-permanent cooling from geoengineering aerosols penetrate into the deep ocean.

GEOENGINEERING IS THE ONLY REALISTIC APPROACH TO COMBAT ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS

Wigley ‘ 6 (T.M.L, National , A Mitigation/ Combined Mitigation Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization – Center for Atmospheric

Research, http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/fall2006/WigleySci06.pdf) In the absence of policies to reduce the magnitude of future climate change, the globe is expected to warm by approximately 1–6°C over the 21st century. Estimated CO2 concentrations in 2100 lie in the range from 540 ppm to 970 ppm, sufficient to cause substantial increases in ocean acidity. Mitigation directed towards stabilizing CO2 concentrations addresses both problems; but presents considerable economic and technological challenges. Geoengineering could help reduce future climate change, but does not address the ocean acidity problem. Mitigation is therefore necessary, but geoengineering could provide additional time to address the economic and technological challenges faced by a mitigation-only approach. The geoengineering strategy examined here is the injection of aerosol or aerosol precursors (such as sulfur dioxide, SO2) into the stratosphere to provide a negative forcing of the climate system and so offset part of the positive forcing due to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations. Volcanic eruptions provide ideal experiments that can be used to assess the effects of large anthropogenic emissions of SO2 on stratospheric aerosols and climate. We know, for example, that an eruption like that of Mt. Pinatubo caused detectible short-term cooling, but did not seriously disrupt the climate system. Deliberately adding aerosols or aerosol precursors to the stratosphere so that the loading is similar to the maximum loading from Pinatubo should therefore present minimal climate risks.

18

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SOLVENCY-EXTENSIONS

GEOENGINEERING SOLVES WARMING IN A QUICK TIMEFRAME

Cascio 6 – It's Time to Cool the Planet (Jamais, 15 09, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html) Temperature-management proposals boil down to increasing how much sunlight the Earth reflects, rather than absorbs. (Increasing the planet's reflectivity by 2% could counter the warming effects of a doubling of CO2 emissions.) While a variety of techniques have been suggested, some don't pass the plausibility test, either due to cost, clear drawbacks, or both. For instance, one proposal would place thousands of square miles of reflective sheets in the desert to reflect sunlight an interesting plan, until you realize that this would effectively destroy desert ecosystems. Another proposal calls for launching millions of tiny mirrors into orbit, where they would block some sunlight from reaching the atmosphere. But one study of the orbiting-mirror plan concluded that, to keep pace with the continual warming, we'd need to launch one square mile of sunshade into orbit every hour. Join the Discussion Jamais Cascio says that cutting greenhouse-gas emissions is no longer enough to deal with global warming. He advocates a form of geoengineering called temperature management, which moderates heat by blocking or

reflecting a small part of the sunlight hitting the Earth. What do you think of these proposals? Two approaches hold the most promise: injecting tons of sulfates essentially solid particles of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and pumping seawater into the lower atmosphere to create clouds. A recent report in the journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Discussions identified these two approaches as having a high likelihood of being able to counter global temperature increases, and to do so in a reasonably short amount of time. The sulfate-injection plan, which has received the most study, is explicitly modeled on the effects of massive volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines; in the months after the 1991 eruption, global temperatures dropped by half a degree Celsius. To trigger a drop in global temperatures, we'd need to loft between two million and 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide (which combines with oxygen to form sulfate particles) into the lower stratosphere, or at about 33,000 feet. The tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere

act like a haze, reflecting a significant amount of sunlight though not enough to notice at ground level (except for some superb sunsets). While this seems like a large amount, several studies have shown it could be done using some combination of high-altitude balloons, dispersal in jet-aircraft exhaust, and even more exotic platforms such as artillery shells. As with volcanic sulfates, the particles would eventually cycle

out of the atmosphere, so we'd have to refresh that two to 10 megatons of sulfur dioxide roughly every year. Stratospheric sulfate injection appeals to many geoengineering proponents for a few reasons. It doesn't require a massive leap in technology to carry out successfully; arguably, we could start doing it this year, if we needed to. It's relatively cheap, probably costing just a few billion dollars a year. And because stratospheric sulfate injection emulates an effect of volcanic eruptions, we already have some idea of what to expect from it for better and worse. We know, for example, that the cooling effect could start within weeks of the injection process.

GEOENGINEERING IS THE BEST SHOT TO COMBAT WARMING

Bertaux ‘10 (Jean-Loup, Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere of Venus : a key to fighting global warming on Earth ? An international team effort)

Venus is entirely covered by a thick layer of clouds, between 50 and 70 km altitude, above which a thinner mist extend s to around 100 km altitude. The clouds and mist consist of droplets of concentrated sulphuric acid. Using ESA's Venus Express spacecraft, in orbit a round Venus since 2006, and its on-board

SPICAV instrument, the researchers discovered the presence of gaseous sulfur dioxide high up in the atmosphere, at an altitude of 90- 110 kilometers (4). This discovery was

confirmed by US researchers , who detected sulfur dioxide in Venus's atmosphere using a different method (i.e. by observing micro-wave radiation from an Earth-based observatory), but were not able to specify its altitude. The researchers believe that the sulfur dioxide derives from the sulphuric acid mist in the upper atmosphere of Venus. On the day side of Venus, the temperature increases with altitude above 90 kilometers , which causes the sulphuric acid to evaporate. It then decomposes under the effect of solar

radiation, producing sulfur dioxide (see diagram below). Sulfur dioxide is also found on Earth, released mainly by volcanic eruptions. Sometimes reaching altitudes as high as 20 kilometers , it turns into sulphuric acid , causing the formation of small droplets. The droplets reflect part of the solar radiation back out to space, leading to a fall in surface temperatures. Drawing inspiration from this process, chemist and meteorologist Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, suggested several years ago that it would be possible to artificially release massive quantities of sulfur dioxide at an altitude of 20 kilometers in order to cool down surface temperatures and offset the growing greenhouse effect. Although we are not technically or ethically prepared to undertake this type of operation, known as geo-engineering, we might be forced to do so in 20 or 30 years' time if global warming becomes unbearable. From this viewpoint, it is necessary to study the effects that releasing the SO2 would have, and consider all potential reaction chains. Understanding the reactions that take place in Venus's atmosphere will help us to do so.

19

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: LINKS TO POLITICS

GEOENGINEERING DOESN’T CAUSE BACKLASH-IT’S POLITICALLY POPULAR

Wiener, 10 [Aaron, Radical Climate solution Goes Mainstream, http://washingtonindependent.com/tag/geoengineering ]Many hope that geoengineering theories remain just theories: There are far too many unknowns, and after all it was our manipulation of the planet that led to global warming in the first place. But with temperatures continuing to rise and the prospects for cutting carbon emissions uncertain — particularly after the failure of last December’s international climate conference in Copenhagen — some argue that it would be foolish not to explore our options. “One of the greatest misapprehensions about the climate crisis is the notion that we can fix all this simply by cutting emissions quickly,” writes Goodell. “We can’t. Even if we cut CO2 pollution to zero tomorrow, the amount of CO2 we have already pumped into the atmosphere will ensure that the climate will remain warm for centuries.” “To be responsible, you really have to plan for the worst,” said Eli Kintisch, whose own book on geoengineering, “Hack the Planet,” is scheduled for publication on April 19. Heading the push to explore geoengineering is what Kintisch calls the “Geoclique,” led by climate scientists Ken Caldeira of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution for Science and David Keith of the University of Calgary. Partly thanks to their efforts, geoengineering has rapidly moved into the scientific mainstream. “The change is stunning,” said Keith in an interview. “I keep walking into meetings where I expect everyone to be opposed, and they’re not.” But a scientific consensus has yet to translate into a political one. As many liberal environmentalists have sought to avoid debate on the issue — “for fear that talking about it would reduce the pressure for cutting emissions,” according to Keith — some Republicans have signed onto the notion of geoengineering, creating an unlikely union between climate scientists and conservatives who often put little stock in what climate scientists have to say. “It’s definitely an alliance of strange bedfellows,” Caldeira told TWI. For conservatives who oppose efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, geoengineering provides an opportunity to shift the debate over global warming from its causes to its effects — from carbon levels to rising temperatures. This serves multiple purposes: It allows some of them to maintain their argument that global warming is caused by changing solar patterns rather than human activity, and it creates an opportunity to control climate change without placing limits on polluting industries. “Conservatives can use it to bolster arguments they’ve made all along,” said Kintisch, “but I don’t think in the end, we’re going to be able to study this if it’s a conservative or liberal issue. If that happens, it just won’t go anywhere.” Still, there are signs that the political mainstream is beginning to embrace the idea of “planethacking,” as Kintisch sometimes refers to it. Energy Secretary Chu, who as a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a member of President Obama’s cabinet has served as a link between the scientific and political communities, told Goodell that “geoengineering is certainly worth further research.” In November 2009, the House Committee on Science and Technology held the first-ever hearing on geoengineering, although committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) insisted, “My decision to hold this hearing should not in any way be misconstrued as an endorsement of any geoengineering activity.” And last month, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy created a task force that includes leading scientists like Keith and Caldeira to make recommendations on geoengineering to Congress and the administration this summer.

20

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: GEOENGINEERING DOESN’T SOLVE PERMANENTLY

GEOENGINEERING BUYS US TIME TO FIND MORE PERMANENT SOLUTIONS

Cascio 6 – It's Time to Cool the Planet (Jamais, 15 09, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html) To be clear, geoengineering won't solve global warming. It's not a "techno-fix." It would be enormously risky and almost certainly lead to troubling unforeseen consequences. And without a doubt, the deployment of geoengineering would lead to international tension. Who decides what the ideal temperature would be? Russia? India? The U.S.? Who's to blame if Country A's geoengineering efforts cause a drought in Country B? Also let's be clear about one other thing: We will still have to radically reduce carbon emissions, and do so quickly. We will still have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and adopt substantially more sustainable agricultural methods. We will still have to deal with the effects of Koen But what geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic "tipping point" events such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster. Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary "stay of execution." We will still have to work for a pardon.

21

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: DROUGHT TURN

TURN-GEOENGINEERING YIELDS MORE CROPS THAN THE STATUS QUO

Robock ‘8 (May 29, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/has-the-time-come-geoengineering, Alan, Geoengineering shouldn't distract from investing in emissions )After the Mount Pinatubo eruption, vegetation everywhere grew more vigorously, taking up more carbon from the atmosphere. This is because diffuse sunlight is able to reach down to enhance photosynthesis in the lower leaves of forest trees, which are normally shaded by the upper canopy in direct sunlight. In general, plant growth responds almost linearly to changes in the amount of sunlight--a 2-percent reduction in sunlight might be expected to produce 2 percent less photosynthesis. But people growing crops in greenhouses often elevate the carbon dioxide level to fertilize their plants, and this effect is typically larger than 2 percent. Therefore, it's possible that a high-carbon-dioxide world with slightly reduced but more scattered sunlight would have higher crop yields than today's world. In computer simulations, vegetation grew more vigorously in an engineered high-carbon-dioxide world than it did in the natural low-carbon-dioxide world.

SCARCITY OF WATER HELPS INCREASE CROP-WATER PRODUCTIVITY

Passioura ‘5 – (August 10, Increasing crop productivity when water scarce—from breeding to field management John) To increase crop yield per unit of scarce water requires both better cultivars and better agronomy . The challenge is to manage the crop or improve its genetic makeup to: capture more of the water supply for use in transpiration; exchange transpired water for CO2 more effectively in producing biomass; and convert more of the biomass into grain or other harvestable product. In the field, the upper limit of water productivity of well-managed disease-free water-limited cereal crops is typically 20 kg ha_1 mm_1 (grain yield per water used). If the productivity is markedly less than this, it is likely that major stresses other than water are at work, such as weeds, diseases, poor nutrition, or inhospitable soil. If so, the greatest advances will come from dealing with these first. When water is the predominant limitation, there is scope for improving overall water productivity by better matching the development of the crop to the pattern of water supply, thereby reducing evaporative and other losses and fostering a good balance of water-use before and after flowering, which is needed to give a large harvest index. There is also scope for developing genotypes that are able to maintain adequate floret fertility despite any transient severe water deficits during floral development. Marker assisted selection has helped in controlling some root diseases that limit water uptake, and in maintaining fertility in water-stressed maize. Apart from herbicide-resistance in crops, which helps reduce competition for water by weeds, there are no genetic transformations in the immediate offing that are likely to improve water productivity greatly.

22

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: OZONE DEPLETION TURN

Montreal protocol will solve harms of ozoneNOAA 02 (Twenty Questions, http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/assessment02/Q&As16.pdf.)Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the total abundance of ozone-depleting gases in the atmosphere has begun to decrease in recent years . If the nations of the world continue to follow the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the decrease will continue throughout the 21st Century. Some individual gases such as halons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are still increasing in the

atmosphere, but will begin to decrease in the next decades if compliance with the Protocol continues. By mid-century, the effective abundance of ozone-depleting gases should fall to values present before the Antarctic ozone hole began to form in the early 1980s.

LAUNDRY LIST OF ALT CAUSES

NOAA No Date [NOAA, “The Ozone Layer” info page, Accessed 7/19/2011; http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_ozonelayer.html]Ozone-Depleting Substances Certain industrial processes and consumer products result in the atmospheric emission of ozone-depleting gases. These gases contain chlorine and bromine atoms, which are known to be harmful to the ozone layer. Important examples are the CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), human-produced gases once used in almost all refrigeration and air conditioning systems. These gases eventually reach the stratosphere, where they are broken apart to release ozone-depleting chlorine atoms. Other examples are the halons,which are used in fire extinguishers and which contain ozone-depleting bromine atoms. Methyl bromide, is another important area of research for NOAA scientists. Primarily used as an agricultural fumigant, it is also a significant source of bromine to the atmosphere. Although some ozone-depleting gases also are emitted from natural sources, emissions from human activities exceed those from natural sources. NOAA researchers regularly measure ozone depleting gases in the lower and upper atmosphere and attempt to account for observed changes. As a result of international regulations, ozone-depleting gases are being replaced in human activities with "ozone-friendly" gases that have much reduced potential to deplete ozone. NOAA researchers are also measuring these "substitute" gases as they accumulate in the atmosphere. Observing changes in both old and new gases emitted into the atmosphere allows researchers to improve our understanding of the fate of these gases after release and thereby improve our ability to predict future ozone changes.

23

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF-OZONE TURN

RELEASING SUFUR PARTICLES IN THE ATMOSPHERE WOULD INCREASE OZONE DEPLETION

Dukenvironment ‘9 (“Assessing-the-pros-and-cons-of-geoengineering-to-fight-climate-change” Fall 2009 http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/dukenvironment/f09/assessing-the-pros-and-cons-of-geoengineering-to-fight-climate-change)“The bigger the scale of the approach, the riskier it is for the environment,” said session organizer Robert Jackson, director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change. Global alterations of Earth’s natural cycles have too many uncertainties to be viable with our current level of understanding, said Jackson, who is Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change at the Nicholas School. One global-scale geoengineering method, termed atmospheric seeding, would cool the climate by releasing light-colored sulfur particles or other aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays back into space. This approach mimics what happens naturally when volcanoes erupt; in 1991, for instance, an eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the Earth by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit. But Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research argued that despite its potential to create overall cooling, atmospheric seeding could cause significant changes in localized temperature and precipitation. Her simulations predict that sulfur seeding could destroy atmospheric ozone, leading to increased ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.

EXTINCTIONGreenpeace, 95 [“Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer, http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html]When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with

scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiationfrom the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

24

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF-SOLVENCY DEFICIT

ATTEMPTS AT CURBING GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH GEOENGINEERING FAIL – OCEANS PROVE LORINC, 2009 [John, “Study: Why Geoengineering Won’t Help Oceans”, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/study-geoengineering-wont-help-oceans/]A new study has concluded that geoengineering measures designed to reduce global warming will do little to reduce CO2 levels and, subsequently, ocean acidification. CO2 that dissolves in salt water produces carbonic acid that undermines shell formation in crustations and coral. The world’s oceans absorb a quarter of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to an international oceanography research network. “This century will see the end of coral reefs for the next tens of thousands of years,” said Ken Caldeira, a professor of environmental science in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a co-author of the paper. Earlier this week in Britain, the filmmaker David Attenborough joined marine biologists in calling attention to the situation. In fact, coral depletion has the potential to be a major economic disaster as well as an ecological catastrophe. An essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs noted that approximately 100 million people living in coastal areas worldwide depend on coral reef ecosystems for their livelihoods. The problem is that attempts to artificially cool the atmosphere, though necessary to avert more polar melting and the release of methane trapped in sub-arctic tundra, won’t slow the build-up of greenhouse gases.

NO SOLVENCY-NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION

Victor et al. 2009(David G., M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke Professor at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,” The Geoengineering Option A Last Resort Against Global Warming?”, http://iis- db.stanford.edu/pubs/22456/The_Geoengineering_Option.pdf )Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer- reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scarce. Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight. Geoengineering continues to be considered a fringe topic. Many scientists have been reluctant to raise the issue for fear that it might create a moral hazard: encouraging governments to deploy geoengineering rather than invest in cutting emissions. Indeed, geo-engineering ventures will be viewed with particular suspicion if the nations funding geoengineering research are not also investing in dramatically reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Many scientists also rightly fear that grants for geoengineering research would be subtracted from the existing funds for urgently needed climate-science research and carbon-abatement technologies. But there is a pressing need for a better understanding of geoengineering, rooted in theoretical studies and empirical field measurements. The subject also requires the talents of engineers, few of whom have joined the small group of scientists studying these techniques.

25

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF-SOLVENCY DEFICIT

NO SOLVENCY-TOO MANY UNKNOWNS IN THE PROCESSLattanzio et. Al. 10(Richard K., Analyst in Environmental Policy Kelsi Bracmort, Emily C. Barbour, Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy, Congressional Research Service, http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/10Sep/R41371.pdf )As a new and emerging set of technologies potentially able to address climate change,geoengineering possesses both risk and uncertainty. From a research perspective, risk most often rests in the uncertainties of the technology (i.e., the risk of failure, accident, or unintended consequences). However, many observers believe that the greater risk in geoengineering activities may lie in the social, ethical, legal, and political uncertainties associated with deployment. Moreover, given these risks, there is an argument that appropriate mechanisms for government oversight should be established before the federal

government and its agencies take steps to promote geoengineering technologies and before new geoengineering projects are commenced. Yet, the uncertainty behind the technologies makes it unclear which methods, if any, may ever mature to the point of being deemed sufficiently effective, affordable, safe, and timely as to warrant potential deployment.

26

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF-SOLVENCY TURN

GEOENGINEERING CAUSES OTHER COUNTRIES TO NOT REDUCE EMISSIONS AND INCREASES CONFLICT OVER WARMING SOLUTIONS

Victor et al. 2009(David G., M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke Professor at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,” The Geoengineering Option A Last Resort Against Global Warming?”, http://iis- db.stanford.edu/pubs/22456/The_Geoengineering_Option.pdf )By contrast, geoengineering is an option at the disposal of any reasonably advanced nation. A single country could deploy geoengineering system s from its own territory without consulting the rest of the planet. Geoengineers keen to alter their own country's climate might not assess or even care about

the dangers their actions could create for climates, ecosystems, and economies elsewhere. A unilateral geoengineering project could impose costs on other countries, such as changes in precipitation patterns and river flows or adverse impacts on agriculture, marine fishing, and tourism. And merely-knowing that geoengineering exists as an option may take the pressure off governments to implement the policies needed to cut emissions. At some point in the near future, it is conceivable that a nation that has not done enough to confront climate change will conclude that global warming has become so harmful to its interests that it should unilaterally engage in geoengineering. Although it is hardly wise to mess with a poorly understood global climate system using instruments whose effects are also unknown, politicians must take geoengineering seriously because it is cheap, easy, and takes only one government with sufficient hubris or desperation to set it in motion. Except in the most dire climatic emergency, universal agreement on the best approaches highly unlikely. Unilateral action would create a crisis of legitimacy that could make it especially difficult to manage geoengineering schemes once they are under way.

27

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF – SOLVENCY DEFICIT – COST

COUNTERPLAN WOULD COST TOO MUCHA. EMPIRICALLY, MARS MISSIONS COST A LOT-THEY GO WAY OVER BUDGET

Red Orbit, 11 [“Mars Rover Mission Just Got More Expensive”, http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1989375/mars_rover_mission_just_got_more_expensive/, AVLB]ASA’s next-generation Mars rover is now expected to command a price tag of $2.5 billion. NASA, which has delayed the launch of its next-generation Mars rover by more than two years, said it has burned through its reserves for the project and needs an extra $82 million to complete testing before launch. It’s the latest cost setback to plague the Mars Science Laboratory -- a nuclear-powered rover the size of a small SUV which will be used to study whether the planet had or still does have life -- which has had several snags during development. The rover, known as Curiosity, now has a tentative launch date for some time in November at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The 2.5 billion dollar price tag makes this the most expensive mission to Mars to date. NASA announced the setback last week to members of the planetary science subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council, which provides input to the space agency. The latest budget crisis stemmed from issues that arose during testing of the rover’s avionics system, landing radar and drill that took much more time and money to fix than original predicted. Arizona State University planetary scientist, Ronald Greeley, who is chairman of the Advisory Council, said he was disappointed about the latest cost increase, but still supports the program fully. “We want that mission to fly,” Greeley told The Associated Press (AP).

B. FAILURE TO CURB SPENDING EMPIRICALLY PREVENTS EFFECTIVE SPACE EXPLORATION IN OTHER WAYS

Moskowitz, 11 [Clara, “President Obama Freezes NASA’s Budget at 2010 Levels”, http://www.space.com/10845-nasa-2012-budget-announcement-obama.html, AVLB]The Obama administration has announced its 2012 budget request, which if approved would freeze spending for NASA and other federal agencies at 2010 levels for the next fiscal year. The 2012 budget request allocates $18.7 billion for NASA, the same amount the agency received in 2010. That's about $300 million less than NASA received in the president's 2011 budget request. "The times today are very difficult fiscally, and we're going to live within a budget," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said at a press conference today. "What we do has to be affordable, sustainable, and it has to make sense." The move is part of an overall five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending that the White House is proposing. "The fiscal realities we face require hard choices," President Barack Obama wrote in his statement on the new budget. "A decade of deficits, compounded by the effects of the recession and the steps we had to take to break it, as well as the chronic failure to confront difficult decisions, has put us on an unsustainable course. That's why my budget lays out a path for how we can pay down these debts and free the American economy from their burden." The new budget request applies to the 2012 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2011. This preliminary proposal, however, is likely to be modified by Congress.

28

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF – LINKS TO POLITICS

CP LINKS TO POLITICS MORE THAN THE AFF – THERE IS HEAVY OPPOSITION TO SPENDING MONEY ON MARS – PLAN’S COOPERATION AVOIDS COST BETTERSpace Politics ‘6 [http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/06/28/a-move-against-mars-mission-funding/]The full House is currently debating HR 5672, the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations bill, although they have not yet debated any of the NASA provisions of the bill. However, the AP reports this morning that some members will attempt as early as today to cut exploration program funding from NASA and distribute it elsewhere within—or outside—NASA: Democrats plan to try to cut spending for the moon-Mars initiative, which would return U.S. astronauts to the moon by 2020 and to Mars after that, and spend the money instead on other NASA programs or grants to local police at a time when violent crime rates are rising. Opponents of the Mars mission says it’s too expensive and that unmanned space travel produces better science per dollar spent. Others say there are more pressing needs here on Earth. “It’s a complete and total waste of money,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. “The manned shot to Mars is a pure boondoggle.”

29

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS CP1NC RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS CP

TEXT – THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD REQUIRING 20% OF A UTILITIES’ ELECTRICITY BE PRODUCED BY RENEWABLE SOURCES BY 2025, AND SHOULD ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS MARKET FOR UTILITIES.COUNTERPLAN WOULD SOLVE ALL OF THE CASE – IT BOOSTS RENEWABLES WHICH SOLVES DEPENDENCE, COMPETITIVENESS AND GREENHOUSE

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]VI. CONCLUSIONS Politicians and real estate moguls are fond of referring to things as “win-win” situations. The truth is that most important policy decisions involve winners and losers and benefits that accrue to one group often come at the expense of another. Every so often, constituencies align as if the stars and policymakers are faced with a true “win-win” situation. A properly designed national RPS is one of those rare choices. When compared to conflicting state-based RPS policies and their impact on energy markets and electricity pricing, a federal mandate could benefit ratepayers and regulated utilities in several unique ways that most policy advocates have not even considered. For example, a national RPS would decrease consumer electricity prices by: (1) depressing the cost of fossil fuels used to generate electricity; (2) lowering the cost of natural gas used to heat and power homes; (3) minimizing the cost of transmission congestion; (4) protecting against rate hikes to recover infrastructure investments and stranded costs; and (5) preventing predatory trade-offs that require some ratepayers to subsidize others. Yet a national RPS would also achieve further objectives, such as: (1) decreasing regulatory compliance costs by reducing the need for costly litigation to clarify vague and competing state regulations; (2) lowering the administrative costs associated with inconsistent state standards; (3) making regulations more predictable to ease planning of resource investments; (4) creating economies of scale that decrease the cost of renewable energy technologies; (5) giving utilities greater flexibility in meeting RPS mandates by expanding the market of eligible renewable resources; (6) decreasing the cost of RECs by creating a uniform national market; and (7) encouraging the tracking of GHG emissions reductions before the implementation of a national carbon cap-and-trade program. A national RPS would even benefit utility profits by: (1) maximizing the “hedge” benefits of renewable energy investments; (2) decreasing construction cost overruns and encouraging more modular generation; (3) displacing transportation costs associated with fossil fuel supply chains; (4) overcoming public opposition to new transmission infrastructure; (5) speeding cost recovery of transmission investments; (6) reducing the need for expensive reserve capacity; and (7) creating a level playing field that rewards strategic investment rather than location. By producing thousands of new manufacturing, installation and maintenance companies, and by encouraging thousands of existing companies to expand into the burgeoning renewable technology manufacturing sector, a national RPS would help American companies by creating more new jobs for American workers in the same states that have lost the most manufacturing jobs. Furthermore, a national RPS would also produce other benefits, such as: (1) decreasing the number of sick days workers take because of illnesses related to power plant air pollution and accidents related to the mining, transportation and processing of fossil fuels and uranium; (2) increasing total consumer income by up to $8.2 billion by 2020; and (3) enhancing U.S. Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) by up to $10.2 billion by 2020. Finally, as if the aforementioned benefits were not enough, a national RPS would provide secondary

environmental and social benefits in the following ways: (1) conserving substantial amounts of water in drought-prone areas; (2) decreasing the number of premature deaths and

illnesses related to power plant air pollution and transportation and storage accidents; (3) offsetting millions of tons of GHGs that contribute to global warming; and (4) reducing the amount of America’s wilderness that is consumed to generate electricity using fossil fuels and nuclear power. Given such obvious and overwhelming advantages, it is hard to believe that many utilities and policymakers diligently oppose a federal RPS mandate, repeating myths that have long since been debunked. Largely, the remaining objections to federal intervention constitute a diminishing series of canards that mischaracterize a national RPS policy as an unnecessary federal intervention in a relatively free market. A majority of states are well on their way to imposing their own clunky, overlapping, inconsistent, competing, and sometimes irrational mess of mandates. In contrast to the national distribution of fossil fuels, all states possess renewable resources that they can affordably develop. However, under the current system of state mandates, some RPS states are “losers” by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in non-RPS states. Other RPS states are victims of inconsistencies from state mandates that produce perverse predatory trade-offs and require them to export their cheap instate renewable electricity to other states in exchange for more expensive electricity or renewable energy credits. A national mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform rules and by allowing utilities to purchase RECs or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive. Experience from existing state RPS programs proves that mandates with broad eligibility actually have led to the development of many different renewable resources. Utilities have already demonstrated that they can meet state RPS requirements by deploying a diverse portfolio of renewable resources that best match their service areas. By expanding—geographically and monetarily—

the market for renewable resources, a national RPS is likely to diversify the deployment of renewable energy technologies even further. In Nevada, geothermal energy may be cheaper to develop than wind. In the Pacific Northwest, incremental hydropower may be cheaper than solar power. In the Southeast, biomass may be the most affordable. A national RPS mandate with a fuel-based definition of eligible renewable resources ensures that free market principles—rather than regulatory set-asides or political patronage—determine which technologies will be most cost competitive in certain areas of the country. An added bonus is that a uniform national RPS decreases compliance costs for regulated utilities, because a technology-neutral mandate allows utilities to meet RPS obligations using the technology that is most cost competitive for the fuels available. It is time that federal policymakers engage in an informed, comprehensive and rational debate about the few remaining objections to a federal RPS mandate. America faces serious and mounting energy problems, including: (1) continued dependence on dwindling foreign sources of fossil fuels and uranium; (2) an undiversified electricity fuel mixture that leaves the nation vulnerable to serious national security threats; (3) reliance on an ancient and overwhelmed transmission grid that risks more common, pronounced, and expensive catastrophic system failures; (4) an impending climate crisis that will require massive and expensive emissions controls costing billions of dollars and substantially

reducing U.S. GDP; and (5) loss of American economic competitiveness as Europe and Japan become the major manufacturing center for new renewable energy technologies By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national RPS can create a more just and predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jumpstarting a robust national renewable energy technology sector. Through offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with conventional and nuclear power, a national RPS would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while protecting human health and the environment. There is a time for accepting the quirks and foibles of state experimentation in national energy policy, and there is a time to look to the states as laboratories for policy innovation. Now is the time to model the best state RPS policies and craft a coherent national policy that protects the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers.

30

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVES RENEWABLE ENERGY

COUNTERPLAN SOLVES THE CASE – A NATIONAL RPS WOULD JUMPSTART THE RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMY – INVESTMENT AND ENERGY PRICES

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]While the value of renewable portfolio standards (“RPS”) may not be as uniformly recognized as daylight savings time is today, it should be. Currently, there exists widespread consensus on the financial, environmental, and security benefits enjoyed by diversifying our nation’s electricity fuels with clean, renewable resources. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have already passed laws requiring utilities to use more of these resources.9 Five more states—

Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Utah—are considering mandating some form of RPS.10 While most state efforts have been laudable, state RPS statutes have created a patchwork of inconsistent, often conflicting mandates that distort the market for renewable energy technologies and unintentionally inflate electricity prices. By subjecting an increasingly interstate electric utility market to confusing and sometimes contradictory state regulations, the circus of state-based RPS programs discourages long-term investments and, in some cases, encourages utilities to exploit the inconsistencies. Yet the vacuum of federal leadership on renewable portfolio standards is not without consequence. The instability inherent in a state-based approach to RPS is dramatically distorting private investments in renewable energy generation nationally and prohibiting the expansion of a robust renewable energy sector in the United States. A federal mandate is critical to correcting these market distortions and signaling a national commitment to renewable energy generation. A federal policy would promote a national renewable energy technology sector that contributes to the U.S. economy, weans the nation from foreign and polluting sources of energy, and decreases the real and social costs of electricity for American consumers.RPS WOULD BOOST THE RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET – IT INTERNALIZES COSTS AND LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]RPS mandates stimulate a market for renewable resources and spur additional research, development, and implementation of renewable energy technologies. Government intervention helps level the playing field by neutralizing a legacy of unequal subsidies. Mandating a certain percentage of renewable penetration also helps internalize some of the environmental costs associated with dirty energy sources and provides a mechanism for early developers of cleaner resources to recover more of the value of renewable energy technologies. RPS policies create an incentive for retail utilities to either build their own renewable facilities or buy RECs from other generators.21 As the demand for renewable energy grows, manufacturers gain experience that lowers the cost of clean electricity production for everyone.

RPS SOLVES FOR CO2 – MAKES RENEWABLE ENERGY TECH COST-EFFECTIVE

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]The interrelationship between rising capacity factors and installed capacity suggests that, by forcing a greater amount of installed renewable capacity, a national RPS will significantly improve the capacity factors of renewable energy technologies. Recent experience with wind energy seems to confirm this rule. For

example, in the 1980s and 1990s, wind turbines reported capacity factors in the low teens. By 2006, when installed wind energy had more than tripled in the United States, wind turbines registered capacity factors in the mid-thirties.41 In a 2006 analysis, the EIA observed that wind turbine capacity factors appeared to be improving over time and concluded that, “capacity factor grows as a function of capacity growth.”43 Solar energy appears to follow this same pattern. In the early 1980s, when just 10 MW of solar photovoltaics (“PV”) had been installed globally, the average capacity factor for solar panels was around 9%.44 By 1995, however, after more than 70 MW had been installed, the average capacity factor of panels jumped to almost 15%.45 In 2000, Researchers from the Institute for Energy Policy and Economics found that “over the last 10 years ‘learning by doing’ has led to a simplification of industrial manufacturing processes”; as a result, costs have fallen considerably and efficiency levels on the order of 18% for cells are expected in the near future at a competitive cost.46 Because the United States does not currently have a national RPS, it also lacks a relatively robust manufacturing base for most renewable energy technologies. Renewable energy developers in the United States largely rely on European or other overseas manufacturers for the requisite materials—and sometimes for expertise and labor, as well—to install renewable energy systems. This reliance on foreign

materials and labor increases construction lead-times as well as shipping costs. It also increases the likelihood of unexpected delays and shortages. The fragmented nature of state-based RPS policies actually compounds this problem by creating artificial bottlenecks in the distribution of materials necessary to deploy renewable energy systems. New state mandates can create unexpected surges in demand for renewable energy projects, driving up the price of components and labor. Roger Garratt of Puget Sound Energy (“PSE”) recently suggested that the quick and somewhat unanticipated passage of Washington’s initiative-driven RPS mandate created a seller’s market “by increasing competition for projects and a shortage of turbine supplies” among wind manufacturers.47 A national RPS would instigate market-based solutions to unexpected material bottlenecks in at least three ways. First, by providing a stable investment stream and a predictable regulatory environment, investors would have a greater incentive to establish domestic manufacturing facilities and to rely on local materials and labor. Second, under a national RPS, American developers would no longer suffer unfavorable exchange rates, given the recent weakening of the dollar, when purchasing materials. One wind company, Nordex, even

31

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSestimated that changes in the exchange rate between Euros and dollars alone cost some American developers as much as $152,000 per project.48 Third, given the certainty of a national market for renewable energy, investors would likely develop better economies of scale in manufacturing in order to ensure that a sufficient number of materials would exist to satisfy the resulting demand for renewable energy projects. Some of these benefits have already been proven by statebased RPS programs. In those states that have already adopted more aggressive RPS statutes, the renewable energy industry has responded by streamlining manufacturing processes and lowering the cost of technology production. The California Energy Commission (“CEC”) estimated that the average levelized cost of wind energy—the total cost over the life of a generator divided by the numbers of kilowatt hours (“kWh”) produced—in California was 3.5 cents per kWh, less than one-eighth the price of producing wind energy just twenty-five years earlier.49 In a similar study, the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (“VCCER”) found that renewable generators fueled by landfill gases and wind offered one of the cheapest forms of electricity—3.0 and 4.0 cents per kWh, respectively—compared to all other generators including advanced coal, natural gas, and nuclear reactors.50

RPS SOLVES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT – IT PROMOTES RENEWABLES WHICH REDUCE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF CO2Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]In addition to avoiding free riders, minimizing gaming between states, and mitigating the risk of litigation, a national RPS would diversify the country’s electricity portfolio with cleaner, less polluting technologies. Indeed, examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm that RPS policies displace more polluting

generators, such as those powered by oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium. The New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) looked at load profiles for 2001 and concluded that 65% of the energy displaced by wind turbines in New York would have otherwise come from natural gas facilities; 15% from coal-fired plants; 10% from oil-based generation; and 10% from out of state imports of electricity.209 A more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would otherwise be generated with a mix of 87% coal; 9% natural gas; and 4% oil.210 A 20% RPS by 2020 in Michigan would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.211 Utilities in Ontario, Canada are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to entirely displace coalfired electricity generation in the region.212 By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, a national RPS avoids many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. Perhaps the most important and least discussed advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace water-intensive electricity generation. The nation’s oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day213 and accounted for almost 40% of all freshwater withdrawals.214 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50% in the next 25 years, continued reliance upon fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis.215 In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling systems, consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030 to 7.3 billion gallons per day.216 This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995.217 By promoting wind, solar, and other renewable resources that do not consume or withdraw water, a national RPS can help conserve this essential yet dwindling resource. In one of the most comprehensive assessments of renewable energy and water consumption, the American Wind Energy Association estimated that wind power uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear; 1/500 as much as coal; and 1/250 as much as natural gas.218 Conventional electricity generation is by far the largest source of air pollutants that harm human health and contribute to global warming. In 2003, for example, fossil fuel use—for all energy sectors, not just electricity—was responsible for 99% of the country’s carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions, 93% of its SOx emissions, and 96% of its NOx emissions.219 Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that the air pollution from conventional energy sources kills between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans every year.220 These researchers found that the emissions from just nine power plants in Illinois directly contributed to an annual risk of 300 premature deaths, 14,000 asthma attacks, and more than 400,000 daily incidents of upper respiratory symptoms among the 33 million people living within 250 miles of the plants.221 The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon emissions are included, coal plants are about five times more carbon intensive than solar and more than 140 times more carbon intensive than wind technologies.223 Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intensive as solar and twenty times as carbon intensive as wind.224 The Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable energy technologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of CO2 emissions per every MWh of generation.225 According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 20% RPS would reduce CO2 emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020— a reduction of 15% below “business as usual” levels, or the equivalent to taking nearly 71 million automobiles off the road.226 In addition to the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel combustion, the production of fossil fuels and uranium— including drilling, mining, processing and transportation— produce a substantial amount of pollution and toxic waste.227 In the United States, there are more than 150 refineries; 4,000 offshore platforms; 410 underground gas storage fields; 160,000 miles of oil pipelines; and 1.4 million miles of natural gas pipelines.228 Additionally, nuclear waste is spread across 121 storage

facilities in 39 states.229 Each can degrade their surrounding environment and negatively affect the health and safety of Americans.230 In contrast, recent advances in renewable energy technologies have made these technologies much less land intensive. The Worldwatch Institute recently estimated that harnessing renewable energy for electricity production requires less land than conventional systems.231 The study noted that solar power plants that concentrate sunlight in desert areas, for instance, require 2,540 acres per billion kWh.232 Moreover, the institute indicated that “[o]n a lifecycle basis, this is less land than a comparable coal or hydropower plant generating the same amount of electricity.”233 Similar projections from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (“NREL”) demonstrate that solar and wind technologies use extensively less land than conventional systems when their complete fuel cycles are considered.234 The American Wind Energy Association (“AWEA”) estimates that in open and flat terrain a large-scale wind plant will require about sixty acres per MW of installed capacity.238 However, AWEA emphasizes that only 5%—three acres—or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment.239 95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching.240 For example, at the High Winds Project in Solano, California, 6,000 acres of leased land host ninety separate 1.8 MW wind turbines that total 162 MW of electricity capacity.241 However, the “[t]urbines do not take up much land, and generally do not interfere with daily operations. Crops can be grown and livestock grazed right up to the base of the machine.”242

32

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE

RPS SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE BY ENCOURAGING ALTERNATIVES

Cabral 7- partner with McGuireWoods LLP in Washington D.C, and a member of the firm’s Climate Change Practice Group [Neal J. is a and its Environmental Solutions Practice Group. “The Role of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the Context of a National Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program.” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall 2007. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/48258.pdf //NG]Instead, proponents often tout renewables as a sound policy measure because, in addition to being green from a general emissions perspective, they also provide other ancillary benefits. For example, renewables are said broadly to promote energy security. While renewables do promote certain aspects of energy security through supply diversity, they do not tend to reduce fuel imports since the power sector generally imports only a very small amount of fuel from outside North America. Studies on whether renewables contribute importantly to energy price stability also conflict. 5 In general, the International Energy Agency has concluded that while “environmental objectives will be uppermost,” RPS can provide some energy security enhancements.RPS SOLVES THE CASE – IT REDUCES DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] From a national security perspective, the primary benefit would come from a reduced dependence on foreign energy supplies, because renewable resources such as wind, sun, and biomass, tend to come from domestic sources.54 In the electricity sector, the most significant source would be reduced need for natural gas, which is increasingly coming (in liquefied form)55 from overseas.56 Enormous amounts of natural gas are used for electric generation, including as much as 90% or more of new electric generation.57

SOLVES COMPETITIVENESS

RPS SOLVES THE CASE – IT INCREASES COMPETITIVENESS BY ENCOURAGING RENEWABLE ENERGY

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] Congressional proponents of the Proposed RPS (and most versions of an RPS) cite several goals, including: reduced pollution, improved national security, job creation, and lower consumer prices.44 Additionally, a national program, rather than a state-by-state program, is more likely to provide a strong national market, thus leading to more renewable energy projects. 45 In May 2007, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to more than forty “interested parties” from varying constituent groups inviting responses to several questions regarding a possible renewable energy portfolio standard.46 Not surprisingly, the constituent groups supporting an RPS emphasized these key areas in their responses.47 One of the broader descriptions of the potential benefits of a national RPS can be found in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ response, which stated that a national RPS “standard can provide many benefits for the nation, including increasing energy security, fuel diversity, price stability, jobs, farm and ranch income, tax revenues, technology development, customer choices, and reduced environmental impacts, water consumption, and resource depletion, as well as reduced compliance costs with current and future environmental regulations.”48 If the claimed benefits are accurate (and, as noted below, there are many who believe they are not), there are several ways in which these benefits would be achieved. Probably the most obvious would be the potential environmental benefits.49 Although electricity accounts for less than 3% of U.S. economic activity, “the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power currently accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO2 missions.”50 One expert has asserted that if “20 percent of our electricity in 2020 were to be provided by renewables, then we would be displacing the equivalent of 71 million cars from the nation’s highway.”51 Others have noted that the increased use of renewable energy would reduce harmful emissions or reduce the cost of compliance with requirements to reduce pollution.52 “And by reducing the need to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels, a national RPS would limit the damage done to our water and land and conserve natural resources for future generations.”53\

33

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVES ECONOMY

RPS SOLVES ECONOMIC DECLINE – IT REDUCES ENERGY PRICES – OVERBUILDING AND NATURAL GAS PRICE SPIKES

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]Because fossil fuels inherently involve competition over a limited commodity, supply and demand impacts create a vicious cycle that increases the value of the fuel and adds additional costs that must be absorbed by ratepayers. Because renewable energy technologies utilize domestic and widely available fuels to produce electricity, they also decrease demand on fossil fuels, thereby lowering prices as well. For example, from 2002 to 2005, operation and maintenance expenses for utilities rose by nearly $26 billion.58 Rising fuel prices drove 96% of this increase.59 Aggregate fossil fuel costs nearly doubled between 2000 and 2004 from $0.023 per kWh to

$0.0437 per kWh.60 The overbuilding of gas-fired peaking plants in the 1990s resulted in skyrocketing demand for natural gas, which in turn caused prices to surge. Between 1995 and 2005, natural gas prices rose by an average of 15% per year, and the electricity sector’s demand for natural gas increased from 24% of total natural gas consumption in 2000 to 29% in 2005.61 Consumption of natural gas is likely to increase even further for three reasons. First, increased electricity demand in many areas has shrunk reserve margins to historically low levels.62 By 2005, reserve margins across the contiguous United States dropped to 15% and as low as 9% in some large states like Texas and Florida.63 Shrinking reserve margins coupled with increased electricity demands have forced many utilities to restart “mothballed” natural gas fired generating units. Plans for new peaking units in large consumer states like Texas and Florida rely overwhelmingly on natural gas.64 Second, because U.S. utilities have over-invested in gas-fired generating units, they hunger for new supplies of natural gas. Congress responded recently by authorizing greater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and also hinted at granting greater access to federal lands where natural gas drilling is currently offlimits. 65 Whether new drilling rights

are granted or not, the tantalizing prospect of vast new sources of natural gas may lead utilities to believe that gas-fired units are safer investments than they really are. Third, as pressure builds for the United States to adopt some form of binding GHG reduction target, more generators will turn to natural gas because its carbon intensity is about half that of coal.66 For example, PSE’s Roger Garratt recently told industry executives that PSE had plans to invest in a significant number of new natural-gas fired combined cycle facilities partly because the company anticipates future binding carbon constraints.67 The situation with natural gas prices became so severe that in the fall of 2006 ratepayers in Illinois waged a modern-day version of the Boston Tea Party, sending teabags to the state’s utilities in protest of projected rate increases of 22% to 55% in 2007.68 In Boston, homeowners and small businesses have seen electricity

prices rise by 78% since 2002, from 6.4 cents a kWh to 11.4 cents a kWh.69 Across the United States, average retail electricity prices rose by 9.2% in 2006 alone, a trend likely to continue for the next several years.70 Natural-gas induced price spikes have been devastating to the U.S. economy. Because natural gas accounts for nearly 90% of the cost of fertilizer, escalating natural gas prices in 2005 created significant economic hardships for U.S. farmers.71 Additionally, some manufacturing and industrial consumers that relied heavily on natural gas moved their facilities overseas. For instance, the U.S. petrochemical industry relies on natural gas as a primary feedstock as well as for fuel. In 2004, the petrochemical sector lost approximately 78,000 jobs to foreign plants where natural gas was much cheaper.72 When the price of natural gas spiked in 2001, almost half of the country’s methanol capacity and one-third of its ammonia capacity were shut down, and the Dow Chemical Company moved 1.4 billion pounds of production from the United States to Germany because of higher energy costs.73 Even dairy producers in California temporarily suspended milk and cheese production until natural gas prices receded, and three of the state’s sugar refineries went bankrupt.74 The country’s higher natural gas prices have cost the economy $50 billion and more than 100,000 jobs in Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, and West Virginia.75 As a result, many electricity generators switched back to coal-fired peaking units.76 However, the switch only increased demand for coal, driving the price up. In 2003, for example, the cost of coal in Central Appalachia was $35 per ton.77 The price increased nearly 7% each year until, by 2006, a ton of coal in the region cost close to $60 a ton.78 In some areas of the United States, coal prices actually doubled between 2002 and 2004, due in part to high demand.79 In addition, because the most economical reserves were already, a majority of the remaining coal and natural gas reserves were “stranded.” While such stranded resources may be quite abundant, they are located primarily in areas geographically distant from major consuming areas and, thus, in areas from which it is more difficult to extract, process, and transport.80 A national RPS can save consumers money by reducing demand for both natural gas and coal. Several studies have documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by offsetting the combustion of fossil fuels.81 Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity during periods of peak demand, such resources can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking” or reserve generation units. For example, PVs have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads.82 Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an excellent correlation between available solar resources and periods of peak demand.83 Indeed, in California, an installed PV array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of natural gas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity.84 Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that, given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1% reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the price of natural gas by up to 2.5% in the long term.85 This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (“LBNL”)86 and the Union of Concerned Scientists (“UCS”), which found that a national RPS would save consumers more than $49 billion largely by depressing the price of natural gas used for electricity production and home heating.87 Some studies also document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. For instance, in Pennsylvania, where more than 90% of electricity comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by Black & Veatch concluded that an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel consumption, lowering the price of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers.88 The study noted that even a 1% reduction in fossil fuel prices would lead to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel expenditures for the state.89

34

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: PERM

The Permutation links to our net benefits – all of our case turns and transportation disads depend on transportation infrastructure. Counterplan avoids these. Politics only links to the Affirmative

CCS wouldn’t qualify for an RPS because it is not economically the first choice, nor will it be ready by 2025.

AT: RPS INCREASES ENERGY PRICES

TURN – RPS DECREASES ENERGY COSTS – CONSENSUS OF STUDIES

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]F. Consensus of Models Confirms Economic Benefits For many of these reasons, sophisticated studies conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (“UCS”), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), and the LBNL all confirm that a federal RPS would

either lower electricity costs for consumers or have a negligible impact on electricity prices. The most recent economic analysis by UCS in 2007 compared a range of potential economic impacts of a national RPS by examining four RPS scenarios matching proposals expected for consideration in the 110th Congress.163 Using more conservative estimates than those used by the Department of Energy to forecast the market potential

for wind, geothermal and biomass resources, UCS found that a federal RPS mandate would lower consumer energy bills in all four cases.164 UCS determined that a 20% federal RPS by the year 2020 would decrease consumer energy bills by an average of 1.5% per year and save consumers a total of $49.1 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills.165 According to UCS, a 20% RPS by 2020 would lead to substantial cost-savings for four reasons: (1) a national RPS would reduce competition for fossil fuels and lower future prices; (2) many renewable energy technologies are now less expensive than new fossil fuel plants that generate the same amount of energy; (3) a national RPS would reduce the cost of renewable energy by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations and maintenance; and (4) increased reliance on renewable energy would offset expensive natural gas-fired generation and “hedge” against volatile natural gas prices.166

RPS SOLVES HIGH ENERGY PRICES - DECREASES COST OVER-RUNS

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]A national RPS can help minimize construction cost overruns by deploying technologies that are smaller, modular, and less capital-intensive.127 Renewable energy technologies require lead times of two to five years, or less, compared with conventional coal and nuclear plants that can take five to fifteen years to plan, permit, and construct.128 Florida Power and Light (“FPL”) boasts that it can take a wind farm from groundbreaking to commercial operation in as little as three to six months.129 In 2005, PSE proved that FPL’s boast was achievable in practice

when it brought eighty-three 1.8 MW wind turbines at its Hopkins Ridge Wind Project from foundation pour to commercial operation in exactly six months and nine days.130 Solar installations may require even less construction time because the materials generally are pre-fabricated and modular. John Ravis, a project finance manager for TD BankNorth, recently told industry analysts that utility-level PV systems can come online in as little as two months, if the panels are available.131 Quicker lead times enable a more accurate response to load growth, and minimize the financial risk associated with borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to finance plants for ten or more years before they start producing a single kilowatt of electricity. Because renewable energy technologies can be produced at smaller scale, they can be located nearer to loads, enhancing their ability to match smaller increments of demand. PV panels—also known as solar panels—can be built in various sizes; organized in arrays ranging from watts to megawatts; and used in a wide variety of applications, including centralized plants, distributed sub-station plants, grid connected systems for home and business use, and off-grid systems for remote power use.132 PV systems have long been used to power remote data relaying stations critical to the operation of supervisory control and data acquisition systems used by electric and gas utilities and government agencies.133 Because renewable technologies are faster to build and easier to deploy, they also limit financial risk and capital exposure. Modular plants can be cancelled easier, such that stopping a project is not a complete financial loss. The portability of most renewable energy systems means utilities can still recover value should the systems need to be resold as commodities in a secondary market. Smaller units with shorter lead times also reduce the risk of purchasing a technology that becomes obsolete before it is installed.134 Quick installations can better exploit rapid learning, as many generations of a renewable energy technology can be developed in the same time it takes to build one giant conventional power plant.135

35

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: KILLS ELECTRIC UTILITIES

RPS WON’T KILL ELECTRIC UTILITIES – IT IMPROVES INVESTMENT PROTECTION, AND REGULATIONS WON’T BE TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] The most significant difficultly in making investment decisions regarding new generation, which exists without a national RPS, is calculating the expected return on that investment. Deregulation in electricity markets has, in some cases, increased competition, but has also “had the side effect of increasing risk in a highly capital-intensive industry.”102 Before deregulation, “utility debt was considered virtually risk-free since the rate of return was guaranteed by the public utility commission, and the costs of new construction could be passed on to ratepayers.”103 Now, in many places, return on new generation investment depends solely on the market. The Proposed RPS provides some rate protection for electric utilities that are subject to rate regulation at the state or federal level. The Proposed RPS provides that covered utilities “shall not be denied the opportunity to recover the full amount of the prudently incurred incremental cost of renewable energy and energy efficiency obtained to comply with the requirements [of the national RPS].”104 However, some risk would remain, because “[i]n most states, electric rate structures are based on sales volume, and utility companies lose money if sales decrease.”105 As such, a national RPS “could create financial risks for electric companies unless states change their regulatory structure.”106 The mere existence of a national RPS would provide some incentive for all utilities to invest in renewable generation because that investment would have two markets—the market for its electricity and the market for its RECs—instead of just the market for its electricity for a traditional generation facility.107 In addition, it is likely that power projects will require “more equity, less debt, and shorter debt repayment periods” than in the past.108 “Developers will probably attempt to sign bilateral contracts with large end users, marketers, aggregators, and utilities, but contract terms are likely to be shorter than in the past.”109 In fact, “[c]orporate balance-sheet financing may also become more common.”110 If a utility buys RECs and energy from another supplier, there is also a risk that purchase agreement would end up showing as a long-term debt on the utility’s balance sheet.111 Thus, how a national RPS would impact such capital-intensive investments is hard to predict. The implications of a national RPS may not be quite as burdensome as they initially appear, however, because, many states have RPS programs already, and, as explained below, even those operating in non-RPS states are often served by organizations, e.g., Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs),112 with the expertise necessary to facilitate compliance. Nonetheless, it is retail electricity suppliers that would bear the greatest burden of a nationally imposed RPS, because they would need to participate in facilitating compliance, as well as facilitating the renewable generation market.

AT: ONLY HELPS SOME REGIONS

ALL REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY BENEFIT FROM AN RPS – TRANSPORTATION COSTS

Sovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]By developing indigenous renewable resources, all regions also can enjoy substantial cost savings from decreased fossil fuel transportation costs. Up to 80% of the cost of coal for ratepayers in Illinois goes toward covering railway costs.90 Coal at the mouth of a mine in Wyoming, for example, costs about $5 per ton, but by the time it reaches a power plant outside of Chicago, that same coal costs about $30 a ton.91 The EIA estimated in 2003 that fuel costs accounted for an average of 76% of the operating expenses of coal-fired power plants nationwide.92 In 1999, coal accounted for 41% of all freight moved by U.S. rail carriers, frequently causing bottlenecks and contributing to both congestion and higher transportation costs.93 In the typical operation of transporting coal by rail, an individual freight car spends as much as 50% of its time in a switchyard and another 40% in customer yards and sidings.94 This means that an average ton of coal shipped by rail spends as little as 10% of its time actually moving towards its destination.95 The cumulative costs to transport natural gas may be even higher. Natural gas transportation

and distribution already account for 41% of the residential price of natural gas.96 Because the construction of natural gas pipelines can cost as much as $420,000 per mile,97 fully constructing the natural gas infrastructure recommended by the Bush Administration’s National Energy Plan—which calls for

over 301,000 miles of new natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines98—could cost ratepayers as much as $126.4 billion. Moreover, researchers for Western Resource Advocates assessed the ability of wind power to operate as a natural gas price hedge and found that wind energy showed a hedge value only when it was a substantial portion of a generation portfolio.99 Indeed, 1 MW wind project in a 5,000 MW generation portfolio had a negligible hedge value.100 However, larger wind projects demonstrated a higher probability of realizing potential hedge benefits, especially during periods of high natural gas prices.101 These results suggest that utilities could benefit more from an aggressive national RPS mandate that compels significant renewable energy investments than from direct incentives for projects that are small relative to a utility’s entire generation portfolio.

36

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: TRANSITION DIFFICULT

A GRADUAL PHASE IN ALLOWS UTILITIES TO ADAPT TO AN RPSSovacool 2008- Senior Research Fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices [Benjamin with Christopher Cooper is the Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Environment and Energy Law and Policy Journal “Congress Got it Wrong: The Case for a National Renewable Portfolio Standard and Implications for Policy” 7/25/08 //NG]Furthermore, by increasing the amount of renewable energy slowly over time, the standard ensures that the renewable energy market will result in competition, efficiency, and innovation that will, in turn, deliver renewable energy at the lowest possible cost.

A gradual phase-in provides time to set up standards for credit certification, monitoring, and compliance. It creates relative certainty and stability in the renewables market by enabling long-term contracts and financing for the renewable power industry, thereby lowering costs. Moreover, it gives utilities and generation companies incentive to drive down the cost of renewables in order to reduce their RPS compliance costs.250 California provides an excellent example of how a gradual phase-in makes a RPS more effective.

When California implemented their RPS in 2002, they required investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to meet 20% of their electricity load with renewable resources by 2017.251 To reach the target, the California RPS also obligated each utility to increase the percentage of its load with renewable energy by 1% each year.252

AT: IMPLEMENTATION FAILS

EVEN IF ALL THE DETAILS ARE NOT WORKED OUT, RPS SOLVES ON BALANCE – IT WILL MOTIVATE SOLUTIONS TO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] The country still needs to address, to name just a few: an aging and insufficient energy infrastructure,205 including a significant lack of transmission capacity;206 increasing gasoline costs;207 and climate-change issues.208 A national RPS would impact all of these issues, but all of these issues would impact the potential success of a national RPS. By most accounts, a national RPS is technologically achievable and, notwithstanding some potentially higher costs, economically feasible. That does not make it good policy, but it should move the debate forward. Although this Article has attempted to raise a number of questions that should be resolved, or at least considered, before imposing a national RPS, an element of uncertainty is bound to remain. There are those who believe that a national RPS is only a valid option once all scenarios are considered, and, in essence, all potential problems solved. This would, certainly, be ideal, but it is not feasible. Legislation designed to tackle difficult issues requires making, hopefully, educated decisions, but is inherently uncertain. In fact, the vast majority of current studies indicate that results from a national RPS would range between either: (1) a fundamental change in how electricity markets operate; or (2) a moderate price increase for consumers, with moderate changes to the current system. Any major policy decision imposes risks; but, despite the histrionics, a national RPS actually appears to present limited downside, along with significant upside. That is, a national RPS, along the lines of those recently proposed, that fails (or is moderately successful) would likely lead to minor increases in consumer rates. A major success could reduce natural gas consumption and lower rates by a significant margin. The reality is that, without major advances in technologies, a national RPS is likely only to have moderate success. However, the implementation of an RPS could be the catalyst needed to trigger major advances in technologies. No major policy change should be implemented without careful consideration. But, while more study and analysis will help the debate, the potential upside to a national RPS appears to outweigh the downside, at least from a nationwide perspective.

AT: DOESN’T SOLVE INFRASTRUCTURE

RPS WOULD SPUR IMPROVEMENTS IN ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSMISSION

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] Risk is a part of all major policy changes, and the downside in this situation is far lower than in many other cases. If nothing else, a national RPS would further highlight the lack of necessary transmission in the United States. It is likely that the local nature of renewable energy generation would provide an awareness of infrastructure issues at a more local level than exists today, and that could help address the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) problem that has long plagued transmission projects.209 Although it is unlikely anyone would welcome transmission lines in their backyard, local jobs created from both renewable generation and transmission projects may make siting more palatable than it has been in the recent past.

37

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: LINKS TO POLITICS

RPS BUILDS POLITICAL CREDIBILITY – STRONG LOBBIES SUPPORT IT.Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG]Across the country and around the world, renewable energy sources are creating interest and excitement as alternatives to traditional fuel sources for electricity generation. Proponents of mandating the use of renewable energy sources cite many potential benefits, including expanded economic development, improved national security, lower electricity prices, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Although the extent and net value of such benefits are subject to debate, as are the best methods to achieve the benefits,1 the broad range of potential benefits has created interest from a wide variety of constituencies, including business leaders, academics, environmental advocates, and even national security experts.2

RPS HAS STRONG POLITICAL AND PUBLIC SUPPORT – POLLS AND STATE LEGISLATION PROVES

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] Often lost in the debate about the value and appropriateness of a national RPS is that there is little dispute about the value and appropriateness of renewable energy itself. Awareness that energy issues intersect with other key issues like national security and climate change has never been higher. Support for renewable energy, at least as a concept, is overwhelming.198 A recent poll indicates that 85% of those polled believe that existing federal incentives for renewable energy technologies should be extended.199 Other polls have indicated support across the political spectrum for renewable energy200 and, more specifically, a renewable portfolio standard.201 In addition, more than thirty states have taken some kind of legislative action to promote renewable energy programs, and more programs are being proposed.202 Some states have even increased their commitment to energy from renewable resources. Colorado, for example, implemented a 10% RPS in 2004, against the wishes of the state’s utilities; in 2007, “with utility support, Colorado increased its RPS to 20% by 2020.”203

38

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF - SOLVENCY

RPS WON’T SOLVE WITHOUT COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY POLICY CHANGE

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] Renewable energy has great potential for expanded economic development, improved national security, lower electricity prices, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And, while a national RPS is one way to help realize this potential, it should also be clear that for a national RPS to lead to more than moderate change, a comprehensive national energy policy is necessary. That is not to say that all questions must be answered before moving forward. In fact, without a national RPS in place, it may be impossible to determine the potential of renewable energy because even a moderately increased market for renewable energy could lead to significant technological advancements. All the planning in the world will not necessarily translate into effectiveness in the marketplace. At some point, an idea must be tested to find out if it will actually work.

TURN- RPS MEANS MORE WARMING- INCREASED NATURAL GAS USAGE.Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] A long-term reduction in natural gas costs as a result of a mandatory national RPS could lead to increased consumer use of natural gas. In fact, even without a national RPS, future residential heating applications are expected to continue to drive residential demand for natural gas.196 “Between 1991 and 1999, 66 percent of new homes, and 57 percent of multifamily buildings constructed used natural gas heating. In 2003, 70 percent of new single family homes constructed used natural gas.”197 If natural gas prices do, in fact, continue to decline as a result of a national RPS, this trend can only be expected to continue.

MAJOR STUDIES LEAVE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT RPS SOLVENCY

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] D. The Great Unknown: Operational and Infrastructure Implications Considering the major operational impacts on electric utilities is exceedingly difficult. Many of the studies discussed in Part II provide significant caveats related to the assumptions used in developing the respective models. The outcomes of the currently available studies are so broad that the results seem to add little more than quantified speculations, at least in terms of making specific predictions about the implications of a national RPS. That is, the studies provide a lot of numbers to consider, but the results indicate that the impact of a national RPS could be revolutionary or exceedingly moderate. For instance, the study from Woods MacKenzie indicates that a national RPS would lead to such significant amounts of renewable energy that consumers could save as much as $100 billion on their electric bills.127 If this is to become a reality, it will mean a fundamental change in how utilities operate.

NO NEED FOR CP – MOST STATES ALREADY HAVE AN RPSFershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG] From a practical perspective, consumer impacts of a national RPS would be limited, although not insignificant. Important in considering the likely consumer impact of a national RPS is that many consumers (indeed, roughly half of the country) are already subject to some form of RPS. As such, the question is not a decision between a national RPS and no RPS; instead, the question is whether all consumers will be subject to an RPS or just some.189 For those consumers not currently buying electricity under an RPS, a state RPS may be pending.190 Further, as one study advocating a federal RPS stated, “Not only does reliance on state-based action make for an uncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in some states that are paying for ‘free riders’ in others.”191 The study explained that renewable energy generation has a free-rider problem because “everyone benefits from the environmental advantages of renewable energy.”192 As such, private companies might invest millions of dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies, yet be unable to recover the full profit of their investments.193 To the extent this is accurate, consumers not under an RPS, even those with less renewable generation resources in their state, would reap the benefits of technologies developed under state RPS programs, without paying their fair share.

39

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAFF - LINKS TO POLITICS

RPS POLITICALLY CONTROVERSIAL – EMPIRICALLY THE HOUSE HAS REJECTED IT

Fershee 2008 Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; [Joshua “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry” Jan 2008 http://works.bepress.com/joshua_fershee/2 accessed 7/27 //NG]The Senate has supported an RPS in the past, but there were significant roadblocks this time around. Most prominently, even if the House and Senate had been able to come to some sort of consensus, the Bush Administration had indicated that the President would veto any energy legislation that included, among other things,21 an RPS or tax increases on the oil industry.22 Instead, the President favors “expanded U.S. production, new fuel economy standards and a big mandate for ethanol and other alternative fuels.”23 The final legislation apparently allayed the President’s concerns; the President signed the bill into law on December 19, 2007.24

40

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

1NC OCEAN FERTILIZATION CPTEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE INVESTMENT IN OCEAN FERTILIZATION TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING.

OCEAN FERTILIZATION SOLVES WARMING

Eco Global Fuels (EGF), 2011, “Iron Fertilization- the worlds #1 method of CO2 sequestering,” http://ecoglobalfuels.com/news/iron-fertilization-worlds-1-method-co2-sequestering

Recent research just completed by our team, has revealed that the Eco Global Fuels (EGF) renewable energy technology- not only creates carbon neutral ethanol, but with our free by product from our unique IP hydroxyl process - iron oxide - and using the validated results from our test trials at Macquarie university, we have proven that our EGF process makes enough iron oxide to be able to be used in sequestering CO2 by promoting algae growth Iron oxide is a by-product of the hydroxy electrolysis process, and with our calculations below, we have proven that sequestering all CO2 from a 60 MW turbine is achievable (which means we can apply this to any scale, using any power supply for example photovoltaic, gas /coal turbines, off peak electricity etc.). Because it is a byproduct- it is free to be utilized into various methodologies (making them economical) Technologies and industries which benefit from Increasing the growth of algae: Ocean fertilization Algae based bio fuels Algae based fertilizers Algae products (supplements, cosmetics) Sewage treatment Produces freshwater Food production Pharmaceuticals EGF will implement an on-going program with the incentive of carbon neutral Solanol fuel production to fund the iron fertilization program, utilizing the free by-product of iron oxide produced by the hydroxy gas for the manufacture of carbon neutral Solanol. No other methodology can provide these two factors: free iron oxide and the economic incentive to implement. We believe we have the answer of sequestration of all the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and at the same time the ability to produce carbon neutral Solanol transport fuel Please note, in the "Virgin Earth Challenge" competition, the majority of finalists have based their findings on the utilization of biomass for carbon dioxide sequestration. Iron fertilization (we can produce iron oxide at no cost) and the production of algae is the most cost-efficient and reliable production of biomass for the absorption of carbon dioxide and in addition it is top of the food chain and represents 80% of this food chain. Due to the vast quantities of carbon dioxide generated in the production of electrical power, we have formulated into our methodology, a process known as ocean fertilization, which can efficiently sequester vast amounts of CO2. Ocean Fertilization is used in our calcul5ations (you will find in the documents section on our website "What is ocean fertilization") , as it has the most potential on a larger scale to deal with massive amounts of CO2 sequestering. However, there are many other processes such as bio fuels that increased algae grow can be utilized. We have also used off peak electricity produced by a coal power station- with precise information of inputs/outputs provide by a Czech based power company whom have become interested in our technology Ocean Fertilization Definition This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Coal turbine -Co2 sequestering by EGF Recent information supplied to us by a potential licensee in Prague that operates a 178MW coal fired power station. The intent is to utilize their off-peak waste electricity to produce carbon neutral Solanol fuel to replace their dependence on importing all their transport fuels. What is Ocean Fertilization? This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. The good news is we have free iron oxide from our hydroxyl electrolysis process, equivalent to the level necessary to sequester all the CO2 produced by a 60 MW turbine. We produce the necessary iron oxide as a by-produce of the hydroxy electrolysis process, required for iron fertilization of the ocean, to sequester all carbon dioxide emissions.

41

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSOCEAN FERTILIZATION CP – SOLVENCY

OCEAN FERTILIZATION USEFUL AND EFFECTIVE.Nigel Moore, Governance Project Manager at the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, 06 Feb 2012, “Much to learn about ocean fertilization,” Oxford Martin School, http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/view/138The oceans store a huge amount of carbon compared with the Earth’s atmosphere. This fact has led some scientists and institutions to ask the question of whether human intervention might be used to cause an increase in oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon whereby a small relative increase in carbon stored in the oceans would have a significant impact on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Following the recent Ocean Fertilization seminar, Nigel Moore from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme explains. One ocean fertilization method is known as the ‘biological pump’—essentially adding nutrients (such as iron) in areas of the ocean where they are limited, in order to cause more plankton blooms. When plankton grow they require carbon, which they get from the atmosphere, and thus it is posited that increasing the amount of oceanic plankton blooms would cause more carbon to be pulled out of the atmosphere and—potentially—be sequestered for a long period of time in the ocean once the plankton die.

OCEAN FERTILIZATION DEFINITION AND BENEFITS.Alex Wall, Environmental Science at the University of York, 5th January 2012, “Ocean Fertilization: A case study from the Southern Ocean assessing the feasibility of this Geo-engineering option,” UK Energies, http://ukenergies.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/ocean-fertilisation-a-case-study-from-the-southern-ocean-assessing-the-feasibility-of-this-geo-engineering-option/It is likely that global warming will exceed 2°C this century unless greenhouse emissions are cut by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and by even more thereafter. The 2°C level is widely regarded has being a threshold and no current emissions scenario has been able to produce a viable strategy to achieve this, to stabilize the concentration of Carbon dioxide at 450ppm (~380ppm ambient) by 2100. Geo-engineering technologies may form part of a solution to attain this outcome, or to make up for lost time in the future whilst political consensus has not been found at the present (highlighted by current inability of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce Carbon emissions). Geo-engineering technologies deliberately manipulate the planetary environment to counter-act the enhanced global greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emissions (either through carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation management). These technologies may serve to avoid currently unidentified tipping points (positive feedbacks) in the climate system such as the release of methane from gas hydrates in Arctic and the increase in global soil respiration rates both induced by higher global temperatures. As of yet, no Geo-engineering technologies have been demonstrated to be effective at an affordable cost, with acceptable side effects. Nevertheless, this report will focus on analyzing the potential of the theory of “Ocean Fertilization” geo-engineering technologies which aim to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and therefore directly cool the planet. Scientific Background The cycling of Carbon in the earth’s oceans is driven in part by a biological pump, which utilizes carbon from the atmosphere to produce organic matter (this growth is either limited by light or by a nutrient). Due to biological degradation the majority of this organic carbon is re-mineralized to its organic form in the upper “euphotic zone” of the ocean, however a small fraction escapes and sinks due to gravity to the deep ocean where it can be regarded as “sequestered” by the IPCC as it will be unable to re-enter the atmosphere for at least a century. The Southern Ocean is regarded as being an HNLC region (High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll) and the primary productivity appears to be limited by the deficiency of Iron, the crux of the Ocean Fertilization theory in this region is that the addition of Iron, will lead to a greater primary productivity and subsequently lead to a greater sequestration of Carbon from the atmosphere. Due to the characteristic Redfield ratios of the nutrient elements to carbon in algal tissues 106:16:1:0.001, (C:N:P:Fe) the addition of one atom of Fe could theoretically stimulate the production of 100,000 organic carbon atoms. It is also true that if the biological pump were to stop operating the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase by more than 100ppm in a few decades. However it is incorrect to assume that this stimulation of phyto-plankton equates to a correlationally greater sequestration of Carbon, as the majority of organic matter is remineralized, and phyto-plankton growth is still limited by light and grazing of zooplankton, with only a small fraction being finally transported and sequestered in the deep ocean (un-quantifiable at present). There may also be a “nutrient robbing” effect, where the addition of Fe in one area, causes the withdrawal of macronutrients in another, removing the net benefit of the addition of Iron. Recent high resolution modeling of iron fertilization efficiency indicates that this technology could reduce the atmospheric C, by a modest 10ppm (whilst anthropogenic activity releases Carbon at the rate of 8.5 Gt/yr) which is far removed from claims in the 1980’s that the addition of Iron could produce a global cooling effect sufficient to bring forward an ice age. Due to the speciation of Iron in the environment it is difficult to model its biogeochemical processes in the marine environment (effecting the bioavailability, photochemical processes and colloidal interactions), indicating a high unpredictability with this technology.

42

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSOCEAN FERTILIZATION CP – POLITICS NB

LEGISLATORS PREFER ALTERNATIVES TO CAP-AND-TRADE SOLUTIONS.JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, Thursday, December 3, 2009 “Legislators seek alternatives as cap-and-trade wanes,” Houston Chronicle, http://www.chron.com/business/article/Legislators-seek-alternatives-as-cap-and-trade-1735417.phpWASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Wednesday began examining an array of ways to combat global warming, amid signs that the carbon dioxide emissions trading plan known as cap-and-trade may be faltering in the Senate. “We need to dispense with this somewhat blind loyalty to economy-wide cap-and-trade,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of a handful of Republicans who has signaled she might support a climate change bill. “We need to be encouraged to look to all of the alternatives, and, unfortunately, so many of them have just been kicked to the side with the discussion about cap-and-trade. We've kind of boxed ourselves in.” Murkowski's comments at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing came just days before President Obama heads to international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, where he is set to pledge that by 2020, the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions about 17 percent below 2005 levels. Although the House passed cap-and-trade legislation in June that meets that target, the Senate is not expected to take up a similar measure until spring. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is huddling with a group of senators to rewrite the leading climate change bill he co-sponsored with Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in a bid to get support from Republicans.

OCEAN FERTILIZATION CP – POLITICS NB – CEOS

CEOS WANT FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN GREEN R & D. NBC4 Washington, Elizabeth Wynn Johnson, Jun 13, 2010, transcribed from YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xagrs-CSC-o

This is power breakfast. Good morning, I’m Elizabeth Wynn Johnson.Energy independence won't come cheap. A coalition of top American CEOs says Washington needs to triple its spending on energy related projects. “This group combined with others of like minds will do whatever they can to try and get the R&D portion, the investment in R&D and innovation in any one of these bills." (Tim Solso, Chairman & CEO, Cummins) How to pay for it? One idea is to end tax subsidies for oil and gas companies. "It’s past time that congress takes a run at this." (Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.) Sometimes timing is everything. "Certainly when we see the spectacle of what's happened in the gulf, should we be giving these people more tax incentives?" (Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.) Taking from big oil to support green energy - the robin hood of bills could be ready for the house as early as this week. And that's power breakfast.

BUSINESS SUPPORT KEY TO CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF ANY PLAN.Eric P. Grimsrud, Copyright 2012, “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen, and Grandpa on Climate Change: Bridging the Gap between Scientific and Public Opinion,” http://books.google.com/books?id=4mO_OUJknFQC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_r#v=onepage&q&f=falseNote also that our government has been clearly and repeatedly informed of this plan even though our elected officials have not generally shared it with the public. For example, a formal presentation of this plan1 called Carbon Fee with 100% Dividend, was provided on February 25, 2009, before the House Ways and Means Committee 1w Dr. lames Hansen, a leading climate change scientist. The full text of his presentation can be seen on the Web at; www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf. So why is this plan not embraced by more of our Congressmen? It you put that question to any of them, the answer you are likely to receive is simply this: “this plan has no chance of being politically acceptable in the U.S. Congress”, period. That’s it. The logic behind this anemic response is that big changes in existing business-as-usual practices are not likely to see the light of day in Washington because firmly entrenched existing businesses control Congress. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that is not being sufficiently challenged today.

43

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSOCEAN FERTILIZATION CP – SPENDING NB

OCEAN FERTILIZATION IS THE CHEAPEST EFFECTIVE METHOD.Eco Global Fuels (EGF), 2011, “Iron Fertilization- the worlds #1 method of CO2 sequestering,” http://ecoglobalfuels.com/news/iron-fertilization-worlds-1-method-co2-sequestering

Recent research just completed by our team, has revealed that the Eco Global Fuels (EGF) renewable energy technology - not only creates carbon neutral ethanol, but with our free by product from our unique IP hydroxyl process - iron oxide - and using the validated results from our test trials at Macquarie

university, we have proven that our EGF process makes enough iron oxide to be able to be used in sequestering CO2 by promoting algae growth Iron oxide is a by-product of the hydroxy electrolysis process, and with our calculations below, we have proven that sequestering all CO2 from a 60 MW turbine is achievable (which means we can apply this to any scale, using any power supply for example photovoltaic, gas /coal turbines, off peak electricity etc.). Because it is a byproduct- it is free to be utilized into various methodologies (making them economical) Technologies and industries which benefit from Increasing the growth of algae: Ocean fertilization Algae based bio fuels Algae based fertilizers Algae products (supplements, cosmetics) Sewage treatment Produces freshwater Food production Pharmaceuticals EGF will implement an on-going program with the incentive of carbon neutral Solanol fuel production to fund the iron fertilization program, utilizing the free by-product of iron oxide produced by the hydroxy gas for the manufacture of carbon neutral Solanol. No other methodology can provide these two factors: free iron oxide and the economic incentive to implement. We believe we have the answer of sequestration of all the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and at the same time the ability to produce carbon neutral Solanol transport fuel Please note, in the "Virgin Earth Challenge" competition, the majority of finalists

have based their findings on the utilization of biomass for carbon dioxide sequestration. Iron fertilization ( we can produce iron oxide at no cost ) and the production of algae is the most cost-efficient and reliable production of biomass for the absorption of carbon dioxide and in addition it is top of the food chain and represents 80% of this food chain. Due to the vast quantities of carbon dioxide generated in the production of electrical power, we have formulated into our methodology, a process known as ocean fertilization, which can efficiently sequester vast amounts of CO2. Ocean Fertilization is used in our calcul5ations (you will find in the documents section on our website "What is ocean fertilization") , as it has the most potential on a larger scale to deal with massive amounts of CO2 sequestering. However, there are many other processes such as bio fuels that increased algae grow can be utilized. We have also used off peak electricity produced by a coal power station- with precise information of inputs/outputs provide by a Czech based power company whom have become interested in our technology Ocean Fertilization Definition This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Coal turbine -Co2 sequestering by EGF Recent information supplied to us by a potential licensee in Prague that operates a 178MW coal fired power station. The intent is to utilize their off-peak waste electricity to produce carbon neutral Solanol fuel to replace their dependence on importing all their transport fuels. What is Ocean Fertilization? This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. The good news is we have free iron oxide from our hydroxyl electrolysis process, equivalent to the level necessary to sequester all the CO2 produced by a 60 MW turbine . We produce the necessary iron oxide as a by-produce of the hydroxy electrolysis process, required for iron fertilization of the ocean, to sequester all carbon dioxide emissions.

44

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSMOST COST EFFECTIVE, SOLVES FOR ECON.Arnold Nadler, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught at universities, consulted/written on energy, environment, economics and technologies, June 2004, “Carbon Sequestration: Can It Help Beat Back Global Climate Change?” Public Power, magazine of the American Public Power Association http://www.publicpower.org/Media/magazine/ArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2104Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life. However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase, there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the oceans. If a growing tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant, should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions of trees and a coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Analyzing NASA satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nation’s carbon absorption rates and therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted, this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of CO2 annually, about 3 percent of the U.S. total. The power industry estimates that building cleaner power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided. AEP estimates that growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered. Assuming that eventually the United States would adopt a carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid 1990s several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is cheap. It was assumed that carbon credits would apply globally. According to recent research in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana, nested plot test beds were storing about 4.3 tons of CO2 per acre per year. A typical coal power plant pumps out about one ton of CO2 for each 1,200 kWh. For a typical 1,000-MW plant, this works out to 6 million tons of CO2 per year. Doing the arithmetic means it takes about 1.4 million acres of relatively fast-growing trees to absorb the amount of CO2 emitted by a 1,000-MW conventional coal plant. This is equivalent to 2,400 square miles, or somewhat greater than the land area of Delaware. Continuing with this exercise, if land costs $1,000/acre, the cost of 1.4 million acres is $1.4 billion dollars — or roughly the cost of building a new 1,000-MW IGCC plant from scratch. Of course, a large part of this can be amortized by eventually selling the timber for construction and other uses. This also makes clear why utilities would look for cheap land in tropical countries. In August 2002, as a carbon-reducing offset for its 25 fossil-fueled power plants, Entergy Corp. agreed to donate 600 acres of land, along Louisiana’ s Red River, to become part of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. The land will be used to grow trees that will store an estimated 275,000 tons of CO2. The utility will receive credits if and when the United States decides to use an emissions trading program and count biomass absorption as an offset to stack emissions. Research on terrestrial biological carbon sequestration is proceeding on a number of fronts. For example, a U.S. Department of Agriculture project has looked at the use of forest slash to restore degraded soil in North Carolina, thereby accelerating forest growth. At Ohio State University, researchers have looked at the potential of flue gas desulfurization products to increase the carbon absorption capacity of worn out mining lands. The Rodale Institute claims that organic farming retains 15 to 28 percent more soil carbon than conventionally farmed soil. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is researching genetically modified “super trees” to absorb more CO2. Some scientists argue that as second growth forests mature, the rate of carbon uptake will plateau. While growing vegetation removes CO2, decaying vegetation does the opposite. Forest fires, which were extensive in the United States in 2002, release large amounts of CO2 quickly. Researchers from the United Kingdom and Germany estimate that the 1997 Indonesian forest fires released CO2 equivalent to 13 to 40 percent of the total annual worldwide carbon emissions from all fossil fuels Both inside and outside the United States, objections have been raised to counting trees and other terrestrial vegetation as offsets to carbon emissions. Carbon sequestration is a work in progress. However, we’re good at R&D and subsequent deployment of new technologies. With continued research and development, we can play a major role in creating cost-effective solutions to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In addition, these technologies might become significant export items, thereby helping our economy, and also demonstrating to the world that we really are engaged in global efforts to address global warming.

45

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSOCEAN FERTILIZATION CP – AT: U.N. REGULATIONS

GERMANY AND INDIA ALREADY VIOLATED IT WITH NO CONSEQUENCES. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/fertilizethis/A major Indian-German geoengineering expedition set sail this week for the Scotia Sea, flouting a U.N. ban on ocean iron fertilization experiments in hopes of garnering data about whether the process actually does take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequester it in the deep ocean, a technique that may help reverse global warming. The LOHAFEX experiment will spread 20-tons of iron sulphate particles over a 115-square-mile section of open ocean north of Antarctica — that’s about 1.7 times the size of Washington, D.C. The initiative has drawn fire from environmental groups who point out that 200 countries agreed to the moratorium until more evidence was available about its efficacy. But that hasn’t stopped the LOHAFEX team, composed of Alfred Wegener Institute and Indian National Institute of Oceanography scientists, who say they need to conduct experiments to get such data. “If the LOHAFEX iron dump goes ahead, it will be a clear defiance of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity,” Jim Thomas of ETC Group, said in a press release. It’s becoming clear that when it comes to global warming reversal schemes, deciding who will control the global thermostat is as complex an issue as how such schemes could actually be accomplished. Ocean iron fertilization is considered one of the more promising options for global-scale geoengineering, which aims to slow or reverse the effects of climate change caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. While Thomas expressed outrage, Jamais Cascio, a futurist who has written about the geopolitical repercussions of geoengineering for the journal Foreign Policy, took a more measured tone. "ETC is right that we need international standards and safeguards for these experiments, and hopefully this attempt will spur action in that regard," Cascio said. "I think they’re wrong, however, to suggest that any look at geoengineering is inherently problematic." Importantly, iron fertilization would deal directly with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as opposed to, say, blocking out some of the sun’s rays with a global molecular parasol. By providing plankton with iron in water where iron is lacking, the marine creatures grow in tremendous numbers, incorporating carbon into their bodies. When the plankton die and sink, the carbon goes with down with their skeletons. It is unknown, however, how much of that carbon actually makes it deep into the ocean, where it would be sequestered for decades, not days. At a panel at meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last year, marine geochemist Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute said that somewhere between 2 and 50 percent of the carbon the plankton eat could actually make it to the depths of the ocean, which is basically like saying that we don’t know if the process works. "The efficacy of iron-induced sequestration of atmospheric CO2 to the deep sea, however, remains poorly constrained," he summarized. "We do not yet understand the full range of intended and potential unintended biogeochemical and ecological impacts." The voluntary U.N. ban included language to allow countries to do tests near their shores. But it’s the open seas, particularly in the southern hemisphere, that would allow in-situ testing of the LOHAFEX scientists’ hypotheses. "The fate of carbon from the bloom could not be adequately determined in earlier experiments," the LOHAFEX website reads. "LOHAFEX will now study the entire range of processes determining the partitioning of carbon between atmosphere and deep ocean in the experimental bloom." Cascio said that it’s likely that further geoengineering experiments or actual efforts will be made. "This comes as absolutely no surprise to me," he said. "The confluence of desperation as we see climate disruption hit faster than anticipated, inaction on the carbon emission front, and the ease with which geoengineering can be undertaken means that this won’t be the last time that a sub-national group tries something like this." Already, two ocean-iron-fertilization companies, Climos and Planktos, have been founded. They’ve met different fates, though. Last year, Planktos went belly up, while Climos pulled in $4 million in venture capital. UPDATE 11:10 am PST: Climos CEO, Dan Whaley, notes in our comments section that there was a clause included in an October resolution of a separate U.N. organization, parties to the London Convention, in which 88 countries voted to allow "legitimate scientific research" on ocean iron fertilization, without restrictions to coastal waters. It was under this ruling that the researchers proceeded.The full text of that resolution is available at Climos’ website.

46

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

1NC PERIDOTITE CPTEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE USE OF PERIDOTITE GLOBAL WARMING SEQUESTRATION.PERIDOTITE SOLVES FOR WARMING

Candice Gaukel Andrews, author, writer, and editor specializing in nature and travel, Apr 19th, 2010, “Rocking the Cure” for Climate Change,” http://goodnature.nathab.com/rocking-the-cure-for-climate-change/Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earth’s mantle, the layer just below the crust. Every continent, except perhaps Antarctica, contains substantial amounts of it. And in some places on our planet, such as in the nation of Oman, it lies right on the surface. What makes peridotite so special is that it could “cure” global warming. Sucking Up CO2. During fieldwork in Oman’s desert, two scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York (geologist Professor Peter Kelemen and geochemist Dr. Juerg Matter) found that exposed peridotite reacts with the global-warming carbon dioxide in the air, absorbing up to 100,000 tons of the greenhouse gas each year and transforming it into a solid mineral (like limestone or marble). They estimate that the exposed peridotite in Oman alone could “sequester” four billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide a year — or one-seventh of the 30 billion tons the world emits annually. Furthermore, Kelemen and Matter say that simple and relatively inexpensive drilling into the peridotite deposits and then injecting them with heated water enriched with pressurized CO2 captured from power plants could speed up the process of locking the carbon dioxide in the rocks by 100,000 times or more. Once set in motion, the carbon-capturing process would start building upon itself. The reaction would naturally generate heat, in turn that heat would hasten the reaction, fracturing large volumes of rock. The newly fractured rocks would then be exposed to reactions with still more CO2-rich solution. Since the farther down you drill, the higher the temperature gets, heat generated by the Earth itself also would help. Kelemen and Matter propose that such a chain of events would need little energy input to sustain itself after it was first jump-started.

47

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSPERIDOTITE CP – SPENDING NB

PERIDOTITE IS CHEAP.Candice Gaukel Andrews, author, writer, and editor specializing in nature and travel, Apr 19th, 2010, “Rocking the Cure” for Climate Change,” http://goodnature.nathab.com/rocking-the-cure-for-climate-change/Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earth’s mantle, the layer just below the crust. Every continent, except

perhaps Antarctica, contains substantial amounts of it. And in some places on our planet, such as in the nation of Oman, it lies right on the surface. What makes peridotite so special is that it could “cure” global warming. Sucking Up CO2. During fieldwork in Oman’s desert, two scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York (geologist Professor Peter Kelemen and geochemist Dr. Juerg Matter) found that exposed peridotite reacts with the global-warming carbon dioxide in the air, absorbing up to 100,000 tons of the greenhouse gas each year and transforming it into a solid mineral (like limestone or marble). They estimate that the exposed peridotite in Oman alone could “sequester” four billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide a year — or one-seventh of the 30 billion tons the world emits annually. Furthermore, Kelemen and Matter say that simple and relatively inexpensive drilling into the peridotite deposits and then injecting them with heated water enriched with pressurized CO2 captured from power plants could speed up the process of locking the carbon dioxide in the rocks by 100,000 times or more. Once set in motion, the carbon-capturing process would start building upon itself. The reaction would naturally generate heat, in turn that heat would hasten the reaction, fracturing large volumes of rock. The newly fractured rocks would then be exposed to reactions with still more CO2-rich solution. Since the farther down you drill, the higher the temperature gets, heat generated by the Earth itself also would help. Kelemen and Matter propose that such a chain of events would need little energy input to sustain itself after it was first jump-started.

PERIDOTITE IS COST-EFFECTIVE.Mike Millikin, editor and analyst in the IT industry, founder and editor of the online publication Green Car Congress (GCC), 7 November 2008, “In-Situ Carbonation of Peridotite Offers Large Scale Capacity for Permanent Storage of CO2,” http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/in-situ-carbona.htmlResearchers at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have concluded that the in situ carbonation of peridotite, a type of rock found at or near the surface in Oman and other areas around the world, could consume more than 1 billion tons of CO2 per year in Oman alone, affording a low-cost, safe, and permanent method to capture and store atmospheric CO2. Their studies show that the rock reacts naturally at surprisingly high rates with CO2 to form solid minerals, and that the process could be speeded by multiple orders of magnitude with simple drilling and injection methods. The study appears in this week’s early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Peridotite comprises most or all of the rock in the mantle, which undergirds earth’s crust. It starts some 20 kilometers or more down, but occasionally pieces are exhumed when tectonic plates collide and push the mantle rock to the surface, as in Oman. Geologists already knew that once exposed to air, the rock can react quickly with CO2, forming a solid carbonate like limestone or marble. However, schemes to transport it to power plants, grind it and combine it with smokestack gases have been seen as too costly and energy intensive. The researchers say that the discovery of previously unknown high rates of reaction underground means CO2 could be sent there artificially, at far less expense.

48

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

1NC SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT CPTEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE INVESTMENT IN SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY

SRM IS A QUICK, EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO WARMING

M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, 2010, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdfThere is a way to cool the planet quickly. A few times every century, nature provides a practical demonstration of this fact when an explosive volcanic eruption lofts millions of tons of SO2 gas and ash high into the stratosphere. Once there, the SO2 is converted into fine sulphate particles. These particles reflect sunlight before it has a chance to penetrate deeper into the atmosphere and get absorbed. For example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (Figure 1) in 1991 produced global scale cooling of about 0.5°C. The fraction of sunlight that is reflected back into space is called the “planetary albedo”. There is nothing new about the idea of modifying the climate by increasing albedo. Scientists have known for many years that this could be done9. However, until very recently, there has been almost no serious research on how to do SRM, on what it might cost, on how well it might work, or what its undesirable side effects and risks might be. We believe that there are two reasons the climate research community has not devoted serious research attention to these issues: • Scientists have been reluctant to divert scarce research funds away from the urgent task of studying the climate system, climate change, and its impacts. • Scientists have been legitimately concerned that studying this topic might increase the likelihood that someone might actually do it. Humans have a dismaying track record of changing their intentions as their capabilities change. In our view, today the world has passed a tipping point and there are two reasons why it is too dangerous not to study and understand SRM: 1. There is a growing chance that some part of the world will find itself pushed past a critical point where, for example, patterns of rainfall have shifted so much that agriculture in the region can no longer feed the people. Believing this shift is the result of rising global temperatures, such a region might be tempted to unilaterally start doing SRM to solve its problem. If this situation arises, and no research has been done on SRM, the rest of the world could not respond in an informed way. (9) In addition to adding small reflective particles to the stratosphere, other methods such as increasing marine cloud brightness or placing mirrors in space, have been proposed. Here we concentrate on reflective particles in the stratosphere, though many of the climatic effects would be similar with other SRM methods. 2. With luck, the major effects of climate change will continue to occur slowly, over periods of decades. However, if the world is unlucky and a serious change occurs very rapidly, the countries of the world might need to consider collectively doing SRM. If this situation arises, and no research has been done, SRM would involve a hopeful assumption that the uncertain benefits would outweigh the uncertain and perhaps unknown costs. While there is great uncertainty about SRM, we are confident that it has “three essential characteristics: it is cheap, fast and imperfect”10. CHEAP: The classification of SRM activities as “cheap” doesn’t just refer to the low economic costs associated with cooling the planet with these mechanisms, but also to the fact that only a little bit of material is necessary to implement these planetary-scale changes, which can offset the influence of tons of CO2. For example, under the current understanding of SRM technologies, the mass of fine particles needed to counteract the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is approximately 2.6 million tons per day of aerosol if injected into marine stratus clouds or 13,000 tons per day of sulphate aerosol if injected into the stratosphere. By comparison, to achieve the same radiative effect (whether by artificial or natural means), we would need to remove 225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years straight11. While few realistic engineering analyses have been done on the economic costs of SRM, a 1992 report of the U.S. National Research Council12 estimated the potential costs of a programme of stratospheric albedo modification based on the use of a standard naval gun system dispensing commercial aluminium oxide dust to counteract the warming effect of a CO2 doubling. Undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project were estimated to be USD100 billion. More recent analyses13,14, have suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to less than USD10 billion per year – clearly well within the budget of most countries, and much less costly than any programme to dramatically reduce the emissions of CO2. For additional details on costs see Box 3. FAST: While cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would slow or halt their rising concentrations in the atmosphere, much of the CO2 released through past emissions will reside in the atmosphere for 100 years or more. In addition, inertia in the climate system means that global temperatures will continue to rise. Reducing planetary temperatures through emissions reductions will take many decades to centuries. In contrast, increasing planetary albedo by doing SRM can reduce planetary temperature in days or months. This fast response cuts two ways. On the one hand, it means that SRM could be used to rapidly cool the planet in the event of a “climate emergency”, such as the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet15 or the sudden release of large amounts of methane from arctic tundra or the deep edges of the coastal oceans. On the other hand, if SRM were started and then stopped before greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were drastically reduced, then global temperatures could shoot up dramatically16. This would be devastating for many ecosystems.

49

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSRM CP – SPENDING NB

SRM IS CHEAP.M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, 2010, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdfCHEAP: The classification of SRM activities as “cheap” doesn’t just refer to the low economic costs associated with cooling the planet with these mechanisms, but also to the fact that only a little bit of material is necessary to implement these planetary-scale changes, which can offset the influence of tons of CO2. For example, under the current understanding of SRM technologies, the mass of fine particles needed to counteract the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is approximately 2.6 million tons per day of aerosol if injected into marine stratus clouds or 13,000 tons per day of sulphate aerosol if injected into the stratosphere. By comparison, to achieve the same radiative effect (whether by artificial or natural means), we would need to remove 225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years straight11. While few realistic engineering analyses have been done on the economic costs of SRM, a 1992 report of the U.S. National Research Council12 estimated the potential costs of a programme of stratospheric albedo modification based on the use of a standard naval gun system dispensing commercial aluminium oxide dust to counteract the warming effect of a CO2 doubling. Undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project were estimated to be USD100 billion. More recent analyses13,14, have suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to less than USD10 billion per year – clearly well within the budget of most countries, and much less costly than any programme to dramatically reduce the emissions of CO2. For additional details on costs see Box 3.

SRM IS THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE.M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, 2010, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdfBOX 3: How much might SRM cost? Nobody knows exactly what the cost of a full-scale implementation of SRM would be. We can, however, make a crude estimate. A 1992 National Research Council report1 estimated the undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project to be USD100 billion. A report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory2 suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to as little as a few hundred million dollars per year. We can use those two reports to estimate cost to be between USD100 million and USD100 billion per year. The size of the global economy is roughly USD60x1012 per year. So: (0.1-100 x109 USD/year)/60x1012 USD/year is roughly 0.0002% to 0.2% of world GDP/year. How does this compare with the cost of reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Today, the world is emitting about 50x109 tons per year CO2 equivalent of greenhouse gases (of which about 30x109 is CO2). The IPCC 4th assessment3 reports that: “Modeling studies show that global carbon prices rising to USD20-80/tCO2equivalent by 2030 are consistent with stabilization at around 550ppm CO2-equivalent by 2100. For the same stabilization level, induced technological change may lower these price ranges to USD5-65/tCO2-equivalent in 2030.” So: (50x109 tCO2-eq)(5 to 65USD/tCO2-eq) = 250 to 3300x109 USD/year. (0.25 to 3.3x1012 USD/year)/60x1012 USD/year is roughly 0.4% to 5.5% of world

GDP/year In short, it is probably safe to assume that the direct monetary cost of doing SRM would be at least 100 times less than the cost of a full programme of greenhouse gas abatement…and perhaps even cheaper than that!

50

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***HEG***

51

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

1NC SEABASING CPTEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A MOBILE SEA BASING NAVAL CAPABILITY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AIMED AT ENSURING ADEQUATE UNITED STATES FORWARD DEPLOYMENT AND POWER PROJECTION CAPABILITIES.

SEABASING SOLVES HEG

Commander Michael F. Perry, US Navy, 6-5-09, “IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER GENERATION”, USAWC PROGRAM RESEARCH. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This study reaches six conclusions regarding the importance and future of Seabasing. First, given America’s increasingly limited access to overseas bases, Seabasing is essential to land power generation and will likely become even more essential throughout the 21st Century. Specifically, land power is of little use without access to the internal lines of communication that it seeks to sever and control. Seabasing provides the most efficient and effective means of placing boots on the ground, particularly in the increasingly frequent case where modern air and seaports are unavailable due to underdevelopment, devastation or anticipated losses. Rather, Seabasing allows applying force directly to an objective from the relative security of the sea. Second, Corbett was right. The ultimate center of gravity of any opponent is its homeland and internal lines of communication. Sea and air power lack the direct and sustained influence required to achieve a decisive and lasting victory. Thus, historically, and for the foreseeable future, “imposing one’s will on an enemy involves threatening the integrity of his state” by “threatening or conducting an invasion of his homeland.”98 Such “gun boat diplomacy” works best when one clearly has the ways and means to impose a desired end. Seabasing allows Joint Force Commanders to rapidly mass and move land power around the periphery of a continental opponent and attack at the times and places of their choosing. This clearly communicates the ability of U.S. forces to rapidly respond anywhere in

the world. Nothing could be more important to deterring aggression against the U.S. and its allies and supporting American

foreign policy.99 Thus, Seabasing “is the most promising option available to national security planners, both civilian and military, because it can achieve political purpose in a manner which most other joint capabilities cannot match.”

52

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSEABASING CP – SOLVENCY

KEY TO POWER PROJECTION – GLOBAL ACCESS, JOINT OPERATIONS, AND REQUISITE COMPONENT OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE DEPLOYMENT

Commander Michael F. Perry, US Navy, 6-5-09, “IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER GENERATION”, USAWC PROGRAM RESEARCH. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfThe rise of the Soviet Navy during the Cold War presented a new peer competitor and slowed development of sea based support of land power generation. However, the fall of the Soviet Union has renewed interest in “Seabasing.” 3 Once again, the U.S. lacks a peer competitor on the high seas and must reconsider its relevance to national security. The primary difference is that Huntington’s advice has become even more relevant and important. In particular, Seabasing supports the National Security Strategies of the U.S. with mobile operational and logistics platforms that help offset the dramatic decline in U.S. access to overseas bases. These national security strategies require rapid access to potential Joint Operating Areas and deployment of follow-on forces as necessary to deter potential aggressors and execute and reinforce U.S. Foreign Policy. In response, Sebasing allows the U.S. Navy to project military power on short notice anywhere in the globe either unilaterally or in support of Joint and combined operations. This eliminates the need to support marginally democratic regimes for fear of losing access to overseas bases or forcibly seize or establish marginally useful expeditionary air and sea ports. Rather, Joint Force Commanders can apply force directly to an objective at the time and place of their choosing from the relative safety of the high seas. As a result, Seabasing has become a Joint Integrating Concept of great importance to all aspects of the U.S. Department of Defense. Specifically, Seabasing forms one of the “Pillars” of the “Sea Power 21” strategy to evolve the U.S. Navy from a “blue-water, war-at-sea” force to a “global joint operations” force, which is capable of confronting “regional and transnational dangers” on land as well as sea.4 Similarly, Seabasing is essential to transforming the U.S. Army and Air Force to a more responsive and truly joint force. Yet, over 50 years after Huntington first described its importance, the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense are still struggling to clearly define the goals and objectives of Seabasing and overcome the “mythology and misunderstanding” that has “stifled” its development.5 This study defines Seabasing and its relevance to the classic strategies of sea power as well as the current National Security Strategies and Joint Military Doctrine of the United States. As will be shown, Seabasing has become increasingly important to the land and air, as well as sea, services of the U.S. Department of Defense. In particular, Seabasing has become increasingly essential to land power due to the decreasing number of nations willing to grant the U.S. access to overseas bases. Finally, this study discusses the decisions and challenges that have slowed development of Seabasing and concludes that Seabasing can only be developed efficiently and effectively if progressed in a truly joint and organized fashion. At stake is the ability of the U.S. to deter aggression and reinforce its foreign policy with credible and timely threats to potential adversaries and offers of assistance to allies located throughout the world.

53

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSEABASING IS SUPER AWESOME

G.J. Flynn, Lt. General USMC, 3-26-2009, “Seabasing,” http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/download.aspx?Path=./Uploads/Files/CDI_Seabasing%20for%20the%20ROMO%2026%20Mar%2009.pdfIn March 2005 the new National Defense Strategy (NDS) emphasized “the importance of influencing events before challenges become more dangerous and less manageable.”17 It described how the United States faced a time of great uncertainty and had to address an array of current and potential adversaries who would likely use a combination of traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive methods against us.18 It identified the need to enhance eight key operational capabilities, most of which appeared to make the case for a sea-based approach to joint operations. (These included: strengthening intelligence; protecting critical bases of operation; operating from the global commons; projecting and sustaining forces in distant anti-access environments; denying enemies sanctuary; conducting network-centric operations; improving proficiency against irregular challenges; and increasing capabilities of partners—international and domestic.)19 The NDS also espoused the necessity of revising our overseas force posture through a system of main operating bases, forward operating sites, cooperative security locations and, “In addition to these, joint sea- basing too holds promise for the broader transformation of our overseas military posture,” noting that “Prepositioned capabilities afloat are especially valuable.”20 Based on the guidance provided by the NDS, Marine Corps Operating Concepts for a Changing Security Environment (MOC) articulated an updated family of concepts. It noted: Operational Maneuver from the Sea is our conceptual foundation for littoral power projection. The concept of Seabasing advocates a means of rapidly deploying, employing and sustaining globally sourced forces in a manner that provides the President and the joint force commander additional political and military options for overcoming challenges posed by a changing security environment. Another concept, Distributed Operations, builds upon our warfighting philosophy and understanding of that environment to generate training, education, and equipment innovations that will prepare Marines for the challenges ahead...informed by Operational Maneuver from the Sea, and enabled by Seabasing and Distributed Operations...this volume describes Marine Corps forces that will be organized, based, trained and equipped for forward presence, security cooperation, counterterrorism, crisis response, forcible entry, prolonged operations and counterinsurgency.21 Assuming that naval force structure would not change appreciably in the near future but recognizing that the NDS required greater capacity for forward presence, security cooperation and counterterrorism, the MOC proposed additional sizing options for more integrated Navy-Marine Corps forces and associated shipping. These included more frequent use of special-purpose MAGTFs and Marine detachments afloat, along with various combinations of surface combatants, amphibious shipping, prepositioning ships, and high-speed vessels. Two sets of classified CONOPS, one occurring in 2015 and the other in 2025, were subsequently developed to illustrate each of the concepts in the MOC. These CONOPS used approved Defense Planning Scenarios that addressed a broad range of military operations. Even as the MOC was nearing completion, the Navy and Marine Corps began work on Naval Operations Concept 2006 (NOC 06). NOC 06 reflected the logic of the MOC and called for “more widely distributed forces to provide increased forward presence, security cooperation with an expanding set of international partners, preemption of non-traditional threats, and global response to crises in regions around the world where access might be difficult.”22 It described the challenge facing the Navy and Marine Corps as one of remaining “capable of traditional naval missions while simultaneously enhancing our ability to conduct non- traditional missions,” and posited that “U.S. Naval forces are adaptable and have utility across the spectrum of operations. By adaptively task- organizing current and emerging Navy and Marine Corps capabilities into closely integrated force packages tailored to the needs of the Combatant Commanders and their component commanders, we can enhance our capability and capacity to balance the varied and competing demands of the national strategy.” 23 Specifically, NOC 06 espoused seabasing as the means of supporting both expeditionary power projection and proactive security cooperation. With respect to the latter, it advocated the use of global fleet stations (GFS) as one manifestation of seabasing: GFS is a persistent sea base of operations from which to coordinate and employ adaptive force packages within a regional area of interest. Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission.24 A second edition of the MOC was published in June 2007 in order to incorporate the 34th CMC’s planning guidance in the preface as well as to nest Chapter 1 more closely with NOC 06. Within a section titled “The Central Idea: Selective Distribution and Re-aggregation” Chapter 1 states: Employed in concert with the other elements of national power and an expanding set of multinational partners, U.S. Naval forces will contribute to denying transnational actors their freedom of movement and action, deterring state support of such actors, providing an effective counter to extremist ideology and winning the war of ideas. Concurrently, U.S. Naval forces must remain capable of deterring regional aggression by state actors, precluding operational/strategic surprise, and effectively responding to the unexpected. U.S. Naval forces will...provide a distributed, persistent, sea-based presence throughout the arc of instability to expand U.S. influence without the increased destabilization that can be the unintended consequences of a heavy footprint ashore. Leveraging our ability to operate from international waters, seabasing will provide both operational maneuver and assured access. Sea-based forces will establish and maintain military to military relationships to increase the number, capabilities, and capacities of our multinational partners. These operations will demonstrate U.S. commitment to such partnerships and provide a positive message by helping the local people to improve their security, infrastructure, economic opportunity, and living conditions. ...While these globally distributed forces will collectively constitute an economy of force operation, their ability to rapidly re-aggregate gives them the concurrent ability to act as a strategic reserve for crises and contingencies. U.S. Naval forces are likely to deploy in a given configuration, disperse to accomplish missions such as forward presence and security cooperation, and then be called upon to merge with other Navy, Marine Corps, joint, interagency or multinational elements to assume different missions such as crisis response or expeditionary power projection.25

54

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSEABASING KEY TO LAND POWER AND AIR POWER IS INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF

Commander Michael F. Perry, US Navy, 6-5-09, “IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER GENERATION”, USAWC PROGRAM RESEARCH. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Similarly, recent events in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have demonstrated the limits of air and sea power without adequate land power. Simply put, naval blockades and air strikes influence and interdict, but rarely achieve decisive victory. On the contrary, U.S. ground forces destroy, occupy, exert lasting influence, and communicate he highest level of commitment and determination. “Thus, use of land power or potential use of land power” is typically “the decisive factor” in joint operations. 52 Seabasing reinforces land power with viable options that potential adversaries cannot overcome with anti-access strategies. For example, although the U.S. Army has historically deployed its forces by sea,53 it “has built much of its logistical doctrine with the underlying assumption that logistics bases must be present worldwide.”54 This is an increasingly invalid assumption given the increasing inability of the U.S. to safely station thousands of troops overseas. Rather, joint operations increasingly require rapid response to austere environments with little or no host nation support. In response, the Transformation Plan of the U.S. Army calls for fielding a relatively light “combat-capable brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, a division in 120 hours, and 5 divisions in 30 days.”55 Yet, the U.S. Army remains almost exclusively reliant upon the U.S. Air Force to for the rapid deployment of these forces. As a result, rapidly transporting a single medium Stryker Brigade would require securing a friendly aerial port of debarkation and nearly one-third of the C17 and C5 sorties of the U.S. Air Force over a period of 5 to 14 days. This timeline far exceeds the 4 days the U.S. Army desires and places unreasonable demands upon the U.S. Air Force. Thus, “Army officials now recognize that airlift alone will not be sufficient and that some combination of airlift and sealift will likely be used to deploy these brigades.”56 Finally, current U.S. Army plans for sealift and pre-positioned materials still require friendly sea ports of debarkation to handle its relatively large deep-draft ships. This leaves the Army tied to Seabasing could do much to address U.S. Army requirements for access to Joint Operating Areas and expediting deployment thereafter. This will likely involve restructuring the current Strategic Flotilla, pre-positioned stocks, and some Brigade Combat Teams of the U.S. Army to support in-stream joint reception, staging, and onward movement from Seabases.58 For example, the Army has achieved a 50% reduction in the deployment requirements of its Stryker Brigades.59 In addition, Seabasing will require heavy lift aircraft capable of delivering up to 20 tons directly to an objective located up to 240 nautical miles inland60 and Theater Aviation Sustainment Maintenance Facilities to provide the Air Cavalry of the U.S. Army with immediate access to depot level repairs.61

SEABASING MEETS THE DEMANDS OF MODERN WARFARE DSBTF (Defense Science Board Task Force), 2003, a committee of civilian experts appointed to advise the U.S. Department of Defense on scientific and technical matters, “ Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing”, Department of Defense, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA429002.pdf

Forcible entry from the sea has played an essential role in virtually every major U.S. military operation, from the “shores of Tripoli,” to the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War II and the Korean War. Sea-based operations, practiced by both the Army and Marines, have undergone continuous evolution, culminating in the amphibious assaults that played a decisive role in the European and Pacific theaters in World War II and in Korea. The geography of the United States, as an island power with the need to project military power across two great oceans, has made amphibious warfare a core competence in the American way of war. With the end of the Cold War, the world has entered a period of uncertainty. The United States has national interests in many of the world’s potential areas of conflict. It must have the capability to project its military power to deal with a full range of military contingencies. Over the past eight years the Defense Science Board has conducted a series of studies on the tactics, logistics and technology of land warfare in the post Cold War era. Its recommendations have emphasized light, rapidly deployable, maneuver forces supported by remote fires—in other words, the replacement of mass by responsive, precision firepower and maneuver. Others have foreseen a similar future where brigades perform functions that once required corps or divisions.1 These scenarios of future war rest on having intermediate staging bases in or near the theater of operations to support troops, logistics and combat fire support. Recent events in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have underlined, however, that the availability of such bases is, more often than not, uncertain due to physical or political factors that delay, limit or prevent their use. Moreover, modern weaponry, such as precision. Seabases, while certainly not immune from attack, can provide the United States with a capability suited to future military needs: most likely areas of future conflict are within reach of the sea. Seabases are mobile, complicating adversary defense operations and providing options for U.S. military forces. Seabases are sovereign, not subject to alliance vagaries, and seabases can be scaled to support activities larger than brigade-sized operations. Forcible entry from modern seabases, however, represents a substantially greater challenge than

55

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSthe amphibious operations of World War II and Korea. Large-scale amphibious assaults across beaches will face increasingly difficult challenges in the future. Instead, forces will initially leapfrog beaches. They will employ air and precision surface assault to penetrate and drive far inland to secure a lodgment, and then move to directly attack military objectives. At present, naval surface fire support lacks the reach and precision to support such movement inland. Thus, combat fire support must come from organic artillery and aircraft. The weight and volume of logistics required to support such inland forces will require high volume, heavy lift air capabilities, at least until U.S. forces have made the shore safe for resupply.

CREATES FORCE INDEPENDENCE Robert E. Harkavy, 2005, Penn State Political Science Proffesor, “Thinking about Basing”, U.S. Naval War College and Gale Group, http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/Course%20Readings/Harkavy.pdf

The United States has been reshaping its global presence to deal with new threats, emanating from sometimes new sources, in a very fluid and complex global environment. It is positioning itself according to new geopolitical emphases (arcs of crisis, African oil fields, etc.) and also in line with its own "transformation"--an emphasis on smaller, lighter, more mobile forces. There is a clear shift away from the residual Cold War global presence, marked by heavy forces stationed where they would be expected to fight--in Central Europe and Korea. The upshot of the scenarios themselves, the comparative costs involved, the necessity to retain military personnel and attend to their families' needs, and a desire to lower the intrusiveness of the U.S. presence and infringement on other nations' sense of sovereignty is that global presence is being seen in terms of trade-offs. The traditional option is forward presence/basing; a new possibility is sea basing; both political and new technological realities, however, increasingly allow for resort to basing military operations in the continental United States (Conus) itself. The latter two broad options are, of course, linked. But the third, Sea Basing, is considered by many in the Department of Defense to be the most transformational of the three ideas. It envisions putting a substantial Marine Corps ground force on shore and sustaining it from ships at sea rather than from a land base. Thus, the Navy and Marine Corps could conduct amphibious assaults (including "forcible-entry" operations, like those conducted on Japanese-held Pacific islands during World War II) without needing to seize the enemy territory to build a base or to get permission from a nearby country to use an existing base. Supporters argue that sea basing would therefore allow U.S. forces to operate overseas more independently, flexibly, and quickly. (32)

WE CONTROL UNIQUENESS – SEA BASING MUST BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROJECT AND SUSTAIN OUR POWER

Work – Robert, United States Under Security of Navy, distinguished graduate of the Naval Reserve Officers Training Course at the University of Illinois – 2006 – “Reposturing the Force” Naval War College Newport Papers - http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdfTHIS SEA-BASED TRANSPORT FLEET , WHILE IDEALLY SUITED TO THE STRATEGIC CONDITIONS OF THE¶ COLD WAR, IS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE FOR THE EMERGING CONDITIONS AND CHALLENGES OF THE JOINT¶ EXPEDITIONARY ERA. THE U.S. MILITARY AND ITS ALLIES ARE FIGHTING A PERSISTENT, GLOBAL IRREGULAR WAR IN WHICH REPOSITIONING AND SUPPORT OF SCARCE GROUND FORCES IS AS IMPORTANT AS IT ¶ WAS IN WORLD WAR II. THEY ARE ALSO FACED WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFRONTING REGIONAL ADVERSARIES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS , WHICH MAY BE USED TO COERCE REGIONAL NEIGHBORS INTO DENYING ACCESS TO U.S. FORCES AND TO THREATEN FIXED THEATER POINTS OF ENTRY. MOREOVER, THEY ¶ CONFRONT THE PROSPECT OF INCREASINGLY POWERFUL LITTORAL DEFENSES OR A2/AD NETWORKS USING ¶ CONVENTIONAL GUIDED WEAPONS, WHICH WILL REQUIRE SUSTAINED OPERATIONS FROM THE SEA IN ORDER TO CONDUCT PROGRESSIVE ROLL-BACK AND THEATER BREAK-IN OPERATIONS. FINALLY, THE U.S.¶ MILITARY MAY BE TASKED TO PROVIDE LOGISTICS SUPPORT TO JOINT FORCES OPERATING ASHORE TO A¶ DEGREE NOT REQUIRED SINCE WORLD WAR II. ALL OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CALL FOR THE RECREATION ¶ OF OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT, SEA-BASED FIRE, MANEUVER, AND LOGISTICS FORCES. ¶ IT WOULD THUS BE MOST ACCURATE TO SAY THAT “SEA BASING” IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME ¶

AGAIN . WITH DEFERENCE TO ADMIRAL CLARK, IT HARDLY SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE FUTURE NAVY WILL¶ SUPPORT JOINT COMBAT POWER FROM THE SEA “TO A GREATER EXTENT” THAN IT DID DURING WORLD¶ WAR II OR KOREA. HOWEVER, IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT IT WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROJECT AND ¶ SUSTAIN JOINT COMBAT POWER FROM THE SEA TO A FAR GREATER DEGREE THAN WAS NECESSARY IN ¶ THE COLD WAR. THEREFORE, THE FORMER CNO WAS EXACTLY RIGHT TO CONCLUDE THAT THINKING¶ ABOUT SEA BASING AND HOW IT SHOULD SHAPE THE FUTURE NAVY SHOULD BE THE FIRST PRIORITY¶ FOR DON STRATEGISTS, PLANNERS, AND FLEET PLATFORM ARCHITECTS.

56

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSNAVAL POWER IS KEY TO HEG – DETERRENCE, ECONOMICS, AND WAR-FIGHTING England et al 11 Mr. England is a former secretary of the Navy. Mr. Jones is a former commandant of the Marine Corps. Mr. Clark is a former chief of naval operations. July 11, 2011 The Necessity of U.S. Naval Power Our maritime forces provide an unmatched advantage. By GORDON ENGLAND, JAMES L. JONES, AND VERN CLARK http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576406163019350934.htmlAll our citizens, and especially our servicemen and women, expect and deserve a thorough review of critical security decisions. After all, decisions today will affect the nation's strategic position for future generations. The future security environment underscores two broad security trends. First, international political realities and the internationally agreed-to sovereign rights of nations will increasingly limit the sustained involvement of American permanent land-based, heavy forces to the more extreme crises. This will make offshore options for deterrence and power projection ever more paramount in support of our national interests. Second, the naval dimensions of American power will re-emerge as the primary means for assuring our allies and partners, ensuring prosperity in times of peace, and countering anti-access, area-denial efforts in times of crisis. We do not believe these trends will require the dismantling of land-based forces, as these forces will remain essential reservoirs of power. As the United States has learned time and again, once a crisis becomes a conflict, it is impossible to predict with certainty its depth, duration and cost. That said, the U.S. has been shrinking its overseas land-based installations, so the ability to project power globally will make the forward presence of naval forces an even more essential dimension of American influence. What we do believe is that uniquely responsive Navy-Marine Corps capabilities provide the basis on which our most vital overseas interests are safeguarded. Forward presence and engagement is what allows the U.S. to maintain awareness, to deter aggression, and to quickly respond to threats as they arise. Though we clearly must be prepared for the high-end threats, such preparation should be made in balance with the means necessary to avoid escalation to the high end in the first place. The versatility of maritime forces provides a truly unmatched advantage. The sea remains a vast space that provides nearly unlimited freedom of maneuver. Command of the sea allows for the presence of our naval forces, supported from a network of shore facilities, to be adjusted and scaled with little external restraint. It permits reliance on proven capabilities such as prepositioned ships. Maritime capabilities encourage and enable cooperation with other nations to solve common sea-based problems such as piracy, illegal trafficking, proliferation of W.M.D., and a host of other ills, which if unchecked can harm our friends and interests abroad, and our own citizenry at home. The flexibility and responsiveness of naval forces provide our country with a general strategic deterrent in a potentially violent and unstable world. Most importantly, our naval forces project and sustain power at sea and ashore at the time, place, duration, and intensity of our choosing.

Naval power protects everythingSmith 12 Rubio Is Right: Naval Power Pivotal to U.S. Foreign PolicyMarion Smith April 25, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/25/rubio-is-right-naval-power-pivotal-to-u-s-foreign-policy/Senator Marco Rubio’s (R–FL) foreign policy speech today at the Brookings Institution included a standout sentence that should be thoughtfully considered: Even in our military engagements, the lasting impact of our influence on the world is hard to ignore. Millions of people have emerged from poverty around the world in part because our Navy protects the freedom of the seas, allowing the ever-increasing flow of goods between nations. From time to time, however, we are reminded of just how quickly that could change—for example, when Somali pirates redouble their sea raids on passing ships; when Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil exports pass; or when China threatens military confrontation over trade routes in the Pacific. While the necessity of naval power to protect U.S. interests has been evident since the Founding, strengthening U.S. naval power today can be neglected only with the direst of consequences. In the current issue of World Affairs, Seth Cropsey and Arthur Milikh offer an incisive and timely account of Alfred Mahan’s seminal work, The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), and its effect on 20th century American strategy. They point out that as a result of America’s commitment to sea power since 1945, the “US navy has created a status quo that we now believe is natural, and we take for granted the origins of this liberal regime on the water.” But the idea of naval power as a necessary element of U.S. foreign policy—fostering greater commercial freedom abroad and prosperity at home—was first espoused by America’s Founding Fathers. Most notably, George Washington, who hoped the blessings of liberty and “the humanizing benefit of commerce would supersede the waste of war and the rage of conquest,” was careful to emphasize the prudence of military preparedness in peacetime. “The disturbed situation of Europe,” he cautioned Congress in 1790, “reminds us…of the circumspection with which it becomes us to preserve these blessings.”Washington’s strategic approach was clear—military preparedness: “it is better to reduce our force hereafter, by degrees, than to have it to increase after some unfortunate disasters.” According to Washington, offensive naval power was vital to American statecraft because it helped ensure stable commerce, which in turn “assures us of a further increase of the national respectability and credit.” These were not hard and immediate security considerations, such as would warrant protection in keeping with a strict non-interventionist approach; they were national aspirations and forward-looking goals furthered by respectable military strength. Washington’s words were heeded, and in 1794, Congress passed the federal government’s largest and most expensive program to date: building the U.S. Navy’s first warships. America’s early emphasis on military strength as a necessary condition for peace and prosperity helped form a strategic culture that embraced the idea of naval power and paved the path for America’s global leadership role in the 20th century.

SEABASING CP – AT: NO CAPABILITY

MILITARY IS ALREADY DEVELOPING SEABASING – EMPIRICALLY WORKS

57

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSDouglas M. King, Colonel USMC, and John C. Berry, ret. Marine officer, 3rd Q 2008, “Seabasing: Expanding Access,” Joint Force Quarterly, http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/seabasing/resources/BSSB/Seabasing%20Article.pdf

The Navy and Marine Corps have been involved in a number of seabasing initiatives, both operational and programmatic, which have expanded into joint endeavors. The creation of Global Fleet Stations (GFS), for example, is an operational initiative designed to increase the capability and capacity for discrete, proactive activities as describe in the Naval Operations Concept 2006: “Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission.”15 To date, GFS experiments have been conducted with our partners in South America and West Africa and have been deemed highly successful.

58

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC PTX – NET BENEFIT

DEFENSE STILL A SACRED COWWilliam Brainigin and Walter Pincus, staff writers for the Washington Post, 1-27-2011, “Defense budget cuts come under fire from lawmakers,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012607768.htmlA day after President Obama pressed Congress for spending reductions in his State of the Union address, House Republicans and Democrats challenged some of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's plans to cut $78 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next five years. At the opening hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, the new Republican chairman, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.), said that while he agrees with Gates "that we must scrutinize defense programs to ensure we are getting the most bang for our buck and concentrating our limited resources on the highest-priority programs . . . I will not support initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less able to fight." Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III told the committee that over the past six months, the services had achieved Gates's goal of saving $100 billion over the next five years by reducing excess spending and ending programs such as the Marines' amphibious landing craft. The savings are to be applied toward each service's operating expenses and spent on weapons deemed necessary. In addition, at the direction of the White House, the services have projected $78 billion more in cuts in overall Pentagon spending in the five years beginning in 2012. McKeon took issue with those reductions, saying the military services are not allowed to reallocate savings derived from shrinking the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

STRONG LOBBIES SUPPORT DEFENSE-SPENDINGUS State News, 9-13-09, “MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, NOT MILITARY SPENDING, MUST BE AT HEART OF NATIONAL SECURITY, SPEAKERS TELL DPI/NGO CONFERENCE ROUND TABLE”. Lexis.During the ensuing question-and-answer period, one participant asked if the United States was ready to reduce military spending as a precondition for increased security, peace and development, as called for in Article 26 of the United Nations Charter. Another expressed concern over militarism in Chile, which had experienced its own "9/11" in 1973, when a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet ousted the President. Several non-governmental organization representatives said they were moved by Ms. Anaya's statement, and supported her call for justice for impoverished, disadvantaged people who had fallen into a life of crime and violence. One asked about the process of forgiveness, and its link to global security. Several participants asked how quality education could be achieved in Mexico and elsewhere. In response, Ms. Berrigan said it was in fact possible for the United States to reduce its military budget. In April, there had been some rearranging at the United States Pentagon, which was looking at weapons systems that were no longer relevant to national security and military concerns. A proposal to cut military expenditures by 25 per cent had been made, but there was disagreement over where to cut spending. Cutting spending required political will and not bowing to pressure from the strong lobby in Washington, D.C., of weapons manufacturers. The United States and other countries had much to learn from countries like Costa Rica that did not have a military budget, but had achieved national security.

EFFICIENCY IS KEY – BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IF THE COUNTERPLAN OFFSETS INEFFICIENT PROGRAMSPost-Standard Syracuse, 5-24-09, “GILLIBRAND ADDS CNY BACKERS TO STOP PRIMARY FIGHT”. Lexis.President Barack Obama's invite list to the White House took on a decidedly Central New York appearance this past week. The president invited Maffei to join him at bill signing ceremonies twice during the week, while also extending a hand across the aisle to host Rep. John McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor. McHugh was part of a more intimate group of only five members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees who joined Obama on Friday morning at the White House Rose Garden. McHugh could be seen on national television broadcasts, standing in a prominent spot behind Obama's right shoulder as the president signed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. The legislation, which passed Congress with broad bipartisan support, is aimed at cutting wasteful and inefficient spending on defense projects. McHugh, as the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, played a crucial role in passing the bill.

2NC AT: ASYMMETRIC THREATS

59

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSEABASING IS IMPERVIOUS TO UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND US SEA POWER WOULD DOMINATE CONVENTIONAL CHALLENGES ANYWAYColonel Christopher Mayette, United States Marine Corps, 3-26-09, “SEABASING: A STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?”, Strategy Research Project. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA500880Inherent in the mobility of the sea base is an increased level of force protection against many of the common lower end threats. While the “political and security climate in some locations proposed for the U.S. forward bases could require a disproportionate amount of manpower be dedicated to local security requirements,” the sea base derives much of its security from its physical location. 21 Most irregular warfare or unconventional adversaries would need to strike at forces while they were operating ashore. The sea base itself is secure from random small arms fires, mortar fire, car bombs and attacks of that nature. In order to strike at a sea base over the horizon, adversaries would require sophisticated intelligence and surveillance assets as well as sophisticated strike capabilities such as missiles, mines, submarines or a fleet capable of challenging U.S. naval superiority. These sophisticated capabilities do pose a significant threat to the sea base. Nevertheless, these more conventional threats occur in areas where the U.S. can draw on a sizeable naval and technological advantage compared to most adversaries.

KEY TO CHECK TERRORISTS AND ASYMMETRIC THREATSKate Brannen, Associate Editor @ Inside the Army, 1-11-10, “Army: Seabasing A Critical Capability”. http://www.thegnomesociety.com/2010/01/army-seabasing-critical-capability.htmlAccording to McMaster, the renewed focus on seabasing is linked to the changing threat landscape. ³We now have to worry about industrialized nations, but we have to really worry about the least industrialized nations because our enemies, especially transnational terrorist organizations, they use safe havens as support bases and they typically [are] in lawless areas -- underdeveloped areas in terms of governance and also in terms of infrastructure,² he said. ³So for us to be able to go into those areas, we need different kinds of capabilities.² The increasing rate at which enemies can acquire advanced technologies makes developing a seabasing capability a more urgent need, said McMaster. Recent conflicts highlight the types of capabilities that may soon be developed by potential adversaries, he added. ³There have been some snapshots or harbingers of the future -- in the 2006 Lebanon conflict in connection with dispersed forces using complex terrain to launch rocket attacks into Israel,² he said. ³But what if those rockets were long-range ballistic missiles with a greater degree of accuracy? Well, what that would mean is as we establish staging bases and logistical bases and so forth that those would be vulnerable, maybe, to long-range enemy capabilities.² ³Again, 2006 is an example of this, where you had a non-state actor with a pretty advanced capability of shore-to-ship missiles,² he said.

60

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC AT: NO CAPABILITIES

MILITARY IS ALREADY DEVELOPING SEABASING – EMPIRICALLY WORKSDouglas M. King, Colonel USMC, and John C. Berry, ret. Marine officer, 3rd Q 2008, “Seabasing: Expanding Access,” Joint Force Quarterly, http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/seabasing/resources/BSSB/Seabasing%20Article.pdfThe Navy and Marine Corps have been involved in a number of seabasing initiatives, both operational and programmatic, which have expanded into joint endeavors. The creation of Global Fleet Stations (GFS), for example, is an operational initiative designed to increase the capability and capacity for discrete, proactive activities as describe in the Naval Operations Concept 2006: “Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission.”15 To date, GFS experiments have been conducted with our partners in South America and West Africa and have been deemed highly successful.

DEPLOYABLE IN LESS THAN TEN YEARSIndian Express, 5-4-2009, “All at sea,” http://www.indianexpress.com/news/all-at-sea/454035/1Basing troops and equipment on foreign soil is fraught with difficulty. Even friendly countries can cut up rough at crucial moments, as America found when Turkey restricted the use of its territory and airspace during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In an occupied country the situation is worse, as a base is a magnet for attacks. Nor can you always put your base where you need it. If a country does not want to host it, and cannot be bribed to, that-short of invasion-is that. But no one owns the high seas, and partisans rarely have access to serious naval power. So America, still the world's only superpower and thus the one with most need for foreign bases, is investigating the idea of building military bases on the ocean. They would, in effect, be composed of parts that can be rearranged like giant Lego bricks. The armed forces could assemble them when needed, add to them, subtract from them and eventually dismantle them when they are no longer required-and all without leaving a trace. Constructing such bases is a formidable technological challenge. Not only do you have to provide quarters for servicemen, but you also have to handle, store and retrieve large amounts of supplies and weapons without access to dockside cranes. Shuffling the containers carrying these, so that those needed immediately are accessible, is akin to solving a moving-block puzzle where the blocks weigh many tonnes each. But America seems committed to the idea, and the first seabases should be deployable within a decade.

THE US IS DEVELOPING SEABASING AND IT WILL BE LONGTERMGeneral Michael W Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, 3/10/2004, FDCH TestimonyIn the near-term, the Marine Corps' top priorities are to maintain our high state of readiness and to provide capable forces that meet the demanding needs of the Unified Combatant Commanders in order to prosecute the Global War On Terrorism in support of the Nation. For the long-term, the Marine Corps and Navy are committed to developing a Seabasing capability that will provide a critical joint competency for assuring access and projecting power that will greatly improve the security of the United States. The marked increase in our warfighting capability will be apparent as we introduce new systems such as the MV-22 Osprey, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the Lightweight 155mm howitzer into our force structure, using them to enhance the already potent combat power of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces as integral elements of our Nation's joint force.

SEABASING WILL BE AVAILABLE IN 2015States News Service, November 11/4, 2004A recently completed joint co-sponsored experiment explored joint seabasing capabilities that will be available in the 2015 timeframe. Sea Viking 04 (SV04), a two-week U .S. Joint Forces Command and Marine Corps co-sponsored experiment, which ended on Oct. 29, examined how to best project joint force power ashore relying heavily on a joint seabase, according to Navy Cmdr. Mike Taylor, a USJFCOM joint context wargame planner. "Seabasing offers a lot of flexibility that you don't have with fixed bases ashore," said Taylor who explained that the roughly 200 Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and coalition service experiment participants brought their seabasing concepts and objectives to the simulated future experimentation scenario. Some experiment objectives included: refining joint forcible entry concepts and joint force projection and sustainment concepts better understanding the distributed collaborative information environment. According to a Pentagon joint forcible entry study, the definition for joint forcible entry is "a designated area in a hostile or potentially hostile territory that, when seized and held, makes the continuous landing of troops and materiel possible and provides maneuver space for subsequent operations." Both a common operational picture and a collaborative information environment compose the backbone for successful seabasing including deployment and sustainment, said Taylor. Coordinating logistics for a hundred ships, thousands of airplanes, and many more service members is complicated and experiment participants, including participants from Australia and the United Kingdom came together at the USJFCOM Joint Experimentation (J9) facility and used data-sharing technology within a collaborative information environment, such as a shared point portal service to distribute pertinent information. Service members from Sweden, Canada, Germany, and France also observed with the experiment. "Everyone wants to know where's the fuel, where's the beans, and where's the bullets," said Taylor in reference to the importance of updating logistics information in a collaborative joint/coalition environment. Many ideas for the experiment came from lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, Taylor noted. During the experiment, analysts were able to see when players were speaking with military and non-military entities, allowing for a more complex analysis of seabasing processes that needed to be refined, according to Taylor. "It's better to see where we need work during experimentation rather than in real-world operations," said Taylor. "Next year, we are taking what we learn in Sea Viking - about seabasing command and control and employ it in Unified Course 05 (UC 05)," the USJFCOM/Navy co-sponsored wargame, said Taylor.

61

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC AT: VULNERABLE

SEA BASING SOLVES VULNERABILITY Lord – Carnes, Editor for the Naval War College – 2006 – Reposturing the Force”, Naval War College Newport Papers, http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdf “ Finally, there is the alternative—if indeed it is one—of “sea basing.” Sea basing as a doctrinal term of art has gained currency over the last several years as one of the three “pillars” of the U.S. Navy’s vision document “Seapower 21.” As suggested earlier, the idea of sea basing is not altogether new; it has its roots in the amphibious warfare doctrine of the Marine Corps and in the Navy’s feats of power projection and sea-based logistics support across the Pacific in World War II. Much remains unclear about the current sea-basing concept, particularly its overall scope and its implications for the Composite Default screen design and procurement of future naval platforms. What is clearly new about it, however, is the (implicit or explicit) claim that it will radically increase the ability of U.S. naval and joint forces to operate, and to project power to considerable distances ashore, independently of land bases in friendly countries. Robert Work provides a detailed analysis of sea basing as currently understood, both in a broad strategic context and with reference to the evolution of recent thinking within the Navy and Marine Corps on this subject. While supportive in general of the rediscovery of the sea-basing concept, Work is critical of some of the arguments that have been used in its behalf—for example, the virtually axiomatic claim that a sea base would be less vulnerable than land bases to a competently armed adversary. He is also critical of many of the features of the emerging sea-basing construct, with its emphasis on rapidity of deployment and support of major combat operations, and he cautions about potential costs. According to Work, the utility of sea basing in smaller-scale, irregular conflict scenarios, especially those associated with counterterrorist missions, has been unduly neglected. Work provides a vision for a “sea-based power projection fleet” designed to contribute to both major combat operations and global irregular war, and he sketches a comprehensive, fiscally constrained architecture for such a fleet. In doing so, he breaks much new ground and opens a wide-ranging, long-overdue debate on these issues.

2NC AT: ALLIED COOPERATION

SEABASING ALLOWS US TO FLEXIBLY COOPERATE WITH ALLIES

Work – Robert, United States Under Security of Navy, distinguished graduate of the Naval Reserve Officers Training Course at the University of Illinois – 2006 – “Reposturing the Force” Naval War College Newsport Papers - http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdfIt would thus be most accurate to say that “sea basing” is an idea whose time has come¶ again. With deference to Admiral Clark, it hardly seems likely that the future Navy will¶ support joint combat power from the sea “to a greater extent” than it did during World¶ War II or Korea. However, it is certainly true that it will need to be able to project and¶ sustain joint combat power from the sea to a far greater degree than was necessary in¶ the Cold War. Therefore, the former CNO was exactly right to conclude that thinking¶ about sea basing and how it should shape the future Navy should be the first priority¶ for DoN strategists, planners, and fleet platform architects.¶ As a starting point, the Navy should resurrect the idea of a Sea-Based Power-Projection¶ Fleet with three distinct components: a Sea-Based Strike Fleet, consisting of aviation¶ power-projection platforms and VLS-equipped surface combatants and submarines; a¶ sea-based expeditionary maneuver fleet, designed to exploit the sea as a broad maneuver¶ space and to mount combined-arms attacks from the sea; and a mobile Logistics Sea¶ Base, including both combat and mobile logistics forces. While each of these three components plays a critical role in the Sea-Based Power-Projection Fleet, the remainder of¶ this chapter will focus on the future requirements for sea-based expeditionary maneuver.¶ Said another way, it will concentrate on the steps needed to transform today’s Sea-Based¶ Transport Fleet into a flexible and effective Sea-Based Expeditionary Maneuver Fleet.

62

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC AT: ECON KEY TO HEG

THE ECONOMY DOES NOT DETERMINE HEGEMONY – PREFER MILITARY INDICATORS

Dr. Robert Farley – U Kentucky Diplomacy and International Commerce assistant professor – 3/7/12, Over the Horizon: The Future of American Hegemony, WPR, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11696/over-the-horizon-the-future-of-american-hegemonyHow might we know that the American Century has actually ended? Shifts in hegemony rarely come with a herald; even when the U.S. was at its most dominant in 1945, the shape of the future was hardly clear. Indeed, the United States surpassed the United Kingdom in economic power -- and in latent military power -- around the turn of the 20th century, yet no one claims that the American Century began in 1900, or that British hegemony ended when the GDP numbers turned south. Indeed, while the United States surely played a pre-eminent role in global politics after 1945, the existence of the Soviet Union put a wide swath of the globe off limits to direct U.S. influence. In military terms, we are still many years from a replay of the kind of global military and ideological competition that characterized the Cold War, even if we accept worst-case assumptions about China’s growth and belligerence. ¶ The rise of China and India seems inevitable, and it is quite likely that both will exceed the total GDP of the United States before the end of the 21st century. However, the rise of Japan and Europe relative to the U.S. seemed inevitable 25 years ago . Moreover, while the rise of China and India might introduce uncertainty, economic power does not translate automatically into military and political influence. Recall again that the United States possessed the world’s largest economy for some 40 years before “its” century is supposed to have begun. The U.S. also benefitted from advantages that neither China nor India currently enjoy, such as a relatively high per capita GDP and a secure geographic position. Even if the United States holds only a plurality of global military and economic power, it still may remain the most influential state in the world. Russia, China, Japan and India will have more to fear from one another than from the United States, allowing the U.S. to play a critical balancing role. Moreover, the United States has weathered the financial crisis better than some, particularly the European Union. And while China and India have maintained robust growth during the past five years, social, economic and political cracks may be emerging.

2NC AT: POWER PROJECTION NOT KEY

POWER PROJECTION KEY TO HEG – NEW THREAT LANDSCAPE JUST MAKES THIS MORE TRUEKate Brannen, Associate Editor @ Inside the Army, 1-11-10, “Army: Seabasing A Critical Capability”. http://www.thegnomesociety.com/2010/01/army-seabasing-critical-capability.htmlTo counter this, joint forces will have to work in close cooperation, said McMaster, adding, ³we see an increasing role for joint land forces -- Marine Corps and Army -- to help maintain or preserve freedom of movement and action in those domains.² ³And the Army¹s role in doing that would be to counter the enemy¹s ability to place their capabilities outside of our surveillance and precision strike capabilities and weapon systems,² he said. ³It¹s really a land force that could conduct effective reconnaissance in close terrain and difficult terrain, initially oriented on confirming or denying the presence of the enemy and then transitioning to offensive operations and employing joint capabilities to destroy that enemy force and then go to what we call an area security operation to deny the enemy the ability to use that terrain so we can maintain our own freedom of movement and access in the aerospace and maritime domains.² TRADOC is working with the other services on these concepts. There is a joint capabilities document under development, he said, and a joint capabilities-based assessment under way. The services are working to refine these concepts to ensure ³as we do this capabilities-based assessment, it rests on the strongest conceptual foundation that it can.² McMaster stressed the importance of this expeditionary capability to the Army¹s future. ³It¹s critical to our national security to have the capability to deploy rapidly into these least industrialized, austere environments that don¹t have a lot of mature infrastructure and to deploy a force that can immediately operate effectively with adequate mobility and combined arms capability -- combination of fires, maneuver, all the things you need to be an effective combat force,² said McMaster.

63

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

1NC F-35 CPCP: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS INVESTMENT IN THE F-35 LIGHTNING II CAPABILITY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AIMED AT ENSURING ADEQUATE UNITED STATES FORWARD DEPLOYMENT AND POWER PROJECTION CAPABILITIES. F-35S ARE KEY TO FORCE POSTURE IN THE PACIFIC

Clark, September 17, 2013 [Colin Clark, Breaking Defense, “Gen. Welsh Dismisses Talk of Scrapping Air Force; Pledges to Protect KC-46, F-35A, Long Range Bomber” http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/gen-welch-dismisses-talk-of-scrapping-air-force-pledges-to-protect-kc-46-f-35a-long-range-bomber/]Why is the Air Force so adamant about protecting the F-35 and Long Range Strike bomber? (We assume you know that tankers are a key reason America is a global power and our 50-year-old tankers need replacing)? The head of Air Combat Command, Gen. Mike Hostage, made the point plainly this afternoon at the Air Force Association’s annual conference. If we are to be a global power capable of deterring and defeating possible threats then we need fifth-generation aircraft. The “tiny fleet” of roughly than 185 F-22s isn’t large enough to meet the Clausewitzian need for numbers, Hostage said: “The 1,763 F-35s is not a luxury; it’s a national security imperative.” The bombers are needed because the aging but still highly capable fleet of 20 B-2s is just too small to be effective in the aggressive anti-access/area denial warfare the military predicts is likely. Think lots of highly accurate and relatively long-range surface-to-air missiles, with enormous amounts of electronic jamming and tactical aircraft. The Pentagon currently plans to build 100 of the new bombers, armed with highly sophisticated sensors, electronic jamming gear and boasting built-in stealth that would be much more resilient than that used on the B-2s. It would also allow the United States, several Air Force officers here told me, to boast enough bombers to hold at bay even an enormous country like China since we could penetrate its airspace at multiple points across a wide swath. The most recent budget included at least $400 million for the new bomber.AN INCREASE IN F-35S ARE THE LINCHPIN IN ASIA – WITHOUT F-35S AND FORCE POSTURE, WAR IS INEVITABLE.Laird, 2013 [Robbin Lard, February 01, 2013, Breaking Defense, China, Korea & the F-35: Reshaping US Forces For a Pacific Strategy, http://breakingdefense.com/2013/02/pacific-strategy-china-korea-f-35/]If the US fails to innovate in its re-shaping of its forces in the Pacific, it cannot effectively play the crucial role which is essential to a strategy focused on our allies. Without innovation, the US cannot protect its interests in the Pacific, ranging from the Arctic to Australia, and will lose the significant economic benefits which presence and protection of our interests provide. The protection of the US and its allies is valuable in and of itself. But it is inextricably intertwined with the economic viability of the United States in the Pacific and beyond. As the Commandant of the USMC, Gen. James Amos, has underscored: “From our allies’ perspective, virtual presence is actual absence.” In particular, as Gen. Charles Jacoby of NORTHCOM adds: “Our presence in the Arctic is crucial to shape our future in the region. Without security and defense, there is little probability of effective commercial development or ability to protect the environment.” Persistent Presence Presence is the bedrock of Pacific operations. Given the immensity of the Pacific, presence is also a challenge. Keeping assets back in the United States may have made sense in preparing for World War III, but it makes little sense in the realities of the evolving Pacific strategic environment. Presence following a 20th century model is impossible. The US does not have enough assets to provide for the extensive coverage which the Pacific requires: The numbers of ships and planes alone has gone down dramatically over the past 15 years. The challenge of persistent presence was well articulated by Lt. General Terry Robling, the highest ranking Marine in the Pacific, in an earlier interview with us: “Distance means that I need to have assets forward deployed and operational. This means, for the USMC, an ability to train with partners and allies in what you have called the strategic quadrangle. This means an ability to have enough capable amphibious ships forward deployed to operate with those partners and allies. “Seabasing is a key element of providing persistent presence. “And amphibious ships are really part of a whole sea-basing capability and engagement capability. The amphibious requirement in the Pacific goes well beyond our support to South Korea. It is a key element in building partnership capacity and overcoming presence gaps and needs. This is why we need more platforms and more capable platforms of the sort we are building now. “Many of our partners in the region do not want us to be the Uncle that visited and never returned home. They want us engaged and present but not permanently based in their countries. This means that seabasing and its augmentation is a fundamental requirement. “When we add strategic lift aircraft, high-speed vessels, or super ferries to the ARG-MEU [Amphibious Ready Group / Marine Expeditionary Unit] lift equation, we extend our strategic reach and significantly enhance our ability to enhance partnership capacity.” Dealing with China At the same time, the growing importance of the Arctic and the rising power of China have changed the strategic meaning of presence. In the far north, Washington’s inability to commit resources to Artic presence guarantees that others will benefit from the Arctic at our expense Across the region, the Chinese are pushing out from their mainland to engage in the Pacific and to influence the key players in the region. Constraining Chinese engagement in the Pacific is a key task facing the US and its allies. In fact, the Chinese military strategy in the Pacific is similar to the Chinese game of Go, in which players’ pieces do not clash directly, as in Western chess, but compete for position to control strategic territory. To have the upper hand with the Chinese in 21st century strategic engagement, what is crucial is a new kind of presence, linked with highly interoperable, Lego-like blocks able to work with allies, which allow for scalable forces with reachback to US capabilities in the littoral and the homeland. Strategic Directions The bottom line: The US force needs to be highly connected and interoperable with its allies. We are not there, not yet, but we can leverage new systems coming on line to increase dramatically our capability to get there. One should measure force development by the strategic goals one wants to reach, not simply in terms of maintaining old systems, which reflected historic strategies and engagements. Some describe the central threat against which the US must configure its forces as something called A2D2: Anti-Access, Anti-Denial. But the challenger needs to be named: It’s China. We do not need a generic strategy, strategy in a vacuum. We need a strategy to prevail against what the Chinese are doing and likely to do. And the we need to be much clearer about the threat: it is about missiles, their evolution, and the need to combine defense with offense in dealing with these evolving missile threats. The strategy also needs to address nuclear deterrence. The North Koreans

64

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSand the Chinese are clearly relying more rather than less on nuclear deterrence to pressure Asians and Americans simultaneously. Many Americans want to pretend that nukes are off the board as a strategic asset, but we have entered what Paul Bracken has called “the second nuclear age.” The Defense of South Korea To illustrate what we could do to shape an effective strategy, I am going to look at two “cases”: reworking South Korean defense and leveraging the F-35 global fleet as a strategic asset. We are in the throes of change in our relationships with our South Korean ally and the North Korean threat as well. By 2015, we are scheduled to alter the command relationships in South Korea to put the South Koreans in a greater position to command their own forces and to shape the allied capability to deal with the North Korean threat. From the US side, this means that there is a strategic opportunity as well to re-shape South Korean and American forces to contribute more to regional defense and to redesign forces which are currently designed more for static Sitzkreig than for dynamic defense. The Japanese have captured the right concept: allies need to enhance their dynamic defense. And for the US, such developments provide the opportunity to link to the type of forces Gen. Robling discussed earlier. In an exclusive interview with us, the Commander of the 7th US Air Force, Lt. General Jan-Marc Jouas, underscored the nature of the challenge and the possibilities for transition. “We need to be able to attack in depth. We also need to be able to attack at the forward edge of the battle space. We need to be operating against targets that will create not just tactical effects, but operational and strategic. We need to be operating cross domain, and by that I mean kinetic and non-kinetic effects, one reinforcing the other. “One of our greatest advantages is our air operation center that will oversee the entire air campaign, and where I will be situated as the air component commander. “And any deployment of F-35s to the Korean peninsula will clearly modify the template, including the Marine Corps F-35B. “The Seventh Air Force relationship with the Marine Corps is the best I’ve ever seen. Their aircraft will be dedicated to the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) at some point, but before then, they will be used as part of our air campaign to the greatest effect that we can deliver. “The F-35A, B, and C will give us greater flexibility, and greater options in terms of where and how we can operate.This leads then to the potential strategic impact of joint deployments and developments of the F-35 throughout the region. The F-35 is a C2 (command-and-control) and IW (Information Warfare) aircraft. But it is when the US deploys the F-35 in numbers that we will see the strategic impact of a tactical aircraft. The discussion of the shift from 4th to 5th generation aircraft has often missed the point of what the impact of deploying a significant number of F-35s in a region as central as the Pacific could have on the U.S. and its allies. The F-35 can play the role of a linchpin in a 21st century Pacific strategy which is centered on and enabled by our allies. Indeed, the F-35 as a lynchpin to interactive allied and American capabilities intersect nicely with the overall strategy whereby the United States is the key lynchpin power in the allied coalitions of the Pacific. The concepts of operations underlying a new approach to providing lynchpin capabilities are built around the F-35. Presence, scalability, and reachback are solid foundations for the kind of deterrence necessary in the evolving strategic environment in the Pacific. The F-35 as an Allied and American fleet brings several key and core capabilities to shaping a new attack/defense enterprise, one which allows the US to play a key lynchpin role and yet, at the same time puts allies in the lead to defend themselves and their own interests. A global fleet of F-35s in the Pacific provides several significant contributions to shaping a 21st century strategy: a networked fleet, significant interoperability, multiple and diversified basing, enabling a wolfpack operational approach to leverage best value out of deployed assets, and a globally sustained fleet. I have developed these concepts elsewhere, but will focus here simply on one key element: a globally sustained fleet. The entire approach of the F-35 enables the sustainment of the fleet in radically different ways from the past. And it is coming at a time when economic pressures create such a need; but if new approaches are not taken money will be invested in maintaining less effective forces. The F-35 global sustainment approach allows for a more effective and dynamic force at less cost than operating a legacy fleet. At the heart of the new model is an inherent capability to leverage logistics hubs throughout the Pacific to create a seamless system to sustain both allied and American planes. Presence from this perspective has a whole different meaning. Hub sustainment means that the US can surge aircraft to the region and have them be supported during surge operations without having to haul its sustainment assets forward with the surged aircraft, which is the requirement currently. Building a training and sustainment infrastructure in the Pacific — with hubs and ranges in Canada and Australia, and hubs in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam — provides an opportunity to re-shape how sustainment can be done in around the world. This will bring with it a significant boost to sortie rates and hence operational capabilities. Conclusion: We Must All Hang Together, Or… The shaping of an effective Pacific strategy provides an opening and opportunity for the United States and its allies. If the US and its allies can find ways to shape congruent capabilities and approaches, we can meet the central challenge in the region: the expansion of China into the broader Pacific. If we don’t, we will have ignored Ben Franklin’s warning at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” There is clearly no guarantee that we will be effective or smart. And even if we are on the cusp of deploying new systems, there are significant obstacles to understanding what we really could do with them. The rush to the past is often more powerful than the drive to embrace change or to understand the challenge of innovation for a new century.

65

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSF-35 EXTENSIONS

THREAT OF U.S. CHINA WAR REAL—TALKS PROVE Chang, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987, 13[Gordon, 5/30/13, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chang-chinese-navy-20130530,0,7560801.story, 7.5.13, ARH]Since then, we have been hearing bold war talk in the Chinese capital, from new leader Xi Jinping to senior officers and colonels who say they relish combat — a "hand-to-hand fight with the U.S.," as one of them put it in 2010. Why do China's officers want to go to war? There is an unfortunate confluence of factors. First, there is a new Chinese confidence bordering on arrogance. Beijing leaders, especially since 2008, have been riding high. They saw economic turmoil around the world and thought the century was theirs to dominate. The U.S. and the rest of the West, they believed, were in terminal decline. The Chinese military also has gained substantial influence in the last year, perhaps becoming the most powerful faction in the Communist Party. Beginning as early as 2003, senior officers of the People's Liberation Army were drawn into civilian power struggles as Hu Jintao, then the new leader, sought their support in his effort to shove aside Jiang Zemin, his wily predecessor who sought to linger in the limelight. Last year, the civilian infighting intensified as the so-called Fifth Generation leadership, under the command of Xi, took over from Hu's Fourth. Like a decade ago, feuding civilians sought the support of the generals and admirals, making them arbiters in the party's increasingly rough game of politics. The result of discord among civilian leaders has been a partial remilitarization of politics and policy. Senior officers are now acting independently of civilian officials, are openly criticizing them and are making pronouncements in areas once considered the exclusive province of diplomats. The remilitarization has had consequences. As Huang Jing of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy said: "China's military spending is growing so fast that it has overtaken strategy. The young officers are taking control of strategy, and it is like young officers in Japan in the 1930s. They are thinking what they can do, not what they should do." What do China's admirals want? They are supporting their nation's territorial ambitions to close off the South China Sea to others. This brings them into conflict with nations surrounding that critical body of water and pits them against the U.S. If there has been any consistent U.S. foreign policy over the course of two centuries, it has been the defense of freedom of navigation. According to a white paper it issued in April, China is building a navy capable of operating in the ocean's deep water, and has 235,000 officers and sailors. Its navy last year commissioned its first aircraft carrier, and it is reportedly building two more. China has about a dozen fewer submarines than the U.S., but the U.S. has global responsibilities. The Chinese, therefore, can concentrate their boats in waters close to their shores, giving them tactical and operating advantages. While the Chinese plan to dominate their waters and eventually ours, we are helping them increase their effectiveness with invitations to RIMPAC and other exercises and by including them in joint operations like the one directed against Somali piracy. The U.S. Navy at the same time is continuing to reduce its fleet, currently at 283 deployable ships. As Beijing's behavior has become more troubling, the Pentagon has clung to the hope that military-to-military relations will somehow relieve tensions with the Chinese.

AND U.S. CHINA WAR WOULD ESCALATE AND GO NUCLEAR. Riqiang, Associate Professor at School of International Studies, 13 [WU, “Issues in Sino-US Nuclear Relations: Survivability, Coercion and Escalation” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/issues-in-sino-us-nuclear-relations-survivability-coercion-and-escalation/issues-in-sino-us-nuclear-relations-survivability-coercion-and-escalation Date accessed: 7/5/13] KG Christensen’s article claims that, after twenty years of military modernisation, China now has a genuine nuclear second strike capability, and the influence that this has on Sino-US security relations depends upon which of the two theories above most closely describes China’s nuclear strategy. Christensen believes that China’s nuclear strategy is most accurately described by the theories of Schelling and Jervis and that, as a consequence, it is vulnerable to dangerous escalation. In this article, the author demonstrates a very high level of fluency in Western deterrence theory and is able to accurately summarise this body of work, and uses tools that were developed to analyse US-Soviet relations in the Cold War to address contemporary Sino-US relations, and believes that because of China’s unique security environment the current Sino-US relationship is more vulnerable to dangerous escalation than that of the old US-Soviet relationship . The two articles both raise the issues of conflict escalation and crisis management, and this is indeed a very important issue in the contemporary Sino-US relationship. Because of the Taiwan issue and the East and South China Seas problems the two countries could be drawn into a conflict. A conventional conflict between these two countries could, because of the two countries’ force structure and strategic and tactical proclivities, escalate to nuclear war. To be specific, there are three factors that could cause crisis escalation. First, by integrating superiority in nuclear, conventional and missile defense domain, the United States might achieve disarming capability against China, and translate this position into coercive power. Kissinger said, in 1971, that “we have no disarming capability against the USSR but we do have some against China. … As long as we have a disarming capability we can use it to regulate their actions in local situations”. 10 In 2006 two American authors wrote an article in which they suggested that the United States had a first strike advantage over China. This article is based on an unreasonable assumption that the United States has perfect intelligence capability, and so their conclusion is fatally flawed. China’s main objective in the modernisation of its nuclear weapons is to enhance their survivability, and, in recent years, the survivability of China’s nuclear weapons has indeed shown great improvement. We can be reasonably confident that in the current force structure between

66

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSthe United States and China, the United States cannot have confidence of destroying all China’s nuclear weapons in a first strike, but how the balance between the United States and China will develop in the future is unknown. This is especially so given the United States’ ongoing and rapid development of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), and their refusal to accept any restrictions on this process. When this process is complete and the United States is able to field large-scale and highly effective BMD systems, then the United States will have a genuine first strike capability against China, and then the United States will be able to use nuclear weapons to coerce China.

2NC SOLVENCY/AVOIDS POLITICS

CP solves air-based deterrence bestEaglen and Szaszdi 9 (Mackenzie, Research Fellow for National Security Studies @ Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, and Lajos, PhD and Researcher in the Center for Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation, “The Growing Air Power Fighter Gap: Implications for U.S. National Security,” July 7th, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/07/The-Growing-Air-Power-Fighter-Gap-Implications-for-US-National-Security, EMM)No foreign nation or new advanced fighter platform poses an immediate threat to America's air power . Rather, President Barack Obama's fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget request is jeopardizing U.S. dominance in the air. The request continues the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program but would end production of the F-22A Raptor at 187 fighters and retire 250 of the oldest fighters.[4] This would not produce sufficient new fighters to replace the legacy planes as they retire from service. Inadequate funding to replace the legacy fighter fleets, which have worn out faster than anticipated and are nearing the end of their service lives, constitutes the greatest dilemma for the services. Also problematic is the potential lack of funding for research and development for future upgrades of the latest U.S. fighters or for initial development of a sixth-generation fighter.

CP is key to sustain airpower by solving the fighter gap – it also avoids the link to politicsEaglen and Szaszdi 9 (Mackenzie, Research Fellow for National Security Studies @ Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, and Lajos, PhD and Researcher in the Center for Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation, “The Growing Air Power Fighter Gap: Implications for U.S. National Security,” July 7th, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/07/The-Growing-Air-Power-Fighter-Gap-Implications-for-US-National-Security, EMM)Members of Congress and Department of Defense (DOD) officials have warned for years of an impending "fighter gap" and its implications for U.S. national security. A fighter gap is essentially a deficit between the services' fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements based on emerging and possible air threats to U.S. security. In April 2008, Lieutenant General Daniel Darnell testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Air Force could have a requirement gap of over 800 fighters by 2024.[5] However, after release of the President's FY 2010 budget, Air Force leaders announced a combat Air Force restructuring plan to "eliminate excessive overmatch in our tactical fighter force and consider alternatives in our capabilities."[6] Instead of seeking to address the projected fighter gap, the Air Force plans to accelerate the retirement of 250 legacy fighters , including 112 F-15s and 134 F-16s. The Air Force believes it can save $3.5 billion over the next five years and reinvest those funds to reduce current capability gaps . However, budgetary restrictions -- not a changing threat environment -- appear to be driving this fundamental shift in security policy. During the same hearing, Rear Admiral Allen Myers projected a "most-optimistic" deficit of 125 strike fighters for the Department of the Navy, including 69 aircraft for the U.S. Navy and 56 for the Marine Corps.[7] This projected gap, set to peak around 2017, was considered optimistic because it assumed that the service life of F/A-18 Hornets could be extended from 8,000 flight hours to 10,000. The original service life was 6,000 flight hours. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report in April 2009 unveiled a potentially larger gap, citing a briefing to House Armed Services Committee staffers in which the Navy projected that its strike fighter shortfall could grow to 50 aircraft by FY 2010 and 243 by 2018 (129 Navy and 114 Marine Corps fighters).[8] However, in a move that emphasized lingering disagreement among the White House, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and Congress, a senior Pentagon planner reportedly claimed on April 7, 2009, during a private briefing with lawmakers that the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation had concluded there was no Navy strike fighter shortfall.[9] The data on available fighters did not change between April 2008 and April 2009, but the Pentagon is now dangerously altering its policy as if it had. This move reflects Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates's desire to "reform" and "balance" Pentagon priorities by accepting more risk in the conventional military sphere. Although the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review may scale back Air Force and Navy strike fighter requirements, both services will experience significant shortfalls for the coming decade under the current procurement program. With General Darnell and Admiral Myers publicly affirming the same troubling data identified by the CRS, Congress should act to mitigate and correct the fighter gap that is already upon the American military. While both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress have expressed concern about projected gaps in strike fighter inventory, the Obama Administration has thus far deemphasized its relevance by insisting that a smaller, more capable force with "limited resources" can remain effective and continue to meet services' requirements.[10]

67

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***SOFT POWER***1NC FOREIGN AID CP

CP: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS INVESTMENT IN COORDINATED FOREIGN AID AND DIPLOMACY INITIATIVES, AS PER THE NYE AND CACI EVIDENCE. WE’LL CLARIFY.CP SOLVES – IT’S KEY TO REVITALIZE SOFT POWER – FAILURE TO DO THE CP MEANS SOFT POWER DECLINE IS INEVITABLE

Nye 11 [Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard, invented the term “soft power,” Harvard Ph.D. PoliSci, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Chairman of National Intelligence Council. 4/12/11: “The War on Soft Power,” accessed 6/26/14 at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/12/the_war_on_soft_power] //JGLast week, U.S. President Barack Obama and Congress struggled until the 11th hour to agree on budget cuts that would avert a government shutdown. The United States' budget deficit is a serious problem, and there have been serious proposals to deal with it, such as those by the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission. But last week's efforts were not a serious solution. They were focused solely on the 12 percent of the budget that is non-military discretionary expenditure, rather than the big-ticket items of entitlements, military expenditure, and tax changes that increase revenue. Yet while last week's cuts failed to do much about the deficit, they could do serious damage to U.S. foreign policy. On Tuesday, the axe fell: The State Department and foreign operations budget was slashed by $8.5 billion -- a pittance when compared to military spending, but one that could put a serious dent in the United States' ability to positively influence events abroad.The sad irony is that the Obama administration had been moving things in the right direction. When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she spoke of the importance of a "smart power" strategy, combining the United States' hard and soft-power resources. Her Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, and her efforts (along with USAID chief Rajiv Shah) to revamp the United States' aid bureaucracy and budget were important steps in that direction. Now, in the name of an illusory contribution to deficit reduction (when you're talking about deficits in the trillions, $38 billion in savings is a drop in the bucket), those efforts have been set back. Polls consistently show a popular misconception that aid is a significant part of the U.S. federal budget, when in fact it amounts to less than 1 percent. Thus, congressional cuts to aid in the name of deficit reduction are an easy vote, but a cheap shot.In 2007, Richard Armitage and I co-chaired a bipartisan Smart Power Commission of members of Congress, former ambassadors, retired military officers, and heads of non-profit organizations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. We concluded that America's image and influence had declined in recent years and that the United States had to move from exporting fear to inspiring optimism and hope.The Smart Power Commission was not alone in this conclusion. Even when he was in the George W. Bush administration, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Congress to commit more money and effort to soft-power tools including diplomacy, economic assistance, and communications because the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world. He pointed out that military spending then totaled nearly half a trillion dollars annually, compared with a State Department budget of just $36 billion. In his words, "I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better integrating it with hard power." He acknowledged that for the secretary of defense to plead for more resources for the State Department was as odd as a man biting a dog, but these are not normal times. Since then, the ratio of the budgets has become even more unbalanced.This is not to belittle the Pentagon, where I once served as an assistant secretary. Military force is obviously a source of hard power, but the same resource can sometimes contribute to soft-power behavior. A well-run military can be a source of prestige, and military-to-military cooperation and training programs, for example, can establish transnational networks that enhance a country's soft power. The U.S. military's impressive performance in providing humanitarian relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami and the South Asian earthquake in 2005 helped restore the attractiveness of the United States; the military's role in the aftermath of the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami is having a similar effect.

CP SOLVES – IMPROVES OUTCOMES AND PROMOTES INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION

CACI 9 [defense intelligence contractor, proceedings of a series of 3 symposiums on soft power conducted in 2008-2009 by CACI and the US Naval Institute; “Dealing With Today’s Asymmetric Threat to U.S. and Global Security: Enhancing and Applying Soft Power,” copyright 2009, accessed 6/26/14 at http://asymmetricthreat.net/soft_power/soft_power.shtml] //JGIn the 1990s a new war of ideas emerged, along with a new set of security threats. These threats came from sources with varying capabilities and agendas that could not be easily deterred solely through hard power (military) means. In the meantime, the U.S. had not done enough to communicate and extend the ideals that promote peaceful and stable societies. American influence was in decline worldwide, and international opinion (exacerbated by internally directed media criticism) of the U.S. steadily decreased, even in allied nations.¶ It is now clear that the U.S. must invest significant intellectual and financial capital in programs to reverse these trends. We find ourselves at a "strategic inflection point" where the U.S. must reassess our institutions, processes and resources to defeat violent, extremist threats and to promote freedom, development and social justice around the world.¶ Existing soft power initiatives and agencies, particularly those engaged in development and strategic communications, must be reinvigorated through increased funding, human resources

68

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSand prioritization. Concurrently, the U.S. government must establish goals, objectives and metrics for soft power initiatives.¶ The U.S. government, recognizing this need, has taken steps to address these issues. However, to be most effective, the government's renovation of soft power must be part of a broader-scoped national security model. We must coordinate, integrate and synchronize soft power responsibilities and resources among government agencies; centralize operational authority; and streamline the operational chain of command in providing national direction on diplomacy, development and defense.¶ The next generation of public diplomacy will be engaging in the most important ideological challenge of modern times. To proactively promote abroad the values of democracy, and to revitalize America's international image and prestige, the U.S. government must engage in a variety of soft power initiatives. These initiatives must focus on improving individual welfare and civil society, enhancing the rule of law and order, and developing economic opportunities around the world. These efforts must also be carried out in cooperation with academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international institutions (governmental and non-governmental) and the private sector.¶ There are several key areas in which the U.S. can effectively improve its soft power initiatives.¶ * By providing improved medical care, international health diplomacy can improve international opinion of the U.S., regain trust and moral authority, and even deny terrorists and extremists safe harbor, while engendering some of the best American values. ¶ * A reinvigorated and proactive strategic communications program is needed to better disseminate the democratic and cultural values of liberty and individual freedoms. Organizations with these responsibilities need to be modernized and empowered, and must take advantage of leading technologies to be successful.¶ * By helping other nations establish a robust and dynamic legal framework, initiatives aimed at promoting the rule of law can promote better governance, foster economic development and enable dispute resolution, thereby preserving stability.¶ * U.S. businesses have made an indelible mark around the world, from the global and around-the-clock presence of the American media to the worldwide demand for American brands. Their role in American soft power has been extensive. The federal government should continue to promote an integrated and strong U.S. international commercial presence. ¶ * Furthermore, the U.S. government can better maximize the effectiveness of soft power instruments and efforts through increased partnerships with NGOs. By providing humanitarian and development assistance in areas typically inaccessible to government agencies, NGOs are often able to access potential extremist areas before the government can establish or strengthen diplomatic, developmental or military presence, including intelligence.¶ * The U.S. must work with foreign governments and international institutions to strengthen existing partnerships or build new ones that enhance U.S. capabilities to combat and contain the forces of global extremism, terrorist violence and other similar hostile asymmetric threats.

69

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSXT: FOREIGN AID KEY

FOREIGN AID SOLVES – EMPIRICS PROVE

CACI 9 [defense intelligence contractor, proceedings of a series of 3 symposiums on soft power conducted in 2008-2009 by CACI and the US Naval Institute, footnote 21 cites US Colonel Stephen Gaynard’s comments at the symposium; “Dealing With Today’s Asymmetric Threat to U.S. and Global Security,” copyright 2009, accessed 6/26/14 at http://asymmetricthreat.net/docs/asymmetric_threat_2_paper.pdf] //JGDuring the Cold War, the U.S. Agency for International ¶ Development (USAID) was one of the most powerful ¶ instruments of soft power the U.S. government had at its ¶ disposal . In many places, USAID was and is the most ¶ visible face of the United States.Today, in many areas, U.S. influence through daily ¶ interactions with civil-society leaders, government ¶ officials, members of local legislative bodies, and business ¶

people is far greater than the State Department’s or the ¶ Pentagon’s, whose representatives tend to remain in ¶ capital cities. Importantly, its interaction with the “people” ¶ is without parallel among U.S. agencies. However, ¶ USAID’s effectiveness has been markedly reduced ¶ because of underfunding and understaffing. For much ¶ of its existence, USAID had substantial resources and ¶ autonomy, but in recent decades these have largely been ¶ stripped away. To reestablish the effectiveness of USAID, this agency ¶ must be reinvigorated and its staff and financial resources ¶ significantly enhanced, perhaps by orders of magnitude.21

XT: HEALTHCARE SOLVES

PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMANITARIAN AID KEY – OVERCOMES CULTURAL BARRIERS AND ASYMMETRIC THREATS TO SOFT POWER

CACI 9 [defense intelligence contractor, proceedings of a series of 3 symposiums on soft power conducted in 2008-2009 by CACI and the US Naval Institute; “Dealing With Today’s Asymmetric Threat to U.S. and Global Security,” copyright 2009, accessed 6/26/14 at http://asymmetricthreat.net/docs/asymmetric_threat_2_paper.pdf] //JG4.4.1.1 International Public Health InitiativesThe U.S. government can reap significant soft power benefits by making the improvement of international public health a priority. Not only will this garner considerable soft power influence around the world by helping those that the government deals with abroad,¶ but it will also support national objectives for improved health for all Americans since diseases do not respect international boundaries.40 Furthermore, health diplomacy engenders some of the best qualities that the United ¶ States has to offer and brings health professionals to communities that may be suspicious or even hostile to the United States.Consequently, the U.S. government should place more emphasis on using its expertise in public healthcare to improve conditions of those populations susceptible to the destabilizing effects of Islamic extremism and other asymmetric forces. In addition to social welfare benefits, health diplomacy supports security efforts. For example,¶ in Afghanistan, “[m]edical interventions are an important component of a diplomatic strategy to regain moral authority for U.S. actions, regain the trust of moderate Muslims,¶ and deny terrorists and religious extremists unencumbered access to safe harbor in ungoverned spaces.”41The United States can also continue to broaden its global influence through humanitarian assistance. For example, following the 2004 earthquake in Indonesia and the subsequent tsunami that affected much of southeast Asia, the crew of the U.S. Naval Ship (USNS) Mercy, a naval hospital ship comprised of representatives from the U.S. Navy and across the U.S. government and NGO community, used their diverse skill sets to provide healthcare and humanitarian assistance expeditiously and cost effectively.42 They provided a variety of medical, public health, and environmental services to the indigenous population. As ¶ a result, positive opinion of the United States among the population of Indonesia, the largest Muslim country by population, increased substantially.43 There is a critical challenge for the U.S. to devise methods for proactively deploying assets like the Mercy on a routine basis rather than solely in reaction to disasters.

XT: COMMUNICATIONS SOLVES

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS KEY – OVERCOMES EXTREMISM THROUGH PUBLIC DIALOGUES

CACI 9 [defense intelligence contractor, proceedings of a series of 3 symposiums on soft power conducted in 2008-2009 by CACI and the US Naval Institute; “Dealing With Today’s Asymmetric Threat to U.S. and Global Security,” copyright 2009, accessed 6/26/14 at http://asymmetricthreat.net/docs/asymmetric_threat_2_paper.pdf] //JG4.4.2 Strategic CommunicationsThe American message of freedom and democracy, tolerance and self-determination, and the rule of law, is unassailable, yet it needs an aggressive and proactive strategic communications program implemented and promoted by the U.S. government.The United States’ strategic communications capability must be rebuilt by empowering, reestablishing, or replacing the organizations that have in the past been chartered to communicate America’s message to the world. This renaissance needs to take full advantage of the latest Internet technologies, ranging from streaming media to online gaming and social networking software. The strategic communications program must be reenergized¶ so that America’s foreign broadcasting unapologetically carries a message that embodies democratic and freedom- based cultural values.As a complement to these efforts, the U.S. government must simultaneously reinvigorate its strategic communications with the American people. The United States must find ways to promote the success of its overseas activities (existing and planned) by building strong, broad-based

70

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSsupport at home. Americans need to be better informed about their government’s many and extensive ongoing successes and efforts to support the spread of democracy and provide resources that help millions of people around the world.Attacks on the U.S. government from domestic¶ media and politicians have created an unwarranted misunderstanding and discontent among the American people. For example, America’s educational system and medical advances have been generally well regarded worldwide. American initiatives have saved millions ¶ of lives with immunizations, AIDS programs, maritime safety activities, law enforcement support, and more.47 These sentiments and successes must be widely shared, publicized, and reinforced with the American people.4.4.2.1 Public Architecture as CommunicationPublic architecture, or the use of architectural resources in the public’s interest, is a renewed perspective within soft power. In the 1950s, the State Department supported noted architects as part of a post-war building program. The U.S. embassy in London, for example, was specifically designed to be a high-profile structure with large exhibition and assembly spaces. But the rise of anti- Americanism in the 1960s made security the primary design objective.48 New laws aimed at embassy security require these buildings to be more architecturally secure and set off from the local community. As a consequence, there are significant constraints placed on the opportunities and modes of interaction between foreign nationals and America’s official representatives.Yet, embassies remain “the most visible symbol of America’s official presence abroad.”49 While maintaining security, this “bunker”50 mentality should be discarded and diplomats encouraged to reach outside embassy walls and share ideas within their host nations. The United States must move away from the hard power of the state-centric “Westphalian Agreement” model that dates to 1648, and rather move toward the cooperative and interactive diplomacy exemplified by initiatives like the Peace Corps, and more recent constructs like the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) that have been used successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan.51These teams operate in particular localities in Iraq and Afghanistan and are in regular, direct contact with indigenous peoples.52 In the PRT model, a mixed team of military, State Department, USAID, and other specialists from the U.S. government – e.g., traffic engineers,¶ or civil engineers who know how to make electrical systems work, or people who are working in a specific area on regional problems relating American assistance and engagement – come together in local areas to help influence a neighborhood or county more directly than they could from within a traditional embassy building.53PRTs enable the United States to establish a presence and capacity to assist local peoples in areas outside of military bases and embassies. They allow the United States to expand its footprint in the war of ideas to demonstrate how American efforts and partnership can improve stability and security in otherwise unstable areas. Foreign partners also participate with Americans on PRTs.The new embassy model, therefore, as exemplified by a PRT or another kind of outreach center, may be one of the tools that the United States needs to more effectively apply soft power.54 As part of an overall strategy, this new style of diplomacy may play an integral role in repositioning the United States for success with soft power in the future.

XT: ECON INCENTIVES SOLVES

AID AND TRADE ARE KEY – BUILDS INTERDEPENDENCE AND BOOSTS SOFT POWER

CACI 9 [defense intelligence contractor, proceedings of a series of 3 symposiums on soft power conducted in 2008-2009 by CACI and the US Naval Institute, footnote 21 cites US Colonel Stephen Gaynard’s comments at the symposium; “Dealing With Today’s Asymmetric Threat to U.S. and Global Security,” copyright 2009, accessed 6/26/14 at http://asymmetricthreat.net/docs/asymmetric_threat_2_paper.pdf] //JG4.4.4 Trade and CommerceThe soft power that comes with successfully and persistently exporting the “American Brand” cannot be underestimated, as previously discussed. Military power may be necessary to promote the degree of security that is a precursor to sustained commercial progress in certain sectors, but commerce can serve as a valuable tool in its own right in promoting American ideals.72Only with additional resources can the agencies mentioned above effectively support building an integrated and strong U.S. international commercial presence. It is paramount that greater weight be placed on exporting American goods and services while liberalizing trade regimes and creating transparent and level playing fields for healthy global competition.Relaxing hard-power-related export restrictions that arose during the Cold War and encouraging United States trade abroad are important initiatives in improving international relations. Export regulations arose during the Cold War as an element of hard power that ensured that the Soviet Union and its allies did not obtain American leading-edge technologies or critical defense items. Today these restrictions remain and serve to discourage U.S. companies from exporting certain controlled items abroad. They increase the transactional costs and risks of doing business in emerging economies across the globe and encumber international partnerships in areas of evolving technologies. When American goods cannot be exported easily, this incentivizes other nations to develop indigenous technologies that the United States has little or no ability to monitor or control. Loosening outdated restrictions, when and where applicable, would also be seen as a gesture of diplomatic goodwill.73

71

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***TERRORISM***MPCA/GTRL CP 1NC

TEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD FULLY FUND MPCA AND GTRI. FULLY FUNDING THE MPCA AND THE GTRI PREVENTS UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO FISSILE MATERIAL AND SOLVES TERRORISMNewman and Bunn, 9. *Research Associate, Project on Managing the Atom. AND **Associate Professor of Public Policy, Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom (Andrew and Matthew. June 2009. “Funding for U.S. Efforts to Improve Controls Over Nuclear Weapons, Materials, and Expertise Overseas: A 2009 Update” http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/1803/andrew_newman.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F18673%2Fpreventing_nuclear_terrorism.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication)SECURING NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND MATERIALS As noted earlier, if President Obama’s objective of securing all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials worldwide within four years is to be achieved, NNSA’s MPC&A and GTRI programs will play a central role, along with the smaller warhead site security and warhead transportation security programs in DOD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) effort. In May, the administration requested $700 million in FY 2010 funding for these and other programs to improve security and accounting for nuclear weapons and materials, $45 million below the FY 2009 appropriation.5 Some highlights: MPC&A: Remarkably, the FY 2009 omnibus appropriation, the first in many years with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, was also the first in many years in which the Congress cut the request for the International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation. (The administration, however, chose to take these cuts in the Second Line of Defense component of the effort, discussed below under interdicting nuclear smuggling, rather than in the MPC&A program itself.) The Obama administration’s FY 2010 request of $280 million for the MPC&A program is $55 million more than the FY 2009 ap- propriation, but $87 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation and a substantial decline from the FY 2007 peak of $406 million.6 (The Obama administration’s FY 2009 supplemental request, approved by the House on May 12 and the Senate on May 14, adds $55 million to the MPC&A and brings total FY 2009 funding to $280 million, the same as the FY 2010 request.7) For the out-years, the budget documents envision steadily declining funding, as currently planned work in Russia and elsewhere is completed; even in the out-year projections, no funds have been included for expanded efforts to implement the President’s four-year goal. In essence, to avoid being criticized for carrying large unspent balances from one year to the next, the budget includes funding only for those areas where NNSA already has foreign countries’ agreement to do work, or was confident (when the budget was being prepared) that such agreement would be forthcoming, rather than including not-yet-agreed activities likely to be needed to imple- ment a four-year plan to achieve effective nuclear security worldwide. GTRI: While the FY 2010 request of $354 million is $41 million less than the FY 2009 appro- priation, Congress had boosted the FY 2009 appropriation to an unusually high level, far be- yond either the FY 2008 appropriation or the request for FY 2009. (The Congressional appropri- ation was $53 million above the $140 million request for FY 2008 and $55 million above the $340 million request for FY 2009.8) It appears that the GTRI budget includes some accelerated ac- tivities meant to meet the four-year target for parts of GTRI’s agenda. But as with the MPC&A program, the funds that would be needed to expand GTRI’s coverage to ensure that the full range of facilities and materials were addressed, or to provide incentives to countries and facili-ties to allow their weapons-usable material to be shipped away, are not included in the FY 2010 GTRI request. Indeed, under current plans, GTRI would be spending dramatically more after the four-year plan is over ($1.1 billion in 2014) than it would be in FY 2010 or FY 2011. (This is in part because high-density fuels required to convert some 27 of the reactors GTRI hopes to convert will not be available until the latter part of this period, requiring substantial spending on converting reactors and shipping away irradiated HEU once this high-density fuel becomes available.) It seems certain that if the four-year goal is to be achieved, GTRI’s budgets for FY 2010 and FY 2011 will have to be substantially higher than those in the current request. In particular, more money would be needed to accelerate conversion of the 38 HEU-fueled research reactors that could convert to proliferation-resistant low-enriched uranium (LEU) with LEU fuels already available. GTRI is planning to provide funds to accelerate private sector ef- forts to establish fabrication capability for the new high-density LEU fuels, and that is likely to be costly. Additional funds could also accelerate the pace of removing nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world (in part because here, too, prices are escalating). More mon- ey is also needed to secure radiological sources and research reactors around the world—in- cluding in the United States, where upgrades are needed for some 1,800 locations with sources of 1,000 curies or more, and for the nation’s 32 domestic research reactors, both of which have now been included in GTRI’s scope.9 Moreover, GTRI is so far planning to return only a small fraction of the U.S.-origin HEU abroad; while most of the remainder is in developed countries, in many cases there is good reason to bring this material back as well, and more funds would be required to give these facilities incentives to give up their HEU. Finally, NNSA does not yet have a program focused on giving underutilized HEU-fueled reactors incentives to shut down—in many cases likely to be a quicker and easier approach than conversion. All told, an increase of $200 million or more would be needed for GTRI to move forward as rapidly as pos- sible in reducing these risks—though managing such a large single-year increase would pose a challenge.10

72

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSCP SOL

NO WEAPONS SPREADFerguson, 6—fellow for science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. (Charles D. March 2006. “Preventing Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism” www.fundforpeace.org/web/images/pdf/ferguson.pdf)Although reducing the growth of terrorist groups is vitally important for the United States to have success in the wider “war on terrorism,” no matter how many terrorists there are, they cannot launch a nuclear attack without access to weapons-usable nuclear materials or intact nuclear weapons. Consequently, securing and eliminating vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons offer points of greatest leverage in preventing nuclear terrorism. For these activities, much more national and international action is urgently needed to address the problems of Pakistan’s highly enriched uranium and nuclear arsenal; Russia’s highly enriched uranium; highly enriched uranium at more than one hundred civilian facilities in dozens of countries; and tactical nuclear weapons. Here, the focus is on how to block terrorists from acquiring these vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons. Preventing nuclear terrorism is also closely connected to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries. By reducing the number of countries with nuclear weapons or weapons-usable nuclear materials, terrorists will have fewer places to buy or steal these critical components of nuclear terrorism. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is at the forefront of multilateral efforts to inspect nuclear facilities to try to detect diversion of weapons-usable nuclear materials. Presently, 650 IAEA inspectors are responsible for inspecting nine hundred nuclear facilities in ninety-one countries. The annual budget of the IAEA is about $120 million—comparable to the payroll of the Washington Redskins football team.

SOLVES TERROR

EMPIRICALLY MPC&A HAS PUT INTO PLACE EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND SECURITY MEASURES IN LOCATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD. Bunn, 3—Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom. (March 2003. “Securing Nuclear Warheads and Materials: Materials Protection Control and Accounting” http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/securing/mpca.asp#top)Key technologies and approaches. The key technologies and approaches being implemented in the MPC&A program range from "rapid upgrades" such as bricking over windows, placing huge concrete blocks on top of material or in front of doors, and the like to comprehensive security and accounting systems, including fences, locked vaults, detectors, sensors, access controls, security cameras, tamper-resistant seals, and the like. One particularly important technology being widely implemented is the portal monitor detectors at doors and other key points that will set off an alarm if some one carrying plutonium or HEU out of the building. (See discussion in Technical Background.) In addition to such equipment upgrades, the program is working with recipient countries to train personnel in modern MPC&A approaches, get appropriate MPC&A procedures adopted at the relevant facilities, put in place effective MPC&A regulation, and build an infrastructure to supply and maintain MPC&A equipment, to ensure that effective security and accounting for nuclear material can be achieved, and sustained for the long haul.Shifting approaches. Different activities have been included in the MPC&A program at different times. Originally, the program focused on security and accounting upgrades for weapons-usable nuclear material separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) outside of nuclear warheads themselves. After successful cooperation to upgrade security and accounting for Russian HEU naval fuel, the Russian Navy requested that the program help secure Russian naval warhead sites as well, and this has become a major program focus in 1999, now being expanded to include some other Russian warhead sites as well. (See discussion in Warhead Security section.)Also in 1999, the program added the "Material Consolidation and Conversion" (MCC) initiative, focused on consolidating potentially vulnerable nuclear material in fewer sites and buildings, so as to achieve higher long-term security for the remaining sites at lower cost. After the Russian economic crisis of 1998 when guards were leaving their posts to forage for food, and at some sites the electricity that ran the security systems was shut off when the sites did not pay their bills the program added a substantially greater focus on measures to ensure the "sustainability" of the upgrades over time. In fiscal year 2002, DOE's "Second Line of Defense" program, focused on interdicting nuclear smuggling after material has been stolen, was folded in to the MPC&A program. (See "Interdicting Nuclear Smuggling.") After the attacks of September 11, 2001, when concern over the possibility of radiological "dirty bombs" increased, the program expanded to address urgent concerns over control of radiological sources in the former Soviet Union as well. (See "Radiological Material Control".)The geographic focus of the effort has also shifted over time. The program has carried out security and accounting upgrades for facilities throughout the former Soviet Union. By May 1999, security and accounting system upgrades had been declared completed at all of the nine sites in the non-Russian states of the former Soviet Union where separated plutonium or HEU is still located. These sites were then moved out of the MPC&A program to another part of DOE. Since September 11, however, the MPC&A program has put renewed emphasis on ensuring continuing security at these non-Russian sites, and has begun exploring MPC&A cooperation with other states outside the former Soviet Union, including China, India, and Pakistan.[8]

73

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSGTRI IS EFFECTIVE IN DECREASING THE RISKS OF A NUCLEAR TERRORIST ATTACK, BUT MORE FUNDING IS KEY.Sheely, 9—NNSA Associate Assistant Deputy Administrator Global Threat Reduction Initiative (9/14/2009. Kenneth. “GTRI: Testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology” http://ipradiationsecurity.com/2009/09/18/gtri-testimony-before-the-house-committee-on-homeland-security-subcommittee-on-emerging-threats-cybersecurity-and-science-and-technology/)III.  GTRI’S ROLE IN MITIGATION OF RISKS GTRI works very closely with its federal partners, each of which has a unique role ensuring a comprehensive system of oversight, prevention, and protection of civilian radiological sources.  DHS’s mission is to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and, minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from any terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States across multiple sectors (e.g. nuclear, chemical, etc.), leading the Government Coordinating Council(s) (GCC) and collaborating with the industry-led Sector Coordinating Council(s) (SCC) to protect critical infrastructure and key resources.  NRC’s mission is to license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead Federal law enforcement agency and plays a significant role preventing, interdicting, and investigating potential acts of nuclear and radioactive theft, sabotage or terrorism.  NNSA brings the science and expertise of our National Laboratories to create innovative solutions to prevent the acquisition of nuclear and radiological materials for use in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other acts of terrorism.  Specifically, GTRI and the DOE laboratories provide unique expertise to evaluate radiological issues and threats because of our significant work both internationally and domestically which allows us to identify “best practices” available in each circumstance.To address the risks outlined above, GTRI, in cooperation with its federal partners, has initiated a number of voluntary security efforts to further mitigate these potential threats.   These include eliminating unwanted sources, hardening kits for specific irradiators, facility wide voluntary security enhancements, specialized training courses for security and law enforcement personnel, and table top exercises for first responders.   GTRI’s voluntary security enhancements complement and do not replace NRC’s increased controls requirements.  When requested by the licensee, GTRI works to assess existing security conditions, provide recommendations on security enhancements, and when warranted, fund the procurement and installation of jointly agreed upon security best practices.  GTRI considers all 14 isotopes of concern above threshold quantities (10 Ci or greater), and addresses several areas of security including Deterrence, Control, Detection, Delay, Response, and Sustainability.GTRI’s voluntary security enhancement efforts have been endorsed by the NRC, DHS, FBI, Organization of Agreement States (OAS), and Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD).  NRC has issued Regulatory Information Summaries (RIS) describing both the IDD and voluntary security enhancement efforts of GTRI and recommends that licensees volunteer for these GTRI efforts.III.A  Elimination – Removing Unwanted Sources Since 1997 GTRI’s Off Site Source Recovery Project (OSRP) operated by Los Alamos National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory and the CRCPD has reduced the radiological risk by recovering and eliminating disused and unwanted sealed sources.  GTRI, in coordination with NRC, developed recovery prioritization criteria based on risk reduction.  As of August 31, 2009, GTRI has recovered over 22,700 sources (totaling more than 720,000 curies) in twelve years.At present, only 14 states in the U.S. have access to commercial disposal for sealed sources (with the exception of Ra-226 sources which have a commercial disposal pathway in all 50 states).  With the decline in commercial disposal options, GTRI has seen an increase in the number of sources being registered as excess and unwanted.   GTRI has found that without disposal access, source owners have no option other than long-term storage, which increases the   vulnerability of becoming lost or forgotten .

74

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***OIL DEPDENDENCE***

75

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

STATE BUILDING CODES CP 1NCTEXT: THE 50 STATE GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND RELEVANT TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODES MODELED ON CALIFORNIA’S BUILDING CODES.

EFFICIENT BUILDING CODES SOLVE BETTER – GAINS IN TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ARE INEVITABLE

Joan Indiana Rigdon – Nov 2008, Grad of UC Berkeley journalism school, former writer for Wall Street Journal, “Oil: The Never-Ending Crisis,” Washington Lawyer, http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/november_2008/oil_crisis.cfmUnsexy Building Codes Much of the public debate about energy and greenhouse gas emissions is centered on automobiles, a focus which

Bookbinder believes is misplaced. ¶ “Transportation will solve itself,” he says, explaining that higher fuel-efficiency standards, combined with new biofuels that are not derived from food, as well as new technologies including plug-in hybrids, ultimately will drive down demand for oil and greenhouse gas emissions.¶ Instead, he says, policymakers could have a much bigger impact on the country’s foreign oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions by adopting energy-saving commercial building codes. California’s per capita consumption of electricity is among the lowest in the nation, Bookbinder says, because the state enacted strict commercial building codes that regulate lighting, heating, cooling, and power transmission, following the oil shocks of the 1970s. ¶ Better commercial building codes would easily trump any savings from residential use of alternative energy, Bookbinder adds. Getting even just one state to upgrade its building codes “is worth more than every Tom, Dick, and Harry running out to put a windmill on their roof,” he says.**Note: “David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, the nation’s leader in grassroots environmental litigation.”

76

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – DEPENDENCE

CHANGING BUILDING CODES IS KEY – LOCKS IN EFFICIENCY AND REDUCES OIL DEPENDENCE US Department of Energy, 18 May 2011, “Why Building Energy Codes?” US DOE, http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/Buildings fundamentally have an impact on people's lives, economic well-being, and the United States' dependence on foreign oil, national security and the health of the planet. In the United States, residential and commercial buildings together use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide than either the industrial or transportation section Buildings use 39% of our total energy, two-thirds of our electricity, and one-eighth of our water. In light of these fundamental environmental issues, and the increasing cost of energy and our current economic challenges, building energy efficiency is a key component of sound public policy.¶ ¶ Because the efficiency with which a home, factory or office building will use energy is determined in part by decisions made far in advance of the actual use of that energy, the network of incentives and disincentives regarding energy choices is complex. Choosing less energy efficient methods of materials may save money upfront, but or result in increased energy costs for the occupant of that building far in the future. This long term impacts of the choices and consequences results in a unique role for government in setting and enforcing building codes and standards, promoting improvements, and collecting and disseminating information regarding new technologies and best practices.

CODES SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCY

US DOE, Feb 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, DOE, pg. 1, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Intro.pdfC4W9rQHt44WzBw&usg=AFQjCNEUSbRtasIqaARmb7iYka_ITA5Plg&sig2=SYLV4jQLTCB6T2BAZKMhfgThe effects of energy use in buildings are nationwide, worldwide, and varied. Having a fundamental impact on¶ people’s lives, these effects include the economic well-being¶ of the nation, the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, and national security. On an individual basis, even human¶ health can be affected by building energy use when rising¶ energy costs render a conditioned, comfortable, healthy¶ indoor environment unaffordable. On a larger scale, carbon¶ emissions, which are directly tied to building energy use,¶ affect the health of our planet. Some sobering statistics help drive home¶ the reality of building energy use:¶ » Nearly 5 million commercial buildings and 115 million¶ residential households in the United States consume¶ nearly 40 percent of the nation’s total primary energy1¶ » Buildings consume 70 percent of electricity in the¶ United States2¶ » In 2007, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions attributable¶ to lighting, heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration,¶ water heating, and other building services totaled¶ 2517 million metric tons3 – this is 40 percent of the¶ U.S. total and 8 percent of the global total. What can be done to curb the significant and ever-growing impact of building energy use? The adoption and enforcement of more stringent building energy codes in communities across the country is a critical component. This document provides a basic introduction to¶ the many aspects of building energy codes, including their:¶ » Benefits in terms of the current energy, economic, and¶ environmental challenges facing our world today¶ » Challenges in terms of adoption, implementation,¶ compliance, and enforcement¶ » Development processes led by the International Codes¶ Council (ICC) and American Society of Heating,¶ Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers¶ (ASHRAE)¶ » Adoption and incorporation into building design and¶ construction by states and jurisdictions¶ » Enforcement at the state and local level.

77

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – DEPENDENCE

ENERGY CODES KEY TO SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE

NASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 1/24/12 - http://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO_Board_Resolution_Supporting_Utility_Credit_for_Codes.pdf, APWHEREAS, homes and commercial buildings are America’s largest energy-consuming sector – together ¶ using over 40 percent of the nation’s energy, two-thirds of our electricity consumption, one-eighth of our ¶ water use, and responsible for almost 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions¶ 1¶ ; and ¶ WHEREAS, reducing building energy consumption is an important objective for our country; and ¶ WHEREAS, studies show that these energy efficiency improvements enhance the affordability, security, ¶ comfort, and health and safety of home ownership by generating net positive cash flow for homeowners; ¶ and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help safeguard commercial owners and tenants from long-term ¶ financial burdens that can result from short-term design and construction decisions and can afford ¶ protection from energy price volatility; and¶ WHEREAS, energy-efficient buildings provide energy, economic, and environmental benefits for many ¶ years, and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes are a key component of a sustainable future for our country; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and ¶ construction of new and renovated buildings that impact energy use and emissions over the decades-long ¶ lifetimes of the buildings.

CODES REDUCE OIL DEPENDENCE

US DOE, Feb 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, DOE, pg. 25, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Intro.pdfC4W9rQHt44WzBw&usg=AFQjCNEUSbRtasIqaARmb7iYka_ITA5Plg&sig2=SYLV4jQLTCB6T2BAZKMhfgBuilding energy codes can play a key role in reducing building¶ energy costs, our nation’s reliance on foreign oil, and carbon¶ emissions as well as in increasing the comfort of our homes and¶ offices. Though the building energy codes world is not without¶ its challenges, the benefits far outweigh the barriers. Crafted in¶ open public forums, all stakeholders and interested and affected¶ parties are welcome to participate in the building energy codes¶ development processes. And the processes used to update both¶ the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 are designed to make sure the¶ interests of varied stakeholders are considered, including those¶ pertaining to industry, of importance to building scientists, and¶ affecting financial viability. Building energy codes are readily¶ available for states and jurisdictions to adopt, and a broad range¶ of enforcement and compliance tools are available to help policy¶ makers, designers, builders, and the enforcement community¶ successfully implement building energy codes. Building energy codes are a baseline of energy efficiency that constantly drive beyond-code programs to improve. As code cycles iterate from¶ one to the next, today’s beyond-code programs become the¶ baseline of tomorrow. Ultimately, the energy codes community¶ will converge on its true goal—buildings with zero energy use.

CODES SOLVE EMISSIONS AND OIL DEPENDENCE

Clayton, Krystin, owner of Green House Effects, a company that seeks to better the environment by offering practical sustainability consulting to interested and committed businesses and individuals, 22 October 2010, Examiner, http://tinyurl.com/83rk88nManufacturers and vendors alike need to be aware that as there is more and more of a push on energy conservation in the United States, more and more products and construction techniques may become obsolete and actually prohibited by well-meaning engineers who may not be thinking long range or big picture. In a similar manner, as green building codes become widely adopted, the outlawing of products and equipment will become a bigger issue. Isn’t it admirable to create code that saves energy thus reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces our dependence on foreign oil? Yes indeed, and if we are to provide a solution that addresses both of those issues (that is using energy efficiently for comfort or convenience and obtaining energy independence), it will be necessary to advocate and promote the technologies that have the most promise to achieve both of those goals to win the separate but equally important wars on energy waste and foreign oil dependence.

78

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – A2: NO OIL IN BUILDINGS

MANY BUILDINGS STILL USE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR HEAT – NEW CODES CAN REDUCE OIL DEPENDENCE

Ann Bordetsky et al – Natural Resources Defense Council – Feb 2005, SECURING AMERICA Solving Our Oil Dependence Through Innovation, http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf, http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf

Oil-heated homes. Petroleum products remain an important source of heating energy in homes. ¶ According to the EIA, approximately 8 million residences continue to burn fuel oil, liquefied petroleum¶ gases (LPG), propane, and kerosene for space and water heating. 60 Cost-effective home improvements to¶ space and water heating systems such as insulating walls, ceilings and pipes, sealing drafts and especially¶ sealing ducts, installing new windows, upgrading thermostats; updating furnaces; replacing old clothes¶ washers and dishwashers with new efficient models; and replacing water heaters can reduce heating oil use ¶ by 30 percent or more. ¶ We should promote residential energy savings with a focus on oil heat to help reduce the nation’s oil ¶ dependence by adopting stringent efficiency standards for house and apartment building boilers and ¶ furnace s; by adopting performance-based tax incentives for home retrofits and for efficient water heaters;¶ and by updating codes for new buildings. Together these measures can save 100,000 barrel of oil per day in ¶ 2015. We should promote residential weatherization and other energy saving programs to help achieve the¶ national oil savings commitment.¶

MANY BUILDINGS USE OIL FOR HEAT David G. Victor, John Deutch, and James R. Schlesinger, Deutch: Chair of the Task Force, Institute Professor at MIT, Undersecretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence. Victor: Project Director of the Task Force, Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. Schlesinger: Former Secretary of Defense, First Secretary of Energy Chair of the Task Force, 12 October 2006 “National Security Consequences of U.S Oil Dependency”, Council on Foreign Relations, pg. 46, http://tinyurl.com/7at36cuWhile recognizing that there will be no significant early relief, the United States needs to begin now to adopt technologies and processes that

allow for the use of fuels other than those based on petroleum , in particular those alternative fuels that reduce the negative

consequences that come from the country’s reliance on imported petroleum . For example, oil is still used for space heating of buildings in some regions;¶ however, those buildings could be heated by natural gas directly or, ¶ for larger buildings, by efficient cogeneration of electricity and space heating. Cars and other light vehicles could be fueled with increasingly larger fractions of biomass-derived liquids (such as ethanol), and vehicles¶ can be fueled by compressed natural gas. Light duty vehicles could be powered increasingly over time by electricity rather than gasoline or diesel fuel. The current generation of hybrid-electric vehicles may be¶ supplanted by ‘‘plug-in hybrids,’’ which allow some fraction of the¶ mileage to be powered by electricity that is charged from the grid,¶ perhaps leading to an eventual transition to fully electric vehicles.13

79

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – ECONOMY/WARMING

INVESTMENT IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY INSULATES THE ECONOMY FROM PRICE SHOCKS AND PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT

EPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency” pg. 5, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.htmlEnergy efficiency reduces the level of U.S. per capita energy consumption, thus decreasing the vulnerability of the economy and individual

consumers to energy price disruptions from natural disasters and attacks on domestic and international energy supplies and infrastructure. In addition, energy efficiency can be used to reduce the overall system peak demand or the peak demand in targeted load areas with limited generating or transport capability. Reducing peak demand improves system reliability and reduces the potential for unplanned brownouts or black-outs, which can have large adverse economic consequences.¶ utilities, and other organizations can build. Experience shows that energy efficiency programs can lower customer energy bills; cost less than, and help defer, new energy infrastructure; provide energy savings to consumers; improve the environment; and spur local economic development (see box on Benefits of Energy Efficiency). Significant opportunities for energy efficiency are likely to continue to be available at low costs in the future. State and regional studies have found that adoption of economically attractive, but as yet untapped, energy efficiency could yield more than 20 percent savings in total electricity demand nationwide by 2025. Depending on the underlying load growth, these savings could help cut load growth by half or more compared to current forecasts (Nadel et al., 2004; SWEEP, 2002; NEEP, 2005; NWPCC, 2005; WGA, 2006). Similarly, savings from direct use of natural gas could provide a 50 percent or greater reduction in natural gas demand growth (Nadel et al., 2004).¶ Capturing this energy efficiency resource would offer substantial economic and environmental benefits across the country . Widespread application of energy efficiency programs that already exist in some regions could deliver a

large part of these potential savings.9 Extrapolating the results from existing programs to the entire country would yield annual energy bill savings of nearly $20 billion, with net societal benefits of more than $250 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. This scenario could defer the need for 20,000 megawatts (MW), or 40 new 500MW power plants, as well as reduce U.S. emissions from energy production and use by more than 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), 50,000 tons of SO2, and 40,000 tons of NOx annually.10 These significant economic and environmental benefits can be achieved relatively quickly because energy efficiency programs can be developed and implemented within

several years. Additional policies and programs are required to help capture these potential benefits and address our substantial underinvestment in energy efficiency as a nation. An important indicator of this underinvestment is that the level of funding across the country for organized efficiency programs is currently less than $2 billion per year while it would require about 4 times today’s funding levels to achieve the economic and environment benefits presented above.

80

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – ECONOMY/WARMING

STATES SHOULD BUILD ENERGY CODES—SOLVES ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND ECONOMY EPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “Building Codes for Energy Efficiency” pg. 2-3, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.htmlBuilding energy codes provide states and municipalities across the country a range of energy, environmental, and economic benefits . Highlights from several jurisdictions are summarized below and in Table 1. Energy benefits of building codes include saving on energy

bills, reducing peak energy demand, and improving system reliability. For example, California’s building standards have helped save businesses and

residents more than $15.8 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1975, and these savings are expected to climb to $59 billion by¶ 2011 (CEC, 2003). When fully implemented,¶ the state’s new 2005¶ building efficiency standards are¶ expected to yield peak energy use¶ reductions of 180 megawatts (MW)¶ annually—enough electricity to power¶ 180,000 average-sized California¶ homes (Motamedi et al., 2004).¶ According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), if all states adopted and fully implemented American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard¶ 90.1-1999, a model energy code for commercial buildings, then building owners and

tenants would lower their¶ utility bills by $110 million the first¶ year and save $5.7 billion over 10¶ years. The country would save 16 trillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy that first year and almost 800 trillion Btu cumulatively over 10 years .¶ The magnitude of each state’s savings¶ depends on many factors: the efficiency¶ of its current building practices; the stringency of the code it adopts;¶ its population, climate, and building¶

construction activity; and the effectiveness¶ of code training and¶ enforcement (DOE, 2007).States and municipalities are also¶ finding that energy codes

can¶ improve the environment by reducing ¶ air pollution and greenhouse gases . ¶ For example, the New York Energy ¶

Conservation Construction Code is ¶ estimated to reduce carbon dioxide¶ (CO2) emissions by more than ¶ 500,000 tons annually and sulfur¶ dioxide (SO2) by nearly 500 tons per¶ year (DOE, 2002). Similarly, the 2001¶ Texas Building Energy Performance¶ Standards are projected to reduce¶ nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions¶ statewide by more than 2 tons each¶ “peak” day and more than 1 ton¶ each average day, which helps the¶ state meet Clean Air Act

requirements¶ for non-attainment areas¶ (Haberl et al., 2003). Building energy codes can also help ¶ grow the economy . States and

municipalities ¶ benefit from greater ¶ investment in energy-efficient capital ¶ equipment and new jobs installing ¶ equipment and monitoring building ¶ compliance. While spending on¶ energy services typically sends money¶ out of state, dollars saved from efficiency¶ tend to be re-spent locally¶ (Kushler et al., 2005; Weitz 2005a).¶ Codes become even more cost-effective¶ during periods of high heating¶ and cooling fuel prices.¶ At the building level, the “payback¶ period” on any increase in upfront costs¶ is typically short. A Nevada study estimated¶ that upgrading the energy¶ efficiency of commercial buildings to¶ comply with the code would cost about¶ $1.60 per square foot but would result¶ in $0.68 per square foot of energy bill¶ savings per year, meaning a simple¶ payback of about 2.4 years (Geller et¶ al., 2005). Similarly, it is estimated that while a new home built to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in Phoenix, Arizona, will cost an average of $1,517 more than a home built without the code, the difference will be repaid to homebuyers in 3.9 years (based on simple payback). The life-cycle cost savings associated with improved energy efficiency from adopting the IECC is $11,228 per home (Kinney et. al., 2003). While the upfront costs of code compliance can be recouped over short payback periods, the savings do not always accrue to the entity paying the initial compliance costs. This “split incentive” occurs when a developer or builder sees higher costs that are repaid over time to the building owner or occupants.

81

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – ECONOMY/WARMING

STATES MUST BUILD CODES NOW—ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC GAINS

US Department of Energy, 18 May 2011, “Why Building Energy Codes?” US DOE, http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/New buildings, while they represent just over 1% of the total building stock in a given year, are important because they represent a unique chance to effect energy

efficiency; keeping in mind that building energy codes also apply to retrofitting of existing buildings. Once a new building is constructed, it is very

expensive and often impossible to achieve the energy efficiency that can be economically built in at the time of

construction. Since buildings will be in existence for decades if not centuries this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to lose and had we done a more robust job in the past, retrofitting of existing buildings would not be as critical today. It is vital to make energy efficiency

a fundamental part of the building design and construction process and energy codes are an effective way to achieve this goal

and ensure energy efficiency is a component of all buildings. States have the lead to make this happen.¶ Research shows that contemporary energy codes could save about 330 Trillion BTU by 2030, almost 2% of total current residential energy consumption. There would also be comparable savings in consumer energy bills, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Those savings help the state economy by putting more money is consumer's pockets and reducing environmental costs to the state and its industry.¶ This Program supports energy code development, adoption, implementation, and compliance initiatives at the national, state and local level and is estimated to generate energy cost savings of more than $2.5 billion per year. Since the inception of the Program 20 years ago accumulated energy savings has been more than 1.5 quads and cost savings to consumers has been more than $14 billion. These savings have resulted primarily from the Program's activities that accelerate the adoption of building energy codes by and within the states and that improve code compliance by means of various software tools and other types of training and technical support.

GOVERNMENT ACTION WILL HELP THE ECONOMY

EPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency” pg. 3, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.htmlGreater investment in energy efficiency helps build jobs and improve state economies . Energy efficiency users often redirect their bill savings toward other activities that increase local and national employment, with a higher employment impact than if the money had been spent to purchase energy (Kushler et al., 2005; NYSERDA, 2004). Many energy efficiency programs create construction and installation jobs, with multiplier impacts on employment and local economies. Local investments in energy efficiency can offset imports from out-of-state, improving the state balance of trade. Lastly, energy efficiency investments usually create long-lasting infrastructure changes to building, equipment and appliance stocks, creating long-term property improvements that deliver long-term economic value (Innovest, 2002).

SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

ENERGY CODES CREATE JOBS

NASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 3/23/11 - https://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO-BCAP-State_Benefits_from_Codes.pdf, APBuilding Energy Codes Create Jobs and Save Money and Energy¶ ¶ Setting new standards for energy efficiency through building codes expands and sustains a growing market for energy ¶ audits, retrofits, and weatherization--creating a wide-range of new green jobs. ¶

Just as importantly, adopting and enforcing current model codes can save consumers and businesses money on their ¶ energy bills. Consumers can spend money saved from reduced energy bills on other goods and services, and businesses ¶ can transfer free-up capital to other areas, such as production, investment, and employee retention. In both cases, ¶ building codes can positively impact the economic health of your state. ¶ Today, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) are the national model ¶ energy codes, and each is updated on a three-year cycle. Moving from current practice to the 2009 IECC for new homes ¶ would result in a national weighted average incremental cost of $818.72 per new home. ¶ The annual energy savings per home would be $243.37 on average, meaning the simple payback for homeowners would ¶ occur in 3.36 years. If the 2009 IECC were adopted and enforced nationwide, a typical new homeowner would see an ¶ annual energy cost savings of nearly 15%. Accrued energy savings mitigates the need for constructing expensive new ¶ utility power plants and decreases the strain on aging infrastructure.

82

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSSOLVENCY – WARMING

BETTER BUILDING CODES SOLVE EMISSIONS

Department of Energy – May 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Slide_Notes.pdfEnergy use in buildings makes up a very significant piece of the pie. Thus, it has a direct impact on the greatest challenges of our time, including:¶ • Economic well-being for individuals, businesses, and governments¶ • Dependence on foreign oil and national security¶ • Global climate change.¶ Even human health is at stake—for many families, rising energy costs make it unaffordable to sustain a comfortable, conditioned indoor environment.¶ Some sobering statistics help drive home the reality of building energy use:¶ • Nearly 5 million commercial buildings and 115 million residential households in the United States consume over 40 percent of the nation’s total primary energy¶ • Buildings consume 70 percent of electricity in the United States¶ • In 2007, carbon dioxide emissions attributable to lighting, heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration, water heating, and other building services totaled 2517 million metric tons—40 percent of the U.S. total and 8 percent of the global total. ¶ Clearly, building energy use must be addressed to protect the interests of individual consumers, our nation, and the world. Building energy codes are a critical component of the effort to curb the ever-growing impacts of building energy use. ¶ But why codes?¶ Building energy

codes set minimum efficiency boundaries that bring about vital, tangible benefits.¶ Not surprisingly, better codes mean better benefits. Recent research shows that if building energy codes* were upgraded to be 30 to 50 percent more stringent, adopted among states, and effectively implemented, excellent progress would be made in the areas of energy consumption, cost savings, and CO2 emissions reduction:¶ • Reduced energy consumption—by approximately 0.5-quadrillion Btu per year by 2015, and 3.5-quadrillion Btu per year by 2030. This is equivalent to the power generated by 260 medium power plants.¶ • Rising cost savings—more than $4 billion per year back in homeowners’ pockets by 2015, a figure that could rise to over $30 billion per year by 2030. Even accounting for increased up-front efficiency investment costs, net benefits are quite significant.¶ • Reduced CO2 emissions—by roughly 3 percent in terms of the projected national CO2 emissions in 2030.¶

ENERGY CODES KEY TO SOLVE ECON

NASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 1/24/12 - http://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO_Board_Resolution_Supporting_Utility_Credit_for_Codes.pdf, APWHEREAS, homes and commercial buildings are America’s largest energy-consuming sector – together ¶ using over 40 percent of the nation’s energy, two-thirds of our electricity

consumption, one-eighth of our ¶ water use, and responsible for almost 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions¶ 1¶ ; and ¶ WHEREAS, reducing building energy consumption is an important objective for our country; and ¶ WHEREAS, studies show that these energy efficiency improvements enhance the affordability, security, ¶ comfort, and health and safety of home ownership by generating net positive cash flow for homeowners; ¶ and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help safeguard commercial owners and tenants from long-term ¶ financial burdens that can result from short-term design and construction

decisions and can afford ¶ protection from energy price volatility; and¶ WHEREAS, energy-efficient buildings provide energy, economic, and environmental benefits for many ¶ years , and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes are a key component of a sustainable future for our country; and¶ WHEREAS,

building energy codes set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and ¶ construction of new and renovated buildings that impact energy use and emissions over the decades-long ¶ lifetimes of the buildings ; and ¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes make our daily lives better by improving indoor air quality and ¶ public health, promoting environmentally-friendly behaviors such as recycling and generating less waste ¶ and providing a more comfortable and productive work environment; and ¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help drive the development, deployment, and innovation of new ¶ building technologies and design strategies ; and¶ WHEREAS, more education, training and awareness continue to be needed at the local level on the tools, ¶ applications, best practices and support materials for greater building energy code adoption, ¶ implementation and compliance; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes decrease the impact and peak load of buildings, helping to lessen the ¶ stress on the electricity grid system, which increases grid reliability.

BUILDING CODES KEY TO SOLVE WARMINGKate Galbraith 5/21/09 – Energy Expert, New York Times Writer – “The Race for Better Building Codes”, New York Times, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/the-race-for-better-building-codes/, APCreating stricter building codes can help fight global warming, experts say.¶ Buildings account for more than one-third of national energy use and 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Green Building Council.¶ Experts say that there is an easy way to reduce that number: tightening up building codes, so that they require more effective insulation and other improvements.

83

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSA2: STATE SPENDING DA

MORE EFFICIENT CODES SAVE MONEY AND BOOST THE ECONOMY

Department of Energy – May 18, 2011, “Building Energy Codes Program,” http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/New buildings, while they represent just over 1% of the total building stock in a given year, are important because they represent a unique chance to effect energy efficiency; keeping in mind that building energy codes also apply to retrofitting of existing buildings. Once a new building is constructed, it is very expensive and often impossible to achieve the energy efficiency that can be economically built in at the time of construction. Since buildings will be in existence for decades if not centuries this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to lose and had we done a more robust job in the past, retrofitting of existing buildings would not be as critical today. It is vital to make energy efficiency a fundamental part of the building design and construction process and energy codes are an effective way to achieve this goal and ensure energy efficiency is a component of all buildings. States have the lead to make this happen.¶ Research shows that contemporary energy codes could save about 330 Trillion BTU by 2030, almost 2% of total current residential energy consumption. There would also be comparable savings in consumer energy bills, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Those savings help the state economy by putting more money is consumer's pockets and reducing environmental costs to the state and its industry. ¶ This Program supports energy code development, adoption, implementation, and compliance initiatives at the national, state and local level and is estimated to generate energy cost savings of more than $2.5 billion per year. Since the inception of the Program 20 years ago accumulated energy savings has been more than 1.5 quads and cost savings to consumers has been more than $14 billion. These savings have resulted primarily from the Program's activities that accelerate the adoption of building energy codes by and within the states and that improve code compliance by means of various software tools and other types of training and technical support.

FYI – HOW STATES ADOPT ENERGY CODES

STATES ADOPT CODES THROUGH LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY ACTION – FEDERAL CHANGES ARE NOT BINDING US DOE, Feb 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, DOE, pg. 11, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Intro.pdfC4W9rQHt44WzBw&usg=AFQjCNEUSbRtasIqaARmb7iYka_ITA5Plg&sig2=SYLV4jQLTCB6T2BAZKMhfg

Adoption of energy codes can occur directly through legislative action or by regulatory action through agencies authorized by ¶

the legislative body to oversee the development and adoption ¶ of codes . When adoption is accomplished through legislation,¶ a committee may be appointed

to provide recommendations¶ and/or draft the legislation. When adoption occurs through a¶ regulatory process, states and local governments often appoint ¶ an advisory body comprising representatives of the design, ¶ building construction, and enforcement communities . This¶ advisory panel recommends revisions that should be considered¶ for adoption. In basing their recommendations on model¶ energy codes, the advisory panel considers modifications to the¶ model codes to account for local preferences and construction¶ practices. The panel also may serve as a source of information¶ during the adoption process. Their recommendations then enter¶ a public review process.¶ Overview of the adoption process ¶ The code adoption process generally includes the following steps¶ (note that the details of the adoption process vary depending on¶ whether the energy code is adopted by legislation, regulation, or¶ a local government):¶ 1. A change is initiated by a legislative or regulatory¶ agency with the authority to promulgate energy codes.¶ Interested or affected parties also may initiate a¶ change. An advisory body typically is convened and¶ will recommend a new energy code or revisions to an¶ existing energy code.¶ 2. The proposal undergoes a public review process¶ consistent with the legislative or regulatory process¶ under which the code is being considered. Public review¶ options include publishing a notice in key publications,¶ filing notices of intent, or holding public hearings.¶ Interested and affected parties are invited to submit¶ written or oral comments.¶ 3. The results of the review process are incorporated¶ into the proposal, and the final legislation or¶ regulation is prepared for approval.¶ 4. The approving authority reviews the legislation¶ or regulation. Revisions may be submitted to the¶ designated authority for final approval or for filing.¶ 5. After being filed or approved, the code becomes¶ effective, usually on some specified future date.¶ This delay creates a grace period that allows¶ those regulated to become familiar with any new¶ requirements. The period between adoption and¶ effective date typically varies from 30 days to six¶ months.¶ Timing the adoption and revision of state¶ and local codes¶ Some states adopt or revise energy codes in concert with ¶ the publication of a new edition of new codes, such as the¶ ICC Codes or ASHRAE Standard. This may occur either¶ through a legislative or regulatory process, or when the state¶ regulation or

legislation refers to “the most recent edition,”¶ in which case the adoption will simply occur automatically¶ without formal action. The effective date of a new adoption ¶ can also be tied to the publication date of an energy standard ¶ or model energy code, e.g., “This regulation shall take effect¶ one month from

publication of the adopted model energy¶ code.”¶ Other states review the new editions on a case-by-case ¶ basis to consider adoption, without a designated time ¶ line for adoption.

84

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

BIO FUELS1NC

TEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE TAX CREDITS THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF ADVANCED BIOFUELS. FEDERAL TAX CREDITS FOR ADVANCED BIOFUELS KEY TO SOLVE DEPENDENCY

Jim Collins – President of DuPont Industrial Biosciences – 3/16/12, Biofuels Key to Energy & Economic Policy, Energy Experts Blog, National Journal, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/should-government-subsidize-en.php

Now that gas prices are hovering close to $4 a gallon, reflecting both underlying global supply demand dynamics and the fears of a supply disruption in the Middle East, we are again reminded why it is good government policy to invest in alternatives to the petroleum fuels that the US transportation sector is dependent upon.The availability and cost of transportation fuels are core to our energy security and economic growth. Acknowledging the risks of that dependence, the US military is moving aggressively to drive advanced biofuels. We believe that Congress should continue to drive this technology as well. Extending the tax credits that are important for the deployment of the first plants that will produce cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels in the U.S is an appropriate policy tool to get these first plants on line. These tax credits help alleviate the risk that is inherent with commercializing new technologies such as advanced biofuels, which can require large investments and long-time horizons. Once this first generation of plants are up and running, it will be up to us and others to succeed or fail in the marketplace based on the merits of our technologies and execution.Already, DuPont has invested millions of dollars in advanced biofuels research and development. We are now operating a demonstration plant in Vonore, Tenn., that is producing cellulosic biofuel from corn stover, providing fuel for fleet vehicles at the University of Tennessee. In the second half of 2012, DuPont will break ground on a commercial-scale biorefinery in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 27.5 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol annually—one of the first to be built in the U.S. Once we produce at commercial scale, we will license these technologies widely, providing expanded economic opportunities for current growers and speeding the rate of advanced biofuels production.U.S. policy support for biofuels has already helped to encourage private investments in the ethanol industry, which last year grew to produce nearly 14 billion gallons, easily meeting the “renewable fuel” portion of the RFS and exporting record volumes of ethanol to other countries, while at the same time eliminating 485 million barrels of imported oil and contributing more than $33 billion in crop revenue to US farmers, (according to Feb. 2012 report produced by

Environmental Economics for the Renewable Fuels Association, “Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States”).It will still take time to ramp up production of cellulosic ethanol to match the volume achieved today by corn ethanol, but we cannot afford to halt the progress just as the train is leaving the station. Relying solely on US domestic fossil fuel production will not be sufficient to offset the growing global demand and geopolitical risks that will continue to create volatility and upward price pressures on transportation fuel

prices. This is why we need a strong collaborative partnership between business investment and government support for advanced biofuels.

85

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SOLVENCY – DEPENDENCE

ADVANCED BIOFUELS SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE

Nathanael Greene et al., director of NRDC's renewable energy policy program, December 2004, Growing¶ Energy¶ How Biofuels Can¶ Help End

America’s¶ Oil Dependence, National Resources Defense Council, pg. 5, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf¶ America’s oil dependence threatens our national security, economy, and environment . ¶ We consume 25 percent of the world’s total oil production, but we have¶ 3 percent of its known reserves. We spend tens of billions of dollars each year to¶ import oil from some of the most unstable regions of the world. This costly habit¶ endangers our health: America’s cars, trucks, and buses account for 27 percent of¶ U.S. global warming pollution, as well as soot and smog that damage human lungs.¶ The United States does not have to rely on oil to drive our economy and quality of¶ life. We can replace much of our oil with biofuels —fuels made from plant materials¶ grown by American farmers. These fuels , especially those known as cellulosic biofuels,¶ can be cost-competitive with gasoline and diesel, and allow us to invest our ¶ energy dollars at home. They can also slash global warming emissions, improve air¶ quality, reduce soil erosion, and expand wildlife habitat.¶ If we follow an aggressive plan to develop cellulosic biofuels between now and 2015,¶ America could produce the equivalent of nearly 7.9 million barrels of oil per day by 2050.¶ That is equal to more than 50 percent of our current total oil use in the transportation¶ sector and more than three times as much as we import from the Persian Gulf alone.¶ In combination with improved fuel efficiency in cars and smart growth planning¶ in our towns and cities, biofuels can free America from foreign oil in a cost-effective¶ and environmentally safe way:¶ By 2025, producing the crops to make these fuels could provide farmers with profits¶ of more than $5 billion per year.¶ Biofuels could be cheaper than gasoline and diesel, saving us about $20 billion per¶ year on fuel costs by 2050.¶ Biofuels could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year—¶ equal to more than 80 percent of transportation-related emissions and 22 percent of¶ total emissions in 2002.

ADVANCED BIOFUELS SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE

Michael Pacheco PH.D, Director of the National Bioenergy Center and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 24 May 2006, “How Biofuels Can Help Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil” NREL, pg. 2, http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/pacheco_testimony.pdfThe Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy recently looked at the question of whether the nation’s biomass resource could foster a biofuels industry large enough to meet a significant portion of our nation’s future fuel needs. The report, now commonly referred to as “The Billion Ton Study,” for the first time confirmed that the U.S. could yield more than a billion tons of biomass annually for energy needs . And, importantly, we could do this without negatively affecting the nation’s ongoing

needs for food or fiber. This is significant because the 1.3 billion tons of biomass that was forecasted contains as much energy as 3.5 billion barrels of oil.Let me provide some perspective on that. This 3.5 billion barrels is about 60% of the 6 billion-plus barrels of oil the U.S. consumes each year. Domestically, the United States, including Alaska, currently produces about 2 billion barrels of oil per year. That’s only 67 percent of the potential we see

from biomass. U.S. oil production peaked in the early 1970s at the same level of production, about 3.5 billion barrels per year. The U.S. has never produced more than 3.5 billion barrels a year of oil.

86

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSINCENTIVIZING ADVANCED BIOFUELS SOLVES DEPENDENCE – BOOSTS OIL DISPLACEMENT Brian Murray – Dir. Economic Analysis, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions @ Duke – 5/11/12, Advances Needed for Biofuels to Succeed, Energy Experts Blog, National journal, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-nexus-between-biofuels-ene.php

If biofuels are to become an effective instrument for energy and environmental improvement, more effort should be focused on creating the scientific and technological breakthroughs necessary to allow advanced biofuels to compete.¶ Today policy to expand domestic liquid biofuels has three underlying goals:¶ 1. Lessen dependence on foreign oil¶ 2. Increase rural incomes¶ 3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions¶ Current policy, dominated by the expanded production and use of corn-based ethanol, has a modest effect on the first goal, a substantive effect on the second, and virtually no effect on the third.¶ Biofuels do directly reduce imports of petroleum. For every gallon of ethanol produced, there is displacement of gasoline use—though less than 1:1, given different energy content per gallon. And some displacement does seem to be occurring. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports most recent growth in United States consumption of motor fuels was met by increased use of diesel and biofuels. There are mitigating factors, however.¶ Biofuel (ethanol) is but a small part of the domestic use fuel mix accounting for roughly 6 percent of overall use in 2011, and thus has limited leverage over imports. This leverage grows if biofuel’s share of the mix grwos, as is scheduled under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) leading up to 2022. Second, there are complex market feedback effects that can counter the direct effects of gasoline displacement. A recent study by economists at the University of Missouri published in the journal Energy Policy shows ethanol subsidies, such as the recently expired Volumteric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) tax credits, can actually reduce gas prices and cause an offsetting increase in consumption, much like the well-known rebound effect with fuel efficiency standards. This weakens the displacement of gasoline and oil imports.¶ To its credit, expanded use of corn-based ethanol has boosted the income of corn producers—approximately 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop is now used in ethanol production. Corn prices have roughly doubled since 2007, when the ethanol expansion took off. Other contributing factors to this boost exist as well; including higher energy input costs and increased global demand. Most economic studies attribute some, though not all, of the price rise to ethanol mandates. Other crop prices have risen too. This is due, in part, to growers switching crops—soybean to corn for example—to meet the expanded demand for the latter and placing price pressure on the former. Livestock producers, food processors, and consumers face higher input costs and thus bear some burden from this expansion. So the distributional effects within agricultural markets are considerable.¶ The greenhouse gas effects of biofuels are controversial, especially with corn-based ethanol. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the RFS2 indicated a small reduction in GHG emissions from corn-based ethanol use and larger reductions from advanced varieties such as cellulosic ethanol. Subsequent research, including our own (http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/climate/policydesign/net-global-effects-of-alternative-u.s.-biofuel-mandates) , suggests more modest greenhouse gas effects from ethanol, even a greenhouse gas increase in some cases. The big uncertain factor in all this is how much of the emissions effect from ethanol expansion is due to indirect land use change (ILUC), including that in other countries who convert land (and generate emissions) to meet the additional demands for biofuel feedstock. The range of ILUC estimates is wide and very sensitive to assumptions about the extent of the market and the characteristics of the land being affected.¶ Considering all these factors, success of biofuel policy in the U.S. is a mixed bag. It has helped raise the income of certain farmers, but put price pressure on others. In addition, it has had a modest effect on oil imports, and been nearly a wash when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases.¶ For biofuels to succeed, beyond merely raising the incomes of certain producers, may depend on the penetration of advanced biofuels that do not draw from the food supply. These biofuels would not require large amounts of land to produce, and have a sufficiently higher energy content. This is recognized in policies such as the RFS2, which requires a majority of the fuels mandate to come from cellulosic and other advanced biofuels in the future. But progress in this area is slow and more research and development focused on making these advanced biofuels contend in the marketplace is needed.¶

87

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SOLVENCY – ENVIRONMENT

BIOFUEL SAVES THE ENVIRONMENT-80% LESS GREENHOUSE GASES

US EnviroFuels.com, 2011, “Benefits” United States EnviroFuels, http://www.usenvirofuels.com/benefits.shtmlAdvanced Biofuel ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from automobiles. Why? Because Advanced Biofuel ethanol contains 35 percent oxygen. Adding oxygen to gasoline results in more complete fuel combustion, thereby reducing harmful tailpipe emissions.¶ The addition of oxygen to gasoline by blending with ethanol improves internal engine fuel combustion, and reduces tailpipe pollutants such as carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. When ethanol is mixed at the 10% level with gasoline (E10) the total fuel mix is more efficient, has better combustibility and translates into cleaner automotive tailpipe emissions, reduced smog formation, and improvement in the quality of the ambient air shed. Furthermore, ethanol is miscible with water (water soluble), non-toxic, clean burning, contains no sulphur, nitrogen or heavy metals, and completely biodegradable. So if you accidentally spill some, there is no need to worry about poisoning the ground or water.¶ An extensive life cycle analysis of the Highlands EnviroFuels project revealed that the facility will produce Advanced Biofuel resulting in an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions versus the manufacturing of gasoline from oil.

BIOFUELS KEY TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Nathanael Greene et al., director of NRDC's renewable energy policy program, December 2004, Growing¶ Energy¶ How Biofuels Can¶ Help End America’s¶ Oil Dependence, National Resources Defense Council, pg. 16, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdfBiofuels can help clean up the environment¶ At every stage—from growing the crops to burning biofuels—cellulosic biofuels can¶ provide important environmental advantages if we reward environmental performance¶ sufficiently. The bulk of these advantages would come from reducing our dependency¶ on oil, but many also would come from growing a crop such as switchgrass that has¶ a dramatically smaller environmental footprint than traditional row crops.¶ The potential environmental benefits of greatly reducing our oil dependence¶ through an aggressive package of fuel efficiency and biofuels are enormous.

88

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

2NC Solvency – Econ

ADVANCED BIOFUEL SOLVES WARMING AND THE ECONOMY

Annegrethe Jakobsen, Senior Public Affairs Manager, 26 Jan 2012“Advanced biofuels could create millions of jobs while greening the economy”, The Energy Collective, http://tinyurl.com/7xtalp5The socioeconomic prospects of deploying advanced biofuels go well beyond energy security. The report shows that the eight regions analyzed have the potential to diversify farmers’ income, generate revenues ranging from $1 trillion to $4.4 trillion between today and 2050 and create millions of jobs.¶ For example, advanced biofuels could create up to 2.9 million jobs in China, 1.4 million jobs in the USA, and around 1 million in Brazil. The impact on climate change would also be reduced considering advanced biofuels emit 80 percent less greenhouse gas than ethanol.¶ During the session at Davos where the study was launched, Novozymes' CEO pointed out that at a time when everyone is striving to create jobs to secure our economic future and finding a sustainable way to produce energy, this study shows the benefits of a transition towards sustainable biofuels and bioproducts based on agricultural residues. It also strongly signals that policy incentives will result in great payback to society.

2NC SOLVENCY – INCENTIVES

MORE INCENTIVES KEY

Environmental News Service – 10/11/11, Cellulosic Ethanol Production Far Behind Renewable Fuel Standard, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2011/2011-10-11-093.htmlThe United States is not likely to reach cellulosic ethanol production mandates spelled out in the federal Renewable Fuel Standard by 2022 unless "innovative technologies are developed or policies change," says a new congressionally-requested report from the National Research Council.¶ Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants, such as corncobs or citrus peels. The report says a cloud of "uncertainty" surrounds environmental and economic benefits expected to result from use of this biofuel.¶ "The Renewable Fuel Standard may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions," said Ingrid Burke, co-chair of the NRC panel that issued the report and a botany professor at the University of Wyoming.¶ In 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard as part of the Energy Policy Act and amended it in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. The aim of the RFS is to encourage development of biofuels, lower dependence on foreign oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.¶ The law mandates that by 2022 the United States must produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, along with 15 billion gallons of conventional corn-based ethanol, one billion gallons of biodiesel, and four billion gallons of advanced biofuels.¶ While production of ethanol and biodiesel already exceed the mandate, no commercial cellulosic biofuels plants exist and technologies are at demonstration scale.¶ Several industrial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants are being built in the United States, including an Abengoa bioenergy biomass plant in Kansas expected to start production in 2013, and an expansion of Poet's conventional ethanol plant in Iowa.¶ Project Liberty will be Poet's first commercial-scale, cellulosic ethanol plant. Scheduled to begin operations in 2013, it is expected to produce 25 million gallons of ethanol per year from corncobs, leaves and husks, provided by Iowa farmers. In September, Poet received final approval for a $105 million loan guarantee for Project Liberty issued through the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan programs Office.¶ But this year cellulosic biofuel output is likely to be 6.6 million gallons, far below the RFS target for 2011 of 250 million gallons, the report points out.¶ The corn ethanol industry has been developing for 30 years, said Wallace Tyner, NRC panel co-chair and an agricultural economics professor at Purdue University. "We have more than 200 corn ethanol plants producing more than 14 billion gallons today. We have only 11 years to reach even higher numbers for cellulosic biofuels."¶ The report finds that although biofuels hold potential for providing net environmental benefits compared with using petroleum-based fuels, specific environmental outcomes from increasing biofuels production to meet the renewable fuel consumption mandate cannot be guaranteed.¶ The type of feedstocks produced, management practices used, land-use changes that feedstock production might require, and such site-specific details as prior land use and regional water availability will determine the mandate's environmental effects, the report says.¶ Biofuels production has been shown to have both positive and negative effects on water quality, soil, and biodiversity. But air-quality modeling suggests that production and use of ethanol to displace gasoline is likely to increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.¶ In addition, published estimates of water use over the life cycle of corn-grain ethanol are higher than petroleum-based fuels.¶ Renewable fuels advocates criticized the NRC committee for is narrow focus and said a broader view of the entire industry is required to accurately evaluate the likelihood of cellulosic biofuel to meet the mandated requirements.¶ "Global demand for energy continues to escalate yet this report chooses to focus with laser-like precision on the perceived shortcomings of conventional and next-generation biofuels. Instead, we should be comparing the relative costs and benefits of all future energy options," said Renewable Fuels Association Vice President Geoff Cooper, who testified before the National Research Council committee tasked with drafting the report.¶ "Biofuels are increasingly displacing and delaying the need for marginal sources of petroleum - like Canadian tar sands and shale oil - that come with extreme environmental and economic costs," said Cooper. "American ethanol production continues to evolve, reducing water and energy requirements while producing increasing amounts of fuel and livestock feed."¶ The report does recognize some of the improvements in biofuels production, said Cooper, but "it also rehashes many of the well-worn criticisms that have been discredited time and again."¶ As for the report's key finding, Cooper said the Renewable Fuels Association shares the committee's view that commercializing advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies will require more policy certainty and a recommitment to reducing oil import dependency.¶ The RFA has long called for an extension of cellulosic ethanol tax incentives and a repeal of decades-old subsidies for the oil industry, totaling at least $4 billion a year in direct benefits.¶ Advanced Ethanol Council Executive Director Brooke Coleman, too, was critical of the report. "The most glaring problem is the Council analyzed the ongoing development of the biofuels industry in a vacuum, as if these fuels are not displacing the marginal barrel of oil, which comes at great economic and environmental cost to the consumer. Congress was seeking a sober analysis of the RFS, and regrettably, this is not it."¶ "The idea that the RFS may not be an effective strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is regrettable given the published science on the subject," said Coleman. "Even with land use change considerations, advanced biofuels are the lowest carbon fuels being developed in the marketplace; far and away less carbon intensive than electricity, natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells."

89

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSFEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY TO CREATING EMERGING RENEWABLE FUEL MARKETS David G. Victor, John Deutch, and James R. Schlesinger, Deutch: Chair of the Task Force, Institute Professor at MIT, Undersecretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence. Victor: Project Director of the Task Force, Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. Schlesinger: Former Secretary of Defense, First Secretary of Energy Chair of the Task Force, 12 October 2006 “National Security Consequences of U.S Oil Dependency”, Council on Foreign Relations, pg. 46, http://tinyurl.com/7at36cuAchieving the above four objectives will require the development and¶ deployment of new technologies at commercial scale. The high price of oil is a strong incentive to the private sector to make the investments needed to develop and deploy new technologies . This innovative activity will range from entrepreneurial start-up companies to venture capital funds to large energy and chemical companies. The targets for innovation will include both demand and supply technologies and all fuels from renewables to oil. Just in the past two years, hundreds of¶ start-up companies have been founded in areas from biofuels to batteries.¶ In addition, large oil and chemical companies have launched development¶ projects on biomass, shale, and coal-to-liquids. Research activity¶ has increased dramatically in the nation’s universities and laboratories.¶ These private investments are likely to yield some fruit on their¶ own. However, the pace of the private sector progress depends on a complementary program of federal energy technology research, development, and demonstration projects. The reason is that investment in new energy technologies is made by private sector firms in response to their assessment of future market conditions, which include the expected price of oil, environmental regulations, and government incentives such as tax credits or attractive financing. But, for a variety of¶ reasons, private firms do not take into account the full range of national¶ benefits that come from investment in energy technology R&D.15¶ Private investment will fall short of what is needed, and there is a role¶ for government support of R&D toward the other broad goals for¶ domestic energy policy (increasing energy efficiency, facilitating switching¶ away from oil, increasing the supply of oil from both foreign and¶ domestic sources, and allowing for a more secure and capable energy¶ infrastructure). The Department of Energy (DOE) has responsibility for most of¶ the federal RD&D effort but other agencies also sponsor and perform¶ relevant work. The appropriate mix of RD&D by government agencies,¶ universities, research labs, and private corporations can be debated,¶ as can the proper mix of research, development, and demonstration¶ 15Among the many reasons why private firms do not invest inR&Dat a level commensurate¶ with the large benefits that R&D offers to society: intellectual property rights are incomplete,¶ particularly for long-term R&D; energy technology advances often have important spillovers¶ to other technologies that might not benefit the firms doing the R&D; and, absent credible policy commitments and economic incentives , firms cannot expect to capture the national security and environmental benefits of their new tech nology investments.¶ However, the Task Force is critical of the continuing U.S.¶ federal RD&D effort; it is fragmented, unfocused, and tries to be all¶ things to all people. More investment in new energy technologies on the supply and demand side of energy markets is needed as part of a long-term energy policy strategy if the United States is to adequately manage the transition away from a petroleum-based economy .

90

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***ECON***

91

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

CORPORATE TAX REFORM 1NC

CP TEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SET A STATUTORY CORPORATE TAX RATE OF 25 PERCENT, PROVIDE A 95 PERCENT EXEMPTION OF TAX ON FOREIGN DIVIDENDS OF ACTIVE BUSINESS INCOME, NOT DENY DOMESTIC DEDUCTIONS FOR EXPENSES NOT DIRECTLY ALLOCABLE TO FOREIGN EARNINGS, EXTEND THE BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS THAT EXPIRED AT THE END OF 2011, INCLUDING THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CREDIT, MAINTAIN REVENUE NEUTRALITY, AND ANNOUNCE THAT THESE CHANGES ARE PERMANENT.(SOLVENCY CARD BELOW, IT’S HUGE)

92

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSTAX REFORM SOLVES ECONOMIC GROWTH – PROMOTES COMPETITIVENESS, INVESTMENT AND JOB CREATIONBRT 12 – an association of CEOs with over $6 trillion in annual revenues and 14 million employees, BRT members comprise a third of the total value of the U.S. stock market and invest more than $150 billion annually in research and development (Business Roundtable, “Taking Action for America”, March 2012, http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/studies-reports/downloads/20120307_BRT_Taking_Action_for_America.pdf)

The U.S. corporate tax system has failed to keep pace with the changing global economy. The U.S. system is an outlier at a time when capital is more mobile and the world’s economies are more interconnected than ever

before. Modern, streamlined and fiscally responsible tax policies contribute to a competitive business environment that attracts new investment and supports strong economic growth and job creation. Many countries have reformed their tax policies in response to the increasingly important role that national corporate tax rates play in many investment and plant location decisions. Unfortunately, the United States has not followed suit. The last significant

overhaul of the U.S. corporate tax system was in 1986 — before the widespread use of the Internet , before the Soviet Union collapsed and before China became a modernizing

economy — and much existing policy dates back to the 1960s and earlier. Most of the policies introduced in the interim have been patchwork solutions that are often temporary in nature. As a result, U.S. corporate tax policy has become increasingly outdated and overly complex, making the U nited S tates a less attractive site for new investment and placing U.S. companies at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Reforms of the U.S. corporate tax system must focus on two critical components: the corporate tax rate and the system of international taxation. First, the U.S. combined

statutory corporate tax rate currently stands at more than 39 percent , now the highest in the OECD after Japan reduced its corporate

rate this year. In contrast, the average combined statutory corporate tax rate in other OECD countries was 25.1 percent in 2011. 6 This difference actually understates the United States’ disadvantage. Prospective investors will compare the United States not to the average but to the best country when it comes to tax rate comparisons . Although not as widely noted as the high statutory corporate tax rate, the United States also has a high effective tax rate on corporate income. A study of financial statement effective tax rates for the 2,000 largest companies in the world found that U.S.-headquartered companies faced a higher worldwide effective tax rate than their counterparts headquartered in 53 of 58 foreign countries over the 2006–09 period. 7 Second, the U nited S tates continues to use a worldwide tax system

that taxes U.S. companies on both the income that they earn at home and the foreign earnings of their subsidiaries, when those earnings are remitted back to the United States. In contrast, the vast majority of OECD countries use a territorial tax system in which little or no additional tax is typically imposed by the home country on active trade or business profits earned abroad because that income is already taxed in the country where it was earned. The additional tax imposed by the United States on foreign earnings creates a barrier for U.S. companies desiring to access their foreign earnings that is not faced by their competitors headquartered in most other OECD countries. Foreign markets represent 95 percent of the world’s consumers, and access to these markets helps expand the demand for U.S. goods and services . 8 Accordingly, U.S. -headquartered companies and the jobs of their employees depend on their ability to compete and win in the global arena. A competitive U.S. corporate tax rate and territorial system can enhance U.S. economic performance , including more jobs, more investment and increased economic growth with increased living standards for American families. A lower corporate tax rate will enhance the incentives for companies to locate here, attract high-value investments, reduce investment distortions across sectors and lessen the current incentives to rely on debt rather than equity in financing capital investments. Likewise, the adoption of a territorial tax system will increase the

incentive for companies to incorporate in the U nited S tates, allow U.S.-headquartered companies to compete more effectively in foreign markets, and encourage existing U.S. companies to bring home their earnings from overseas and reinvest them in the United States. Modernize and simplify the tax code to increase the competitiveness of the United States as a location for investment and employment by both U.S.-based and foreign-based companies. A stable, reliable, equitable and nondiscriminatory tax system that provides a level playing field is essential for long-term economic growth. U.S. policies should strive not only to make the nation competitive with the other world economies, but also to make the United States the best place in the world to launch a career, headquarter a business, hire employees and conduct business operations. In today’s global economy, tax reform is absolutely essential to economic growth and job creation. BRT CEOs believe that these reforms can be undertaken in a fair and fiscally responsible manner, with the cost of these reforms to be offset as much as possible through appropriate base broadening. The key elements of a modern, streamlined and fiscally

responsible corporate tax system include: • A competitive corporate tax rate comparable to the OECD average. A combined federal and state rate of 25 percent would create a U.S. statutory tax rate equal to the average of America’s trading partners. • A competitive territorial tax system similar to the rest of the world. This fundamental reform recognizes the jobs created and the value contributed to the U.S. economy by successful American companies with worldwide operations. Fundamental components for

a competitive territorial system include: • Providing a 95 percent or greater exemption of tax on foreign dividends of active business income; and • Following the practice of other countries. The U.S. system should not deny domestic deductions for expenses not directly allocable to foreign earnings. The U.S. system also should not include other features not adopted abroad — including antideferral rules for active income — that can impede the competitiveness of American companies relative to

93

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPStheir foreign competitors. ◗ Extend the business tax provisions that expired at the end of 2011, including the research and development credit and important international provisions. While corporate tax reform is the priority, the extension of these expiring

provisions should not be delayed while Congress considers overall reform. Make every feature of the reformed U.S. corporate tax code permanent, establishing the high-priority objective of eliminating corporate tax policy uncertainty . Ultimately, any attempt to reform and modernize America’s corporate tax system must achieve the shared goal of creating a strong, competitive, job-creating U.S. economy. If the United States is guided by these principles and provides competitive and growth-promoting features for research and investments in plant and equipment, the nation will become more attractive for company headquarters and for the new investment that will increase production of goods and services. This approach to tax reform will foster economic growth, job creation and a higher standard of living.

94

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS2NC SOLVENCY

CORPORATE TAXES BAD – DETERS INVESTMENT, SHRINKS CAPITAL, LOOPHOLES, AND MULTINATIONALSMaster 4/5/12 – writes about the economic underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for the Council of Foreign Relations (Jonathon, Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S. Corporate Tax Reform”, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860)

What are the distortions at the international level?Differing levels of corporate taxation across an increasingly globalized economy have the effect of distorting economic outcomes in at least three principal ways, say economists. First, a country with a corporate tax regime that places less of a burden on businesses (i.e. through a lower effective rate) will tend to draw investment away from those with higher taxes, all other factors being equal. A second distortion arises where a reduction in investment in a relatively high-tax country, like the United States, shrinks the capital available to workers and reduces wage levels as a result.Third, the tax base of a high-tax nation may drop further as domestic companies with international operations cut their taxes by "re-characterizing" their income so as to fall in a lower tax country, or engage in other such methods like internal transfer pricing (Bloomberg). This profit shifting costs the U.S. Treasury roughly $90 billion a year, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College.What role do multinationals play in the U.S. economy?U.S. multinationals are domestic companies that own at least 10 percent of a foreign affiliate. According to a 2010 McKinsey report, multinationals represented less than 1 percent of total U.S. companies in 2007, but accounted for some 19 percent of private sector jobs; 25 percent of private sector wages; 25 percent of private sector gross profits; 48 percent of total U.S. goods exported; and 74 percent of research and development spending.They are particularly sensitive to international business conditions, including inconsistencies in the way countries tax. Under the current U.S. code, multinationals not only face a relatively high tax rate at home, but are also taxed on their profits made abroad when repatriated. Most other developed countries exempt their corporations from such taxation.

CORPORATE TAX POLICY HURTS COMPETITIVENESS AND GROWTHMaster 4/5/12 – writes about the economic underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for the Council of Foreign Relations (Jonathon, Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S. Corporate Tax Reform”, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860)

The United States currently possesses the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world, at 35 percent (discounting state and local taxes). Many analysts say the comparatively high U.S. rate, coupled with a complex array of tax subsidies and loopholes, is a doubly flawed system, overburdening businesses with compliance and planning costs while reducing federal revenues at a time of rising national debt. Others point out that the U.S. system, which taxes foreign profits of U.S. multinational corporations, may put the country at a competitive disadvantage with most of the industrialized world, which only taxes domestic corporate income. At time when global economic competition is intensifying, some critics suggest an overhaul of the tax code, which last took place in 1986, is long overdue. Why does corporate taxation matter? As a percentage of the economy, corporate tax dollars have declined steadily in the post-World War II period, from more than 5 percent of GDP in 1946 to hovering around 2 percent in recent years. In 2010, corporate taxes represented the third-largest source of federal revenue, accounting for roughly 9 percent of Treasury's income (behind the individual income tax [42 percent] and payroll taxes [40 percent]). The way a country taxes corporations matters for two primary reasons, say economists. First, corporate taxes alter incentives and may distort domestic economic behavior in ways that are harmful for growth. Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center says the government shouldn't favor one industry over another in the way it taxes business: "Far better would be a system in which investors deployed their capital based on economic fundamentals." Second, different tax regimes across the world interact with each other to distort the allocation of international investment. The confluence of these micro and macroeconomic forces has significant consequences for the ability of the United States to compete and thrive in an expanding global economy. Corporate taxation is an essential component of the national business climate, and one of several factors that multinational corporations weigh when deciding how and where to invest. Others include access to human capital, efficient infrastructure, regulatory environment, rule of law, political stability, etc. "The [United States] used to be so much more attractive in these areas," says Eric Solomon, former assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Treasury Department (2006-2009),"but now we have so much more competition from abroad, so that each of these margins have become much more important."In 2011, the United States ranked 72nd out of 183 economies worldwide in the area of corporate taxation, and 19th out of 31 OECD nations, according to the World Bank's Doing Business Project. Rankings accounted for the number of tax payments, the time spent paying, and the overall rate borne by medium-sized businesses. A 2010 McKinsey Global Institute report on U.S. multinationals and competitiveness says that many business executives interviewed "believe that current U.S. policies--particularly in the areas of corporate taxes, limits on the immigration of skilled workers, and bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistencies--handicap U.S. companies when competing abroad."However, the effective corporate tax rate--the ratio that companies actually pay after leveraging a myriad of tax breaks--has averaged around 26 percent in recent years (1987-2008). How does the U.S. corporate tax compare internationally? The United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world--39.2 percent (including state and local) versus an OECD weighted average of 27.8 percent (excluding the U.S.), and a G-7 average of 32.3 percent (excluding the U.S.).

95

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSELECTIONS – CP POPULAR

CORPORATE TAX REFORM POPULARMalhotra 7/4/12 – writer for the Epoch Times (Heide, “Corporate Tax Dodges on the Table”, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/corporate-tax-dodges-on-the-table-252636.html)

During an election year, corporate tax reform is believed to be very effective, given that the U.S. public pays high taxes, while many corporations don’t pay their fair share . It is not that corporations are not handing over a check to the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS). The concern is over the many tax loopholes and subsidies corporations have landed due to their lobbying tactics. ¶ In February, the sitting administration released “The President’s Framework for Business Tax Reform.” At first look, this report appears to be a good deal for the American public.

AT: HURTS REVENUE

INEFFICIENCIES RESULT IN MORE MONEY BEING LOST THAN COLLECTED FROM CORPORATE TAXMaster 4/5/12 – writes about the economic underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for the Council of Foreign Relations (Jonathon, Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S. Corporate Tax Reform”, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860)

Corporate taxation distorts the U.S. economy in several important ways, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "Once economic activity takes on a pattern that is based on tax rates, resources in the economy are misallocated and inefficiency results, as economic activity shifts away from its most valuable opportunities." A 2010 White House report on tax reform notes that more than 15,000 changes to the tax code have been made since the 1986 reform, many of which are "targeted tax provisions [implemented] to achieve social policy objectives normally achieved by spending programs." According the Fiscal Times, corporate tax expenditures (tax breaks) will cost the Treasury some $628.6 billion over the next five years.In addition, the CBO lists the following primary domestic economic distortions created by the corporate tax: 1) Savings and Investment bias: Decreases the incentive for individuals to save (vs. consume) and for businesses to invest because it taxes income from capital. Taxes on capital/labor are often juxtaposed with taxes on consumption (i.e. value-added tax), which many economists see as more efficient and pro-growth.2) Organization bias: Increases the incentive for businesses to organize as non-corporate entities (WSJ) (i.e. sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.), which are not taxed. Consequently, the tax puts certain industries at a disadvantage to the extent that businesses in those industries rely on the corporate form to raise large amounts of capital from many investors. 3) Financing bias: Increases the incentive for businesses to raise capital by borrowing (debt) versus selling shares (equity), since the interest on debt is tax deductible. A greater reliance on borrowing may increase the exposure of some firms to bankruptcy, especially in economic downturns such as the recent financial crisis (FT). 4) Depreciation bias: Biases some types of capital investment over others to the extent that the IRS depreciation rules, which allow companies to spread tax deductions for a capital asset over its life span, do not reflect actual economic depreciation. 5) Compliance and Planning: The complexity of the code requires businesses to spend a great deal of money on tax compliance and planning--funds that under other circumstances would be allocated elsewhere. In her book The Economic Effects of

Taxing Capital Income, economic policy expert Jane Gravelle asserts that the combined cost of these five domestic inefficiencies (plus a bias

against dividends) could surpass the total amount of corporate tax dollars collected.

96

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSNO REVENUE NOW – TOO MANY LOOPHOLESMalhotra 7/4/12 – writer for the Epoch Times (Heide, “Corporate Tax Dodges on the Table”, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/corporate-tax-dodges-on-the-table-252636.html)

Corporate Tax Payments and Subsidies¶ CTJ participated in the research of tax payments made by 280 of America’s large Fortune 500 corporations

during the 2008–2010 and 2008–2011 tax seasons. Thirty companies paid no taxes during 2008–2010. During the 2008–2011 tax period, DuPont Co. paid a 10.9 percent effective tax rate and Wells Fargo & Co. paid a 3.8 percent effective tax rate. ¶ Due to subsidies, Pepco Holdings Inc. received the highest tax break during the 2008–2010 and 2008–2011 tax seasons, -57.6 percent and -39.5 percent respectively, followed by General Electric Co. (GE) with a tax rate of -45.3 percent and -18.9 percent respectively.¶ During the 2008–2011 tax season, Wells Fargo & Co. garnered the largest subsidy at $21.6 billion, followed by GE with a $10.6 billion subsidy, despite an income of $19.6 billion. Verizon Communications Inc.’s subsidy was $7.7 billion, despite an income of $19.8 billion. The Boeing Co. received a subsidy of $6 billion, despite $14.8 billion in profit. The subsidies for the remaining 26 corporations were below $3.5 billion.¶ The company with the highest federal tax break (-39.5 percent), Pepco Holdings, was among the 14 companies that received a subsidy below $1 billion ($941 million). The company with the lowest subsidy ($171 million) was Con-way Inc.¶ Over the four-

year period of 2008–2011, the IRS would have received an additional $78.3 billion in federal income taxes if those 30 companies had paid their fair share, according to CTJ’s research.¶ “The Treasury Department reports that corporate taxes fell to only 1.2 percent of our gross domestic product over the past three fiscal years. That’s lower than at any time since the 1940s except for one single year during President Reagan’s first term. By comparison, corporate taxes averaged almost 4 percent of our GDP during the 1960s,” CTJ said.¶ Truth About the U.S. Corporate Tax Rate¶ “America has one of the lowest corporate income taxes of any developed country, but you wouldn’t know it given the hysteria of corporate lobbying outfits like the Business Roundtable,” according to an April 5 article on the CTJ website.¶ Gallup Poll surveys conducted between 2004 and 2011 suggest that the majority of survey respondents believe that corporations are getting away with paying too little taxes. ¶ Of the 280 companies studied by CTJ, 134 companies earned a large portion of their income in foreign countries. The majority of these companies (87) were taxed at a lower rate on their U.S. earnings than they paid in taxes on their earnings in foreign countries.¶ According to CTJ, corporations employ a number of accounting gimmicks to make it look like their earnings in the United States come from their subsidiaries located in tax havens, although most of the time, these so-called companies are no more than a post office box.¶ “The problem that corporations are complaining about is actually the high taxes they pay to foreign governments, how could Congress possibly provide any remedy for that? Clearly, what corporations pay in U.S. taxes is what’s relevant to the corporate tax debate before Congress,” the CTJ article said.¶ Keeping Up the Hype About Corporate Taxes¶ “Overall, financial executives from both large and small businesses view an effective tax rate of 20–25 percent as necessary to make the U.S. federal corporate rate competitive with global tax rates,” according to a recent article by Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC (A&M Taxand), a tax advisory firm.¶ Executives surveyed for the A&M Taxand article said that they were more concerned about tax code changes than the actual tax expenses. But, they did state that a lowered tax rate would make our U.S. tax rate more competitive with other countries. The article did not address the subsidies companies received, which lowered the U.S. tax rate below that of foreign countries.

97

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPSAT: DOESN’T SOLVE COMPETITIVENESS

FAILING TAX SYSTEM IS THE LARGEST INTERNAL LINK – COMPETITIVENESS REPORTS PROVEDonlan 6/9/12 – Editorial Page Editor at Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly (Thomas, Barrons, “An Invisible Problem”, http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904470204577452681573138746.html?mod=BOL_twm_fs)It was a pleasant surprise the other day to encounter a different story, published by a well-regarded Swiss business school called IMD (formerly the Institute for Management Development). It operates a World Competitiveness Center, which may sound like more of the same old stuff, but the new report shows a different way of thinking. The U.S. was ranked second for 2011, behind Hong Kong. The bad news is that it was first in 2010 and most years before, but it's worth contemplating the advantages that a group of international business executives and analysts still can find in the U.S. economy. At the top is access to financing, followed by a strong research-and-development culture, an

effective legal environment, dynamism of the economy, a skilled workforce, and reliable infrastructure. At the bottom,

they find the U.S. lacks competency of government and a competitive tax regime . All of the top six assets are usually cited as American problems by competitiveness experts, especially those in government, while we rarely meet officials aware that American governments and their tax system are so poorly regarded. The experts rarely work on economic problems created by government.

98

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

NATIONAL SALES TAX1NC

CP TEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REPLACE ALL FEDERAL TAXES WITH A 23% INCLUSIVE NATIONAL SALES TAX.

Fairtax would boost the economy, history of consumption tax states provesAFT ’10 (Americans for Fair Taxation is a group of individuals and economists who want the fair tax instituted, “Frequently Asked Questions,”) http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

Two of the largest economies in the world rely almost solely on sales taxes: Florida and Texas. Many civilizations in history have relied solely on transaction-based consumption taxes: A percentage of a grain shipment in exchange for a safe harbor. Even a cursory study of history shows that nation/states that relied on consumption taxes flourished and prospered, supported democracies/republics, had expanding economies, and high levels of civil rights for their citizens. The exact opposite is true for empires that relied on income/poll/head taxes. These taxes were used to support despots, eventually collapsed the economies in which they were applied, and sundered civil rights. The sales tax is a familiar tax, being a major source of revenue in 45 states and the District of Columbia. It is true, however, that no post-industrial nation, until now, has ever repealed its income tax and replaced it with a federal retail sales tax. However, England did repeal its detested income tax upon the defeat of Napoleon and enjoyed the fastest, longest expansion of its economy in its long history. An expansion that ended only with the -- you guessed it -- re-imposition of an income tax. No other country has a system of government like ours, and no other country has led the world in so many fields as ours. It was France and Germany that forced the imposition of a VAT in addition to income taxes across the European Community. Shall we follow France’s lead? In contrast, we can observe the Irish Miracle that stems from their refusal to join the EU members in imposing high tax rates and their choice to follow their own path on taxation. Thus, we should simply strive to have the best tax system, period.

99

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

Key to Economy-Compliance Costs Fairtax boosts economy, compliance costs ensureAFT ’10 (Americans for Fair Taxation is a group of individuals and economists who want the fair tax instituted, “Frequently Asked Questions,”) http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

It is estimated that Americans spend at least $265 billion a year to comply with the tax code -- nearly $900 for every man, woman, and child in America. That is greater than the current federal deficit ($205 billion). Billions of dollars in compliance costs are wasted each year, and we have nothing of value to show for this expenditure -- not one single productive service or product is added to our nation’s wealth. It is estimated that the FairTax dramatically cuts such compliance costs, perhaps as much as 95 percent.

100

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

Key to Stocks CP boosts investment in stocks, capital gains abolishment ensuresAFT ’10 (Americans for Fair Taxation is a group of individuals and economists who want the fair tax instituted, “Frequently Asked Questions,”) http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

Investors prosper greatly under this plan, since corporations face lower operating costs and individuals have more money to save and invest. The reform significantly enhances the retirement savings and/or retirement spending power of most Americans. The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax.

101

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

Key to Offshore Fairtax brings companies that offshored back and boosts GDP 10% in year oneAFT ’10 (Americans for Fair Taxation is a group of individuals and economists who want the fair tax instituted, “Frequently Asked Questions,”) http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone. The FairTax as proposed raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by   4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by   8 percent.   As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate , on ap tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

102

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY***

103

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

1NC SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV CPTEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS TO GRADUATES WHO EARN A MASTERS OR PHD DEGREE FROM AN ACCREDITED U.S. UNIVERSITY IN A SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING OR MATH FIELD OF STUDY.CP SOLVES SCIENCE DIPLOMACY

Pickering and Agre 2010 Pickering served as undersecretary of state from 1997-2000 and chairs the advisory council of the Civilian Research and

Development Foundation. Agre, a Nobel laureate, is a physician and director of the Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Feb 20, 2010. “Science diplomacy aids conflict reduction.” http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflict-reduction/ The talks were emblematic of a promising global trend that features researchers, diplomats and others collaborating on science and, in the process, building closer ties between nations. Even countries with tense government-to-government relations share common challenges in infectious diseases, eardthquake engineering, energy production and environmental protection. The White House and Congress have made welcome moves to embrace the potential of science diplomacy, but in the months and years ahead, they will need to exert still more leadership and make sure the effort has the resources needed to succeed. Science diplomacy is hardly a new idea. A 1979 agreement between the United States and China paved the way for bilateral scientific cooperation that has generated vast benefits for both nations, including reduced tensions and billions of dollars in economic activity. U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a Cold War thaw through scientific exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas. Now, science diplomacy may help America open a door toward improved relations with Pyongyang, too. Last December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their North Korean counterparts. High-level science delegations from the United States in recent months also have visited Syria, Cuba and Rwanda, not to mention Asian and European nations. America’s scientific and technological accomplishments are admired worldwide, suggesting a valuable way to promote dialogue. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that a deeply unfavorable view of the U.S. in many Muslim nations, but a profoundly favorable view of U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries shows that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. Within the scientific community, journals routinely publish articles cowritten by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for the professional exchange of ideas. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all essential. The North Korea visit, organized by the U.S.-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Science Engagement Consortium, exemplifies the vast potential of science for diplomacy. The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science engagement. In June, in Cairo, he promised a range of joint science and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for foreign doctors, scientists and engineers. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical contributions to human welfare and to our economy, and they often become informal goodwill ambassadors for America overseas. Science is a wide-ranging effort that naturally crosses borders, and so scientist-to-scientist collaboration can promote goodwill at the grass roots . San Diego boasts a remarkable initiative at High Tech High charter school. Twice in recent years, biology teacher Jay Vavra has led student teams to Africa to study the illegal trade in meat from wild and endangered animals. Working with game wardens and tribal leaders, they use sophisticated DNA bar coding techniques to analyze the meat and track down poachers. Such efforts advance science while supporting peace and the health of the planet. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy can be crucial to finding solutions both to global problems and to global conflict.

The counterplan would be bipartisanJulia Rogers 2009, 12/10/09, "he Startup Founders Visa Program: Will Foreigners Solve U.S. Economy Woes?," http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2009/12/10/the-startup-founders-visa-program-will-foreigners-solve-u-s-ec/In a creative move to further stimulate the U.S. economy, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers as well as respected economists and advisors are promoting the idea, initially proposed last year, to turn to foreign entrepreneurs for help. Political leaders such as U.S. Representative Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado and Newt Gingrich , Republican former Speaker of the House are expressing their support of the Startup Founders Visa Program, an idea that would tweak the U.S. immigration laws and potentially make starting a company, living and working in this country easier for foreign risk takers with great ideas and skills.

104

INNERARITY TSDC 14 ADVANTAGE CPS

2NC SOLVES SCIENCE DIPLOMACY

The counterplan’s essential to US science leadershipAlberts, 03 (Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, and Harvey Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, Dec. 13, 2002, Current Visa Restrictions Interfere with U.S. Science and Engineering Contributions to Important National Needs)Building stronger allies through scientific and technological cooperation. It is clearly in our national interest to help developing countries fight diseases such as AIDS, improve their agricultural production, establish new industries, and generally raise their standard of living. There is no better way to provide that help than to train young people from such countries to become broadly competent in relevant fields of science and technology. Yet our new visa restrictions are making this more difficult . For example, several hundred outstanding young Pakistanis, carefully selected by their government as potential leaders of universities there and accepted for graduate training in U.S. universities, experienced a 90 percent denial rate in applying for U.S. visas. Maintaining U.S. global leadership in science and technology. Throughout our history, this nation has benefited enormously from an influx of foreign-born scientists and engineers whose talents and energy have driven many of our advances in scientific research and technological development. Over half a century ago, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, and many others from Western Europe laid the foundations for our global leadership in modern science. More recently, immigrants from other parts of the world -- most notably China, India, and Southeast Asia -- have joined our research institutions and are now the leaders of universities and technology-based industries. Many others have returned to take leadership positions in their home countries, and now are among the best ambassadors that our country has abroad. Approximately half of the graduate students currently enrolled in the physical sciences and engineering at U.S. universities come from other nations. These foreign students are essential for much of the federally funded research carried out at academic laboratories. Scientific and engineering research has become a truly global enterprise. International conferences, collaborative research projects, and the shared use of large experimental facilities are essential for progress at the frontiers of these areas. If we allow visa restrictions to stop international collaborations at our experimental facilities, then these facilities will cease to attract international support. Moreover, our scientists and engineers will no longer enjoy reciprocal access to important facilities abroad. And if we continue to exclude foreign researchers from conferences held in the United States, then those meetings may cease to take place in this country in the future, depriving many American scientists of the opportunity to participate in them. In short, the U.S. scientific, engineering, and health communities cannot hope to maintain their present position of international leadership if they become isolated from the rest of the world. We seek the help of the U.S. government in implementing effective and timely screening systems for issuing visas to qualified foreign scientists and students who bring great benefit to our country. We view this as an urgent matter, one that must be promptly addressed if the United States is to meet both its national security and economic development goals.

105