PlanThe United States federal government should substantially increase its Solar Roadways solar panel transportation infrastructure investment on all interstate roadways in the United States.

The solar panels will not be built with Jellyfish protein or cadmium.

Funding will be pulled from current green energy subsidies.

Contention One: CoalCoal provides most U.S energy now, but catastrophe coming soonHeinberg 08 Richard Heinberg “Coal in the United States” Published May 28 2008 http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2008-05-28/coal-united-statesBecause the US has the world’s largest coal reserves, it has sometimes been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal." It is the world’s second-largest coal producer, after China, but surpasses both the number three and four producer nations (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three.¶ Wood was this nation’s primary fuel until the mid-1880s, when deforestation necessitated greater reliance on abundant coal resources. Coal then remained America’s main energy source until the 1930s, when it was overtaken by oil. Today coal fuels about 50 percent of US electricity production and

provides about a quarter of the country’s total energy.¶ The US currently produces over a billion tons of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the amount produced in 1960. However, due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced (i.e., declining resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts to more than 30 percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation’s increasing reliance on sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining even within each coal class.¶ ...¶ Implications¶ With oil and natural gas prices rising at alarming rates, the return of the US to a greater reliance on coal might seem inevitabl e . The nation is currently paying over $620 billion per year for petroleum imports, and this ongoing transfer of wealth abroad cannot help but have a substantial negative impact on the domestic economy. There are three ways to moderate that impact: reduce consumption of liquid fuels through conservation; produce more fuels domestically; or electrify transport, which will require more electricity. Coal could help with either of the latter two strategies. Given that the nation possesses so much coal, and that energy from coal is still relatively cheap, it would seem inevitable that strong arguments will be made for a dramatic increase in coal production to help solve the nation’s energy problems.¶ Yet if most of the recent analyses cited here are correct, this strategy has a short shelf life. Within the planning horizon for any coal plant proposed today lie much higher coal prices and perhaps even resource scarcity.¶ The sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and perhaps also natural gas) consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel in the best case, and America is being forced to use ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US coal while meeting EIA forecasts for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly 80 percent more coal then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal are implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount of energy for society’s use, since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to 40 percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues, this would stimulate demand even further. Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a tripling, of US coal demand and production by 2030—which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time.¶ Assuming this higher demand scenario (from CTL, increased exports, and growing electricity consumption), by 2030 the nation’s dependence on coal will be much greater than is currently the case, and coal’s proportional contribution to the total US energy supply will have grown substantially. But at the same time, prices for coal are likely to have increased precipitously because of transport bottlenecks and higher transport costs (due to soaring diesel prices), falling production trends in many current producing regions, and the lack of suitable new coalfields. The interactions of high and rising coal prices with efforts to maximize output are hard to predict.¶ As limits to domestic coal production appear, exports could diminish and there could instead be efforts to import more coal, probably from South America. But in that case the US economy would suffer increasingly from economic dependencies and geopolitical vulnerabilities that already hobble the nation as a result of its oil imports.¶ It may be tempting to think of coal as a transitional energy source for the next few decades, while a longer-term energy strategy emerges. But in that case, an important question arises: Will there be sufficient investment capital and technical resources in three or four decades to fund the transition to the next energy source, whatever it may be? By that time (assuming EIA projections are reasonably accurate), demand for energy will be higher. The price of oil, gas, and coal will be higher—perhaps much higher—and so the nation will be spending proportionally much more of its GDP on energy than it does now. Meanwhile, the energy cost of building new infrastructure of any

kind will be higher. Therefore it is likely that insufficient investment capital will be available for the large number of new energy projects required. The transition if deferred will thus be more expensive and difficult than it would be now. Indeed, the longer a transition to an ultimate (and sustainable) energy regime is put off, the harder that transition becomes.¶ Coal currently looks like a solution to many of America’s fast-growing energy problems. However, this is a solution that, if applied on a broad scale, seems certain only to exacerbate the nation’s energy dilemma in the long run, as well as contributing to an impending global climate catastrophe

Coal is single worst polluter, laundry list includes global warming, cancer, and nuclear radiation resulting in over 1 million deaths a yearStevenson 12 Heidi Stevenson “Coal Is the Worst Polluter of All” http://www.gaia-health.com/articles/000032-Coal-Pollution.shtmlImage a list of the worst pollutants. Whatever is on your list almost certainly is produced by coal mining or burning, usually in greater quantities than any other polluting industry. Pollutants produced by burning

coal include:¶ Carbon dioxide, the primary global warming gas.¶ Sulphur dioxide, which causes acid rain.¶ Nitrogen oxide, which creates ozone that leads to smog.¶ Hydrocarbons, which help create ozone that leads to smog.¶

Carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and is particularly harmful to people with heart disease.¶ Arsenic, which

causes cancer.¶ Lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals.¶ Uranium and thorium, radioactive elements.¶ Mercury, known to cause autism and a host of other neurological and developmental disorders.¶ Coal-fired plants produce 100 times the radiation of nuclear plants to yield the same amount of energy.¶

Here's the kicker: Coal ash, the remains of the burning process, is more radioactive than nuclear waste—and we have not figured out what to do with the waste from nuclear energy production. Back in 1978, a scientist with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) reported in Science that the amount of radiation in the bones of people who live near coal plants is 3-6 times greater than in those who live near nuclear facilities. In fact, according to ORNL Associate Lab Director Dana Christensen and the aforementioned 1978 paper, when the amount of radiation produced by the two types of power plants is compared in terms of their energy output, the story is even worse. Coal-fired plants produce 100 times the radiation of nuclear plants to yield the same amount of energy.¶ Clean coal is a myth. The technology does not exist today and no one knows when—or if—it will exist. Yet the coal companies continue to push the idea, and politicians help them . In the U.K. the Labour Party pushes the false idea of clean coal as a necessary element of dealing with

climate change. In the United States, President Obama has ballyhooed the lie.¶ The term "clean coal" is misleading in two ways. First is the fact that the technology for creating it doesn't exist, and even if it did, estimates are that it would cost several trillion dollars in the U.S. alone to switch to it, making it prohibitively expensive. Worse, though, is that the term references only the production of carbon dioxide. It has nothing to do with any of the other pollutants, including radiation. The

Sierra Club reports that coal-fired plants in the U.S. produce 59% of sulphur dioxide pollution and 18% of nitrogen oxide.¶ The EPA has reported that coal plants produce about 40% of America's mercury pollution, more than any other source. No other industry is doing as much to poison the fish that we eat, resulting in warnings to people not to eat fish too often. Three-time Emmy award winner, Jeremy Piven, recently fell ill from eating mercury-laced sushi. It is responsible for untold numbers of babies being born with neurological problems, including autism, mental retardation, blindness, and a variety of other neurological problems. It is found in mothers' breast milk, putting children at risk even after birth. It is known to increase and worsen coronary disease in men. The EPA reports that the number of pregnant women affected by mercury poisoning is so high that as many as 630,000 children in the U.S. are born each year with a strong likelihood of developing health problems.¶ The American Lung Association says that 24,000 people die annually in the U.S. from coal plant pollution, and there are 38,000 more heart attacks and 550,000 more asthma attacks. The American Journal of Public Health reports higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes, and lung and kidney disease in coal mining areas.¶ Lead contamination is known to cause brain shrinkage, retardation, and violence, as documented in Lead Shrinks the Brain and Causes Violent Crime.¶ Arsenic is an insidious poison, causing convulsions, difficulty in urination and defecation, delirium, cell death, cancer, hemorrhages, and damage to the body's ability to metabolize food for energy. The general term, arsenicosis, refers to arsenic poisoning that results from long term exposure to arsenic in drinking water. As little as 0.17 parts of lead per billion in water has been shown to be harmful.¶ Climate change. Pollution. Health devastation. Mental retardation. Cancer. Devastation of food supplies. All of these can be laid at the doorstep of coal corporations. Big Coal is fighting to make us believe that coal power is the best thing since Europe was covered with forests. Continuing to use coal for energy can only destroy us. It destroys the lives of humans, animals, plants , and Gaia herself. Clean coal is a myth.

Warming is an existential risk.Deibel ’07—Prof IR @ National War College (Terry, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft,” Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere

possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring . “ In legitimate scientific circles ,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record,

with 1998 a close second”; “ Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system . At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going

to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse .” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post- Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame . It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet

Our science is bestAlley 10 – Professor of Geoscience @ Penn StateRichard, Professor of Geoscience @ Penn State, authored over 200 refereed scientific papers, which are "highly cited" according to a prominent indexing service, erved with distinguished national and international teams on major scientific assessment bodies, 11-17-2010, “CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE; COMMITTEE: HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SUBCOMMITTEE: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis

Background on Climate Change and Global Warming. Scientific assessments such as those of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (e.g., National Research Council, 1975; 1979; 2001; 2006; 2008; 2010a; 2010b), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change have for decades consistently found with increasingly high scientific confidence that human activities are raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that this has a warming effect on the climate, that the climate is warming as expected, and that the changes so far are small compared to those projected if humans burn much of the fossil fuel on the planet. The basis for expecting and understanding warming from CO2 is the fundamental physics of how energy interacts with gases in the atmosphere. This knowledge has been available for over a century, was greatly refined by military research after World War II, and is directly confirmed by satellite measurements and other data (e.g., American Institute of Physics, 2008; Harries et al., 2001; Griggs and Harries, 2007). Although a great range of ideas can be found in scientific papers and in statements by individual scientists, the scientific assessments by bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences consider the full range of available information . The major results brought forward are based on multiple lines of evidence provided by different research groups with different funding sources, and have repeatedly been tested and confirmed. Removing the work of any scientist or small group of scientists would still leave a strong scientific basis for the main conclusions. Ice Changes. There exists increasingly strong evidence for widespread, ongoing reductions in the Earth's ice, including snow, river and lake ice, Arctic sea ice, permafrost and seasonally frozen ground, mountain glaciers, and the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. The trends from warming are modified by effects of changing precipitation and of natural variability, as I will discuss soon, so not all ice everywhere is always shrinking. Nonetheless, warming is important in the overall loss of ice, although changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation in response to natural or human causes also have contributed and will continue to contribute to changes. The most recent assessment by the IPCC remains relevant (Lemke et al., 2007). Also see the assessment of the long climatic history of the Arctic by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP, 2009), showing that in the past warming has led to shrinkage of Arctic ice including sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, and that sufficiently large warming has removed them entirely.

**TRADE**

Even small changes in climate will impact the transportation sector and global tradeWorld Trade Organization and United Nations Environment Programme ’09 [WTO and UNEP, “Trade and Climate Change”, 2009, WTO and UNEP, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_climate_change_e.pdf, AD]

As greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures increase, the impacts from climate change are expected to become more widespread and to intensify . For example, even with small

increases in average temperature , the type, frequency and intensity of extreme weather – such as hurricanes, typhoons, floods, droughts, and storms – are projected to increase . Th e distribution of these weather events, however, is expected to vary considerably among regions and countries, and impacts will depend to a large extent on the vulnerability of populations or ecosystems. Developing countries, and particularly the poorest and most marginalized populations within these countries, will generally be both the most adversely aff ected by the impacts of future climate change and the most vulnerable to its eff ects, because they are less able to adapt than developed countries and populations. In addition, climate change risks compound the other challenges which are already faced by these countries, including tackling poverty, improving health care, increasing food security and improving access to sources of energy. For instance, climate change is projected to lead to hundreds of millions of people having limited access to water supplies or facing inadequate water quality, which will, in turn, lead to greater health problems. Although the impacts of climate change are specifi c to location and to the level of development, most sectors of the global economy are expected to be affected and these impacts will often have implications for trade. For example, three trade-related areas are considered to be particularly vulnerable to climate change. Agriculture is considered to be one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate change, and also represents a key sector for international trade. In low-latitude regions, where most developing countries are located, reductions of about 5 to 10 per cent in the yields of major cereal crops are projected even in the case of small temperature increases of around 1° C. Although it is expected that local temperature increases of between 1° C and 3° C would have benefi cial impacts on agricultural outputs in mid- to high-latitude regions, warming beyond this range will most likely result in increasingly negative impacts for these regions also. According to some studies, crop yields in some African countries could fall by up to 50 per cent by 2020, with net revenues from crops falling by as much as 90 per cent by 2100. Depending on the location, agriculture will also be prone to water scarcity due to loss of glacial meltwater and reduced rainfall or droughts. Tourism is another industry that may be particularly vulnerable to climate change, for example, through changes in snow cover, coastal degradation and extreme weather. Both the fi sheries and forestry sectors also risk being adversely impacted by climate change. Likewise, ix Part IV Part III Part II Part I there are expected to be major impacts on coastal ecosystems, including the disappearance of coral and the loss of marine

biodiversity . Finally, one of the clearest impacts will be on trade infrastructure and routes. The

IPCC has identified port facilities, as well as buildings, roads, railways, airports and bridges, as

being dangerously at risk of damage from rising sea levels and the increased occurrence of

instances of extreme weather, such as fl ooding and hurricanes. Moreover, it is projected that changes in sea ice, particularly in the Arctic, will lead to the availability of new shipping routes.

World trade is critical to America and Global peace Panitchpakdi ‘4 (Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, 2/26/2004, American Leadership and the World Trade Organization, p. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spsp_e/spsp22_e.htm

The second point is that strengthening the world trading system is essential to America's wider global

objectives. Fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, improving health, integrating China and other countries in the global economy

— all of these issues are linked , in one way or another, to world trade. This is not to say that trade is the answer to all

America's economic concerns; only that meaningful solutions are inconceivable without it. The world trading system is the linchpin of today's global order — underpinning its security as well as its prosperity. A successful WTO is an example of how multilateralism can work. Conversely, if it weakens or fails, much else

could fail with it. This is something which the US — at the epicentre of a more interdependent world — cannot afford to ignore. These priorities must continue to guide US policy — as they have done since the Second World War. America has been the main driving force behind eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, including the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO. The US — together with the EU — was instrumental in launching the latest Doha Round two years ago. Likewise, the recent initiative, spearheaded by Ambassador Zoellick, to re-energize the negotiations and move them towards a successful conclusion is yet another example of how essential the US is to the multilateral process — signalling that the US remains committed to further liberalization, that the Round is moving, and that other countries have a tangible reason to get on board. The reality is this: when the US leads the system can move forward; when it withdraws, the system drifts. The fact that US leadership is essential, does not mean it is easy. As WTO rules have expanded, so too has as the complexity of the issues the WTO deals with — everything from agriculture and accounting, to tariffs and telecommunication. The WTO is also exerting huge gravitational pull on countries to join — and participate actively — in the system. The WTO now has 146 Members — up from just 23 in 1947 — and this could easily rise to 170 or more within a decade. Emerging powers like China, Brazil, and India rightly demand a greater say in an institution in which they have a growing stake. So too do a rising number of voices outside the system as well. More and more people recognize that the WTO matters. More non-state actors — businesses, unions, environmentalists, development NGOs — want the multilateral system to reflect their causes and concerns. A decade ago, few people had even heard of the GATT. Today the WTO is front page news. A more visible WTO has inevitably become a more politicized WTO. The sound and fury surrounding the WTO's recent Ministerial Meeting in Cancun — let alone Seattle — underline how challenging managing the WTO can be. But these challenges can be exaggerated. They exist precisely because so many countries have embraced a common vision. Countries the world over have turned to open trade — and a rules-based system — as the key to their growth and development. They agreed to the Doha Round because they believed their interests lay in freer trade, stronger rules, a more effective WTO. Even in Cancun the great debate was whether the multilateral trading system was moving fast and far enough — not whether it should be rolled back. Indeed, it is critically important that we draw the right conclusions from Cancun — which are only now becoming clearer. The disappointment was that ministers were unable to reach agreement. The achievement was that they exposed the risks of failure, highlighted the need for North-South collaboration, and — after a period of introspection — acknowledged the inescapable logic of negotiation. Cancun showed that, if the challenges have increased, it is because the stakes are higher. The bigger challenge to American leadership comes from inside — not outside — the United States. In America's current debate about trade, jobs and globalization we have heard a lot about the costs of liberalization. We need to hear more about the opportunities. We need to be reminded of the advantages of America's openness and its trade with the world — about the economic growth tied to exports; the inflation-fighting role of imports, the innovative stimulus of global competition. We need to explain that freer trade works precisely because it involves positive change — better products, better job opportunities, better ways of doing things, better standards of living. While it is true that change can be threatening for people and societies, it is equally true that the vulnerable are not helped by resisting change — by putting up barriers and shutting out competition. They are helped by training, education, new and better opportunities that — with the right support policies — can flow from a globalized economy. The fact is that for every job in the US threatened by imports there is a growing number of high-paid, high skill jobs created by exports. Exports supported 7 million workers a decade ago; that number is approaching around 12 million today. And these new jobs — in aerospace, finance, information technology — pay 10 per cent more than the average American wage. We especially need to inject some clarity — and facts — into the current debate over the outsourcing of services jobs. Over the next decade, the US is projected to create an average of more than 2 million new services jobs a year — compared to roughly 200,000 services jobs that will be outsourced. I am well aware that this issue is the source of much anxiety in America today. Many Americans worry about the potential job losses that might arise from foreign competition in services sectors. But it’s worth remembering that concerns about the impact of foreign competition are not new. Many of the reservations people are expressing today are echoes of what we heard in the 1970s and 1980s. But people at that time didn’t fully appreciate the power of American ingenuity. Remarkable advances in technology and productivity laid the foundation for unprecedented job creation in the 1990s and there is no reason to doubt that this country, which has shown time and again such remarkable potential for competing in the global economy, will not soon embark again on such a burst of job-creation. America's openness to service-sector trade — combined with the high skills of its workforce — will lead to more growth, stronger industries, and a shift towards higher value-added, higher-paying employment. Conversely, closing the door to service trade is a strategy for killing jobs, not saving them. Americans have never run from a challenge and have never been defeatist in the face of strong competition. Part of this challenge is to create the conditions for global growth and job creation here and around the world. I believe Americans realize what is at stake. The process of opening to global trade can be disruptive, but they recognize that the US economy cannot grow and prosper any other way. They recognize the importance of finding global solutions to shared global problems. Besides, what is the alternative to the WTO? Some argue that the world's only superpower need not be tied down by the constraints of the multilateral system. They claim that US sovereignty is compromised by international rules, and that multilateral institutions limit rather than expand US influence. Americans should be deeply sceptical about these claims. Almost none of the trade issues facing the US today are any easier to solve unilaterally, bilaterally or regionally. The reality is probably just the opposite. What sense does it make — for example — to negotiate e-commerce rules bilaterally? Who would be interested in disciplining agricultural subsidies in a regional agreement but not globally? How can bilateral deals — even dozens of them — come close to matching the economic impact of agreeing to global free trade among 146 countries? Bilateral and regional deals can sometimes be a complement to the multilateral system, but they can never be a substitute . There is a bigger danger.

By treating some countries preferentially, bilateral and regional deals exclude others — fragmenting global trade and distorting the world economy. Instead of liberalizing trade — and widening growth — they carve it up. Worse,

they have a domino effect : bilateral deals inevitably beget more bilateral deals, as countries left outside are forced to seek their own preferential arrangements, or risk further marginalization. This is precisely what we see happening today. There are already over two hundred bilateral and regional agreements in existence, and each month we hear of a new or expanded deal. There is a basic contradiction in the assumption that bilateral approaches serve to strengthen the multilateral, rules-based system. Even when intended to spur free trade, they can ultimately risk undermining it . This is in no one's interest, least of all

the United States. America led in the creation of the multilateral system after 1945 precisely to avoid a return to hostile blocs — blocs that had done so much to fuel interwar instability and conflict. America's vision, in the words of Cordell Hull, was that “enduring peace and the welfare of nations was indissolubly connected with the friendliness, fairness and freedom of world trade”. Trade would bind nations together, making another war unthinkable. Non-discriminatory rules would prevent a return to preferential deals and closed alliances. A network of multilateral initiatives and organizations — the Marshal Plan, the IMF, the World Bank, and the GATT, now the WTO — would provide the institutional bedrock for the international rule of law, not power. Underpinning all this was the idea that freedom — free trade, free democracies, the free exchange of ideas — was essential to peace and prosperity, a more just world. It is a vision that has emerged pre-eminent a half century later. Trade has expanded twenty-fold since 1950. Millions in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are being lifted out of poverty, and millions more have new hope for the future. All the great powers — the US, Europe, Japan, India, China and soon Russia — are part of a rules-based multilateral trading system, greatly increasing the chances for world prosperity and peace. There is a growing realization that — in our interdependent world — sovereignty is constrained, not by multilateral rules, but by the absence of rules.

Trade collapse leads to Nuclear warPanzner 8 – faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase (Michael, “Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse,” p. 136-138Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters , often with minimal provocation. In

some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt

colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from

around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an “intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood . Long-simmering resentments

could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.

**WARMING**

CO2 reduction solves warmingHansen et al 8 (James, Makiko Sato, PushkerKharecha, NASA/Goddard instutue for Space Studies, Columbia University Earth Institute. David Beerling, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Robert Berner, Mark Pagani, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Lab Des Sciences du Climat et l'Enviornnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Maureen Raymo, Department of Earth Sciences, Boston University, Dana L. Royer, Department of Earth and Enviornmental Sciences, James C. Zachos, Earth and Planetary Sciences Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?", http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V002/217TOASCJ.pdf)Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes.Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climatestates between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policychanges, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likelyless than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppmCO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestrypractices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

Coal reduction is key to solving warming, nothing else can solveHansen 08 James Hansen Nasa scientist “James Hansen and Coal” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_impacts_of_coal_plantsNASA scientist James Hansen, who reported to the U.S. Congress that climate change was underway in 1988, has been particularly

critical of the coal industry, stating that coal contributes the largest percentage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.[6] He acknowledges that a molecule of carbon dioxide emitted from burning coal has the same effect as a molecule emitted from burning oil, but that the difference is where the fuel originally resides. He says that most oil comes from Russia and Saudi Arabia, and that no matter how fuel-efficient automobiles become, the oil will eventually be burned and the carbon dioxide emitted. In a 2007 testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board, he stated that the United States has a large reservoir of coal, which makes it a resource that can be controlled through action by U.S. politicians, unlike oil which is controlled by other countries.[6] He and other climate scientists have called for coal phase out completely by the year 2030.[7]¶ Hansen has said that phasing out coal “is 80% of the solution to the global warming crisis.”[8] As pointed out in Ted Nace's Climate Hope, Hansen’s reasons for emphasizing coal were fourfold:¶ The amount of carbon remaining in the ground in oil and gas reserves is much smaller than the amount of carbon contained in coal reserves.[9]¶ "Second, coal is the most carbon intense of the fossil fuels . Producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal produces about 2.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, while producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity from natural gas produces about 1 pound of carbon dioxide. While coal produces half of the electricity used in the United States, it is responsible for 80 percent of the carbon dioxide released by electric utilities."[10]¶

"Third, coal consumption is far more concentrated than the use of other fossil fuels. A mere six hundred large coal-burning power plants account for nearly all coal usage, in contrast to the tens of millions of cars, trucks, planes, homes, businesses, and factories that burn oil and gas. Thus, reducing emissions from coal is a far simpler task."[10]¶ "Fourth, production of oil and gas is primarily located in countries that American domestic energy policy has little or no ability to control. Any reduction in use by the United States might well be consumed by other countries. In contrast, our ability to control the consumption of coal is substantial, since the United States leads the rest of the world in the size of its coal reserves."[10]

Reduction necessary, global warming causes extinctionMolloy 7/6 (Ivan, Associate Diploma of Geology: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Rebuff to Climate Change Denial,

http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/rebuff-to-climate-change-denial,26302, 2012)As a former geologist I have to respond to those who deny human induced Climate Change. Yes its true the worlds climate and geomorphology have been continually changing throughout natural history providing favourable conditions for some forms of life at times, while extinguishing others. In recent geological time, the planet has provided favourable conditions for the flourishing of human life, which in turn like other forms of life also contributes to climate and geomorpholigical change. However, unlike no other form of life, the impact of modern human civilization has greatly distorted and added to global climate change, and impacting heavily on flora and fauna. Human kind through massive over population and industrialization is now like a cancer on the planet exterminating hundreds of other life species annually, and now it threatens its own survival with massive pollution. The Global Climate has always changed but not at such a massive rate due to human activity which in turn now threatens our survival. But other forms of life, such as cockroaches will continue on.

**CANCER**

Cadmium exposure from coal leads to cancerSebelius 11 (Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, “Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition  (2011): Cadmium and Cadmium CompoundsCAS No. 7440-43-9 (Cadmium)”, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15, June 10, 2011, Accessed 7/11/12)

Cancer Studies in Humans Several epidemiological cohort studies of workers found that exposure

to various cadmium compounds increased the risk of death from lung cancer (IARC 1993). Although other factors that could increase the risk of cancer, such as co-exposure to arsenic, were present in several of these studies, it is unlikely that the increased risk of lung cancer was due entirely to confounding factors. Follow-up analysis of some of these cohorts has not definitively eliminated arsenic exposure as a possibly confounding factor, but has confirmed that cadmium exposure is associated with elevated lung-cancer risk under some industrial circumstances (Sorahan et al. 1995, Sorahan and Lancashire 1997). Some early cohort studies found an increased risk of death from prostate cancer among cadmium-exposed workers, but later cohort studies have not confirmed this observation. Additional epidemiological evidence (including case-control studies and geographic-distribution studies) suggests an association between cadmium exposure and cancer of the prostate (Bako et al. 1982, Shigematsu et al. 1982, Garcia Sanchez et al. 1992, van der Gulden et al. 1995), kidney (Kolonel 1976, Mandel et al. 1995), and urinary-bladder (Siemiatycki et al. 1994). The International Agency for Research on Cancer reevaluated the evidence for carcinogenicity of cadmium in 2009 and reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of cadium’s carcinogenicity in humans. The evidence was classified as sufficent for lung cancer and limited for prostate and kidney cancer (Straif et al. 2009).

US must fight cancer, sheer lives at stake and moral obligationJemal 12 Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD “Cancer Statistics, 2012” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.3322/caac.20138/asset/20138_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=FFBEBFF21818EE695032FB3CF3FB93D2.d03t02?v=Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths expected in the¶ United States in the current year and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival¶ based on incidence data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and¶ the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and mortality data from the National Center for Health¶ Statistics. A total of 1,638,910 new cancer cases and 577,190 deaths from cancer are projected to occur in the¶ United States in 2012. During the most recent 5 years for which there are data (2004-2008), overall cancer incidence rates declined slightly in men (by 0.6% per year) and were stable in women, while cancer death rates¶ decreased by 1.8% per year in men and by 1.6% per year in women. Over the past 10 years of available data (1999-¶ 2008), cancer death rates have declined by more than 1% per year in men and women of every racial/ethnic group¶ with the exception of American Indians/Alaska Natives, among whom rates have remained stable. The most rapid¶ declines in death rates occurred among African American and Hispanic men (2.4% and 2.3% per year, respectively).¶ Death rates continue to decline for all 4 major cancer sites (lung, colorectum, breast, and prostate), with lung cancer accounting for almost 40% of the total decline in men and breast cancer accounting for 34% of the

total decline¶ in women. The reduction in overall cancer death rates since 1990 in men and 1991 in women translates to the¶

avoidance of about 1,024,400 deaths from cancer. Further progress can be accelerated by applying existing cancer¶ control knowledge across all segments of the population, with an emphasis on those groups in the lowest socioeconomic bracket. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10–29. VC¶ 2012 American Cancer Society.

**ECON**

Coal prevents widespread renewable energy Thies 12 Tom Thies “Renewable Energy: Solar, Wind, Hydro and Biomass” Sustainability: A Comprehensive Foundation http://cnx.org/content/m41731/latest/?collection=col11325/latestRenewable energy faces several barriers to its widespread deployment. Cost is one of the most serious , illustrated in Figure Production Cost of Electricity - 2020 Projection. Although the cost of renewables has declined significantly in recent years, most are still higher in cost than traditional fossil alternatives. Fossil energy technologies have a longer experience in streamlining manufacturing, incorporating new materials, taking advantage of economies of scale and understanding the underlying physical and chemical phenomena of t he energy conversion process. As Figure Production Cost of Electricity - 2020 Projection shows, the lowest cost electricity is generated by natural gas and coal, with hydro and wind among the renewable challengers. Cost, however, is not an isolated metric; it must be compared with the alternatives. One of the uncertainties of the present business environment is the ultimate cost of carbon emissions. If governments put a price on carbon emission to compensate the social cost of global warming and the threat of climate change, the relative cost of renewables will become more appealing even if their absolute cost does not change. This policy uncertainty in the eventual cost of carbon-based power generation is a major factor in the future economic appeal of renewable energy.

Renewable energy key to economic recoveryHarvey 12 Fiona Harvey The Guardian, July 13, 2012 “RENEWABLE ENERGY WILL SAVE ECONOMY” http://www.usgreenchamber.com/blog/renewable-energy-will-save-economy/Former President Bill Clinton warned that the US needs to cut its consumption of natural resources to curb climate change and rising prices. He stated that by using our resources more sustainably that the economy would recover faster, thus ending the current recession.¶ “We can grow even faster if we use less energy,” Clinton told the Guardian. “We have studies that show this. All that we need to do is find ways to finance this.”¶ Our current financial system favors the building of large infrastructure, such as coal-fired power plants, and is impeding progress of renewable technologies. Investors have decades of financial expertise building coal-fired plants . They already know the time frame to expect a

return on their investment. However, investors are leery of backing renewable projects because the financial models for such projects do not yet exist. Likewise, financing for energy efficient projects is more complex and the payback is spread out among several investors.¶ “This is the problem with going aggressively for efficiency, as we need to,” Clinton said. “If I want to finance efficiency savings, I need to go to lots of people and add all those savings together. But if I want to build a new coal-fired power station, I go to a few [backers] and I’ve done it.”¶ The former president also discussed the need for countries worldwide to work harder to cut greenhouse gases from sources other than carbon dioxide, such as methane. He called on individual citizens to assist by reducing their own environmental impact. He cited the work of biologist EO Wilson whose research shows that complex societies, such as the human race, prosper through co-operation or building networks among one another to solve a problem.¶ President Clinton’s above statements were spoken at a two day environmental conference this week at Oxford, attended by oversea leaders and representatives from business and finance. The conference aimed to find solutions to the problems that are associated with the loss of natural resources (i.e. water, energy, agricultural land and other materials).¶ The former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, Sir David King, had this to say about the problem of resource scarcity:¶ “We are nowhere near realizing the full impact of this yet. We have seen the first indications – rising food prices, pressure on water supplies, a land grab by some countries for mining rights and fertile agricultural land, and rising prices for energy and for key resources [such as] metals. But we need to do far more to deal with these problems before they become even more acute, and we are not doing enough yet.”¶ Other UK politicians called for an end to subsidies for fossil fuels that they say only encourage continued use of non-renewable resources and stifle the support for renewable technologies, thus impeding progress.¶ Parliament member, David Miliband, told conference attendees that there is a “moral imperative” for wealthy countries to use fewer natural resources.

Econ decline causes warEarl Tilford 8, PhD in history from George Washington University and served for thirty-two years as a military officer and analyst with the Air Force and Army, 2008, “Critical Mass: Economic Leadership or Dictatorship,” The Cedartown Standard, Lexis Could it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system . Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to “socialism” as some conservative economic prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If the American economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that happens the American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and

Eastern Europe could crumble. A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like

petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations—the world powers of North America, Europe, and Asia—need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.

Solar power replaces coal, solves for warming, cadmium, economy and 1 million deaths associated with coal productionSierra club 12 “Clean Energy Solutions: Renewable Energy” © 2012 Sierra Club. http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/renewables/Nearly 90 percent of our electricity still comes from polluting sources of energy like coal. Coal-burning power plants are the nation's largest source of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping pollutant that causes global warming. Coal-fired power plants are also responsible for pollutio n that increases asthma attacks and

worsens environmental problems like acid rain, haze, smog, and other air and water pollution.¶ However, we have the technology and the know-how to move beyond our dependence on polluting power plants by using clean, safe, and affordable renewable energy. By harnessing renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, wave, biomass and others we can transform how we produce electricity. For instance, modern wind farms are leading the drive away from polluting sources of energy by capturing the massive wind power potential of the Midwest. Today's solar panels efficiently transform sunlight into electricity while blending into the design of

homes and office buildings. In addition , concentrating solar plants (CSP) are large enough to replace coal fired power plants.

Solar panels have already been created, are competitive with asphalt, and provide enough energy to power the entire worldMcKendrick 10 (Joe, an independent analyst who tracks the impact of information technology on management and markets. He is the author of the SOA Manifesto and has written for Forbes, ZDNet and Database Trends & Applications, "Pave this: replace asphalt on roads with solar panels, power the nation", Aug 6 2010, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/pave-this-replace-asphalt-on-roads-with-solar-panels-power-the-nation/9178. Noparstak)Here’s an idea that could provide the United States with all the solar power it needs, while also helping to fix a large part of our crumbling infrastructure: pave our 25,000 square miles of roadways with intelligent solar panels. A road “that pays for itself,” its designers propose. Is this a feasible idea, or something akin to trying to build a bridge across

the Atlantic? There may be some economic justification. Liquid asphalt , a petroleum-based derivative, now costs close to $1,000 a ton , while asphalt itself is still under $100 a ton , says Scott Brusaw of Solar

Roadways, an engineer proposing the idea. “We can’t keep building asphalt roads , doing the same thing … its

an antiquated system we’ve been doing too long,” he says. “Let’s move on and leave the fossil fuels behind us.”

Solar panels, operating at just 15 percent efficiency , installed as roadway surfaces within the 25,000 square miles of existing roads in the lower 48 states, would be capable of producing “three times as much electricity that we produce on an annual basis — almost enough to power the entire world,” Brusaw says. The prototypes for Solar Roadways were funded by a research award from the US Department of Transportation, which solicited ideas for an “intelligent pavement” that could generate power and pay for itself. Brusaw and his team built a 12 by 12 solar road panel prototype, along with a 3 by 3 LED-lit “crosswalk” panel. The smaller panel ′ ′ ′ ′could be used to mark and illuminate the edges of roads and other hazards, Brusaw says. “Roads are collecting heat anyway,” Brusaw says, adding that “the technology behind it has already been done today.” Can a sheet of glass

withstand pounding by two-ton cars, trucks, and buses? This is possible, Brusaw says, as “glass can have as high of strength as steel.” There are other issues to be addressed, he adds, noting that driving on glass “has got to have the sam

Contention Two: The Grid

Power grid vulnerable now—terrorists see it as a target for a cyber attackSerrano 11 (Richard A., staff writer for the Washington bureau, "U.S. power grid a terrorist target", Feb 11 2011, http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/feb/11/us-power-grid-a-terrorist-target/. Noparstak)WASHINGTON – A major cyber attack somewhere in the United States is becoming increasingly possible, top government intelligence officials said Thursday, warning that an assault on America’s power-grid system “represents the battleground for the future.” The officials, speaking at a special hearing on Capitol Hill, also said that while al-Qaida has been diminished

after nine years of the U.S. war on terror, more foreign groups have risen up, increasing concerns among U.S.

authorities that one of them may eventually get their hands on a nuclear device. “I don’t think there’s any question but that this is a real national security threat that we have to pay attention to,” CIA Director Leon Panetta said of a cyber attack in this country. “The Internet, the cyber-arena … this is a vastly growing area of information that can be used and abused in a number of ways.” With that in mind, he told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, “When it comes to national security, I think this represents the battleground for the future. I’ve often said that I think the potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber attack.” Panetta said terrorists are determined to find a way to hack into the power grid system in the United States, which he said, “brings down the financial system, brings down our government systems. You could paralyze this country. And I think it’s a real potential, and that’s the thing we have to really pay attention to.” He noted that extremists in Iran, Russia and China are developing “a significant capacity” to stage such an attack, and that already “hundreds of thousands” of attempts are being made to sneak into national security networks. “We’ve got to develop not only a defense against that,” he said, “but we’ve got to put our assets in places where we can provide sufficient warning that these attacks are coming.” On the threat from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said extremists are trying to gain control of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and in fact “remain committed to obtaining all types of weapons of mass destruction.” James Clapper, director of the Office of National Intelligence, was asked to elaborate. All he would say was, “Our assessment is that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are secure. And that’s probably all we should say about that in public.”

Countries and terrorist organizations have already infiltrated our grid system and can shut it off during a time of warGorman 9 (Siobhan, writer for the Wall Street Journal, "Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated By Spies", April 8 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html. Noparstak)WASHINGTON -- Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security

officials.The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven't sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war."The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid," said a senior intelligence official. "So have the Russians."The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn't target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. "There are intrusions, and they are growing," the former official said, referring to electrical systems. "There were a lot last year."Many of the intrusions were detected not by the companies in charge of the infrastructure but by U.S. intelligence agencies, officials said. Intelligence officials worry about cyber attackers taking control of electrical facilities, a nuclear power plant or financial networks via the Internet.Authorities investigating the intrusions have found software tools left behind that could be used to destroy infrastructure components, the senior intelligence official said. He added, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."Officials said water, sewage and other infrastructure systems also were at risk."Over the past several years, we have seen cyberattacks against critical infrastructures abroad, and many of our own infrastructures are as vulnerable as their foreign counterparts," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently told lawmakers. "A number of nations, including Russia and China, can disrupt elements of the U.S. information infrastructure."

**FAMINE**

Blackouts cause famine immediately, impacts grow exponentially with timeWesley 10 James Wesley, Rawles “How Long Can You Tread Water?” July 5, 2010 6:14 PM http://stupidityshouldhurt.com/reference/tread_water.pdfIn the event of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP ) burst 250 miles above Kansas or a super solar¶ flare, the loss of the electrical grid would stop almost all food production and importation in¶ the USA. Some estimate there is, at any given time, more than 1,000 pounds per capita of¶ food in consumable form available in the USA. Unfortunately, it is very poorly distributed¶ and will not be available to the populace in a “Grid Down” scenario. So the question is then,¶ if you personally have not stored at least a three years supply of food per person (and, no, a¶ one year supply just won’t due), “How long can you live on a zero calorie diet”? We, on

the other hand, will be without electricity for¶ many years, able to create very little new food, and will have to defend against a continuous¶ onslaught of attackers. When you are forced out of your home or run out of food and there is no new¶ food to be had anywhere, what are you going to do, where are you going to go? This won’t be¶

like in the movies or books, there will be no cavalry, no supplies parachuted in, and no relief¶ trucks arriving just in time. There will be no help at all. Over 310 million people in the U.S.¶ will be on their own just like you with almost no new food being produced or imported. ¶ Think of the total USA food supply like a giant hour glass being filled with food production¶ and imports just as fast as it is being consumed. After an EMP or super solar flare the¶ consumption will continue at the same rate while food production and importation will¶ essentially stop completely. That means no more new food added to the hour glass! Perhaps¶ one third of total US food supply will rot due to the lack of refrigeration and 80% of the¶ balance is somewhere in the production, storage or distribution system, none of which still¶ function. The balance available to the masses will be consumed as it is looted. The hour glass¶ will be essentially empty for the masses. For anyone to survive they must have enough to eat¶ until new food could be grown, perhaps the second summer after TEOTWAWKI, assuming¶ you have the means and know how.

**Nuclear Meltdown**

Collapse of the power grid causes nuclear meltdown—collapses - causes extinction.International Business Times 11(Solar Flare Could Unleash Nuclear Holocaust Across Planet Earth, Forcing Hundreds of Nuclear Power Plants Into Total Meltdowns, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flare-could-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-power-pl.htm. Noparstak)What happens when there's no electricity? Imagine a world without electricity. Even for just a week. Imagine New York

City with no electricity, or Los Angeles, or Sao Paulo. Within 72 hours, most cities around the world will devolve into total chaos, complete with looting, violent crime, and runaway fires. But that's not even the bad news. Even if all the major cities of the world burned to the ground for some other reason, humanity could still recover because it has the farmlands: the soils, the seeds, and the potential to recover, right? And yet the real crisis here stems from the realization that once there is no power grid, all the nuclear power plants of the world suddenly go into "emergency mode" and are forced to rely on their on-site emergency power backupsto circulate coolants and prevent nuclear meltdowns from occurring. And yet, as we've already established, these facilities typically have only a few hours of battery power available, followed by perhaps a few days worth of diesel fuel to run their generators (or propane, in some cases). Did I also mention that half the people who work at nuclear power facilities have no idea what they're doing in the first place? Most of the veterans who really know the facilities inside and out have been forced into retirement due to reaching their lifetime limits of on-the-job radiation exposure, so most of the workers at nuclear facilities right now are newbies who really have no clue what they're doing. There are 440 nuclear power plants operating across 30 countries around the world today. There are an additional 250 so-called "research reactors" in existence, making a total of roughly 700 nuclear reactors to be dealt with (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/i...). Now imagine the scenario: You've got a massive solar flare that knocks out the world power grid and destroys the majority of the power grid transformers, thrusting the world into darkness. Cities collapse into chaos and rioting, martial law is quickly declared (but it hardly matters), and every nation in the world is on full emergency. But that doesn't solve the really big problem, which is that you've got700 nuclear reactors t hat can't feed power into the grid (because all the transformers are blown up) and yet simultaneously have to be fed a steady stream of emergency fuels to run the generators the keep the coolant pumps functioning. How long does

the coolant need to circulate in these facilities to cool the nuclear fuel? Months. This is also the lesson of Fukushima: You can't cool

nuclear fuel in mere hours or days. It takes months to bring these nuclear facilities to a state of cold shutdown. And that means in order to avoid a multitude of Fukushima-style meltdowns from occurring around the world, you need to truck diesel fuel, generator parts and nuclear plant workers to every nuclear facility on the planet, ON TIME, every time, without fail, for months on end. Now remember, this must be done in the middle of the total chaos breakdown of modern civilization, where there is no power, where law enforcement and emergency services are totally overrun, where people are starving because food deliveries have been disrupted, and when looting and violent crime runs rampant in the streets of every major city in the world. Somehow, despite all this, you have to run these diesel fuel caravans to the nuclear power plants and keep the pumps running. Except there's a problem in all this, even if you assume you can somehow work a logistical miracle and actually deliver the diesel fuel to the backup generators on time (which you probably can't). The problem is this: Where do you get diesel fuel? Why refineries will be shut down, too from petroleum refineries. Most people don't realize it, but petroleum refineries run on electricity. Without the power grid, the refineries don't produce a drop of diesel. With no diesel, there are no generators keeping the coolant running in the nuclear power facilities. But wait, you say: Maybe we could just acquire diesel from all the gas stations in the world. Pump it out of the ground, load it into trucks and use that to power the generators, right? Except there are other problems here: How do you pump all that fuel without electricity? How do you acquire all the tires and spare parts needed to keep trucks running if there's no electricity to keep the supply businesses running? How do you maintain a truck delivery infrastructure when the electrical infrastructure is totally wiped out? Some countries might be able to pull it off with some degree of success. With military escorts and the total government control over all fuel supplies, a few nations will be able to keep a few nuclear power facilities from melting down. But here's the real issue: There are 700 nuclear power facilities in the world, remember? Let's suppose that in the aftermath of a massive solar flare, the nations of the world are somehow able to control half of those facilities and nurse them into cold shutdown status. That still leaves roughly 350 nuclear facilities at risk. Now let's suppose half of those are somehow luckily offline and not even functioning when the solar flare hits, so they need no special attention. This is a very optimistic assumption, but that still leaves 175 nuclear power plants where all attempts fail. Let's be outrageously optimistic and suppose that a third of those somehow don't go into a total meltdown by some miracle of God, or some bizarre twist in the laws of physics. So we're still left with 115 nuclear power plants that "go Chernobyl." Fukushima was one power plant. Imagine the devastation of 100+ nuclear power plants, all going into meltdown all at once across the planet. It's not the loss of electricity that's the real problem; it's the global tidal wave of invisible radiation that blankets the planet, permeates the topsoil, irradiates everything that breathes and delivers the final crushing

blow to human civilization as we know it today. Because if you have 100 simultaneous global nuclear meltdowns, the tidal wave of radiation will make farming nearly impossible for years. That means no food production for several years in a row. And that, in turn, means anear-totalcollapse of the human population on our planet. How many people can survive an entire year with no food from the farms? Not one in a hundred people. Even beyond that, how many people can essentially live underground and be safe enough from the radiation that they can have viable children and repopulate the planet? It's a very, very small fraction of the total population.

Contention Three: Solvency

State regulated requirements fail, only standardization through a single system soles power crashes and interferencesMoersdorf 12 (Gerry, employed at ACScout, company that designs AC monitoring devices for special applications, "Measuring the Quality and Reliability of Electric Service", http://www.acscout.com/servlet/Page?template=reliabilityofelectricserviceIt isn’t easy. State regulatory bodies set distribution reliability requirements. And since every state has developed different reliability reporting requirements, it’s almost impossible to compare reliability on a state-by-state or national level. Moreover, almost 33% of the 50 states don’t have reliability standards and are currently not considering any. A power industry standard, IEEE Std. 1366-2003 (Measuring Performance of Electrical Power Distribution Systems), was created to foster uniformity in the development of distribution service reliability indices. The idea is that standardization will lead to better comparability . However, there’s still a long way to go because almost half of the 50 states are either not measuring the performance of electrical distribution, or are reporting but not using standardized indices such as IEEE Std. 1366-2003 to compile those reports. Even though electric companies have different distribution system configurations, what you can expect is that standard voltage and frequency falls within ANSI C84.1-1995 Table 1 voltage range of 106V to 127V (on a 120V basis) and a frequency range of 59.3Hz to 60.5Hz. How can you know whether the power flowing into your equipment falls outside these norms? How will you know whether your equipment crashed because of “normal” power system operation, localized interference, or because of deficient service that’s the utility’s responsibility? Several utilities, such as Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric, offer a “Service Guarantee” that relates to service restoration and notification of planned outages on their websites. I strongly recommend that you take the time to check your utility’s website to learn what your utility is willing to guarantee in terms of service quality and reliability. PG&E, for example, explicitly states that “YOU are responsible for providing any devices needed to protect your sensitive equipment that cannot operate within the voltage variations of PG&E’s normal electrical service. PG&E is not liable for damage to your equipment or any other damage from variation in service voltage that are allowable under this rule.”

Solar Roadways prevent a power grid blackout—it can’t be shut down.Brusaw 12 (Scott, an electrical engineer with over 20 years of industry experience, including Director of Research and Development at a manufacturing facility in Ohio, and a voting member of NEMA, “Solar Roadways: A Real Solution”, http://www.solarroadways.com/smart.shtml. Noparstak)

Our current power grid is based on centralized power stations. Distribution of power is handled through transmission lines (overhead and underground), relay stations, and transformers. When a line goes down (ice, lighting, wind, tress, utility pole hit by car, etc.), everyone on the wrong end of the line loses power until the damage is repaired. If a power station goes down, an entire section of the country goes dark. The Solar Roadways™ on the other hand, replaces all current centralized power stations including coal- and nuclear-powered electricity generation plants. With the Solar Roadways™, the road becomes the power grid, eliminating the need for unsightly utility poles and relay stations. Power is generated everywhere - every road, parking lot, and driveway. No more power outages , roaming or otherwise. This is "secure" energy: it can't be deliberately shut down. Not by terrorists, not by power companies, it simply can't be shut down . For two weeks in July 2006, California

baked in a heat storm of unrelenting, 100-degree-plus temperatures. Air conditioners ran day and night, overtaxing the electrical grid. On July 24, when power demand hit more than 50,000 megawatts – the highest level in state history – transformers started failing. Utility Pacific Gas and Electric was quickly overwhelmed, and more than a million people lost power, some for days. When the heat finally broke, it was blamed for 141 deaths. “Our grids today are more stressed than they have been in the past three decades,” says Kevin Kolevar, assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability at the Department of Energy. “If we don’t expand our capacity to keep up with an increase in demand of 40 percent over the next 25 years, we’re going to see healthy grids become increasingly less reliable.” Today, with the grid operating flat-out, any disruption – like the downed transmission line that sparked the 2003 blackout in the Northeast – can cripple the network. …since the 1990s much larger amounts of power have been moved over great distances. As a result, massive transfers are flowing over transmission lines built mostly by utilities for local use decades ago. Demand for electricity has increased steadily for decades, yet transmission lines that transport power from generation plants to customers have not been added or upgraded at the same pace. 20% Increase in demand for electricity (1999-2009) 7% Increase in transmission capacity (1999-2009) Result: large blackouts are growing in number and severity Utilities are operating ever closer to the edge of the stability envelope using 1960s-era controls. Estimates peg the economic loss from all U.S. outages at $70 to $120 billion a year. Although a big blackout occurs about once a decade, on any given day 500,000 U.S. customers

are without power for two hours or more. Proposed federal legislation might encourage more investment, but even if transmission capacity is added, blackouts will still occur. The entire power grid has to be refurbished, because the existing control technology – the key to quickly sensing a small line failure or the possibility of a large instability – is antiquated. To remain reliable, the grid will have to operate more like a fighter plane, flown in large part by autonomous systems that human controllers can take over if needed to avert disaster. The United States uses 4 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year, and the figure is expected to climb, outstripping our generating capacity. Using networking technology to monitor - and react to – what’s happening in the grid at each moment can improve efficiency and prevent outages. We still seem to thinking inside the box: the solution should not be to continue repairing an antiquated system of centralized power stations and distribution methods. Change is hard, but when the engine and transmission go out on your 40-year-old car, it's time to find a new vehicle. Decentralizing the production of electricity can also make the grid more resilient and save some of the 400 billion kilowatt-hours now lost while current flows through long-distance transmission lines to the nation’s households. About 60 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in power plants is wasted as heat. The Solar Roadway™ is completely decentralized. Every Solar Road Panel™ can generate and pass electricity "down line" to homes and businesses. No loss to heat, no carbon footprint, and no spent fuel rods . A self-healing smart grid can best be built if its architects try to fulfill three primary objectives. The most fundamental is real-time monitoring and reaction. An array of sensors would monitor electrical parameters such as voltage and current, as well as the condition of critical components. These measurements would enable the system to constantly tune itself to an optimal state. Each Solar Road Panel™ measures 12 feet (about 4 meters) by 12 feet and contains a microprocessor board for control, monitoring, and communications. That means that you have a microprocessor (a small computer) located every 12 feet in your power grid. It monitors everything that takes place within its 12 foot perimeter. It tracks voltage and current that it generates, uses, sends to or receives from neighboring Solar Road Panels™, etc. The second goal is anticipation. The system must constantly look for potential problems that could trigger larger disturbances. With a microprocessor located every 12 feet, we'll know when a problem first presents itself. Each of the neighboring (physically connected) Solar Road Panels™ communicate with each other. If one of them stops communicating, then something is wrong (panel is damaged from lighting strike, overturned truck, etc.). Neighboring panels will still be able to communicate send the information to a central control station. For example, let's say lighting strikes the road and does some significant damage: a hole is blown clean through a Solar Road Panel™ in the middle of an eight-lane highway. Let's go even deeper and say that a path to ground has been created and massive amounts of current attempt to drain through the damaged panel. Each side of each Solar Road Panel™ is equipped with a GFI (Ground Fault Interrupter), which would shut off as soon as a current surge was detected by the microprocessors in the undamaged neighboring panels. The lightning damaged panel would be electrically isolated and the surrounding panels could toggle the LEDs bordering the damaged panel. This would "paint" a square around the damaged panel to warn drivers of the danger. Oncoming drivers would be warned of the brief detour. No power outage - not even a disruption of service to any electrical customers. The third objective is isolation. If failures were to occur, the whole network would break into isolated “islands,” each of which must fend for itself. Each island would reorganize its power plants and transmission flows as best it could. This objective isn't necessary with the Solar Roadways™, albeit certainly possible. The roadway is the power plant and the transmission line. If a tanker truck blows up and severs a road completely in half, no power is lost anywhere (except for the damaged panels). Electricity will just go around on a different road, in the same manner that a vehicle would during a detour. Again, the undamaged neighboring panels would disconnect from the damaged panels and call the problem in. Government may be recognizing the need for action. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently declared a “self-healing infrastructure” as one of three strategic thrusts in their National Plan for R and D in Support of Critical Infrastructure Protection. A self-healing transmission system would minimize the impact of any kind of terrorist attempt to “take out” the power grid. The Solar Roadways™ can't be "taken out" - not by terrorists, not by utility companies, not by anyone. It provides a decentralized, secure, intelligent, self-healing power grid.