NEG - U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO (Improved)

NEG – U.S.
Ethanol Policy PRO Page |1
NEG – U.S. Ethanol Policy – PRO

TOPICALITY – Sugarcane Tariff = Trade Policy.................................................................3
TOPICALITY – Ethanol Subsidies = Energy Policy..............................................................5
INHERENCY...........................................................................................................................10
1. The U.S. is working with Brazil to Develop better Ethanol.......................................................................10
2. Obama is Pursuing Cellulosic Ethanol.........................................................................................................11
3. The Cellulosic Ethanol Industry is Taking Off...........................................................................................13
SIGNIFICANCE......................................................................................................................14
1. Cellulosic Ethanol Pollutes Less...................................................................................................................14
2. Cellulosic Ethanol Contributes more to Energy Dependence....................................................................15
3. Cellulosic Ethanol doesn’t Use Food Sources to Produce Fuel..................................................................16
4. The only Difference between Different Types of Ethanol is the Process..................................................17
DISADVANTAGES.................................................................................................................18
1) Monoculture in Brazil...................................................................................................................................18
2) Foreign Dependence......................................................................................................................................22
3) U.S. Economic Loss........................................................................................................................................25
COUNTERPLAN TEXT – Increase Cellulosic Funding and Research.............................30
Preston Black PSDC

NEG – U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO Page |2
TOPICALITY – Sugarcane Tariff = Trade Policy

A. Interpretation
1. Resolution
The Unites Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy
2. Definitions
a. Reform
- Reform is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as:
“To amend or improve by change of form.”
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform
b. Environmental Policy
- According to Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya, Professor of Environmental Policy, and Dr. William Ascher, Professor of
Government and Economics:
“A government policy that explicitly intends to promote environmental protection, conservation, and rational use of
natural resources.”
Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [Ph.D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences; visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke
University] & Dr. William L. Ascher [Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University; Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont
McKenna College], “The Guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,” Book Published by the Duke University Press, 2001,
pg. 186 [Google Books]
c. Trade Policy
- The Word Web Online Dictionary defines trade policy as:
“A government’s policy controlling foreign trade.”
Word Web Online, © 2005-2009, http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/TRADEPOLICY [PB]
3. Conclusion
The Policy that the affirmative team changes must be one that is passed with the clear intent of environmental
protection. If the policy is concerned with limiting trade for economic reasons rather than protecting the
environment, then it is trade policy – not environmental policy.
B. Standard
Brightline between Environmental and Trade Policy
Our interpretation provides a clear bright line that determines without a doubt whether the affirmative is upholding
the resolution. It draws a line between trade policy and environmental policy. A bright line provides clarity and
clash, and avoids confusion over the meaning of the resolution.
C. Violation
The violation of the affirmative team is clear. The tariff on Brazilian ethanol is a trade policy, because its purpose is
to limit the trade of Brazilian ethanol in the U.S. in order that our own ethanol can compete and so our economy can
retain its strength. The tariff is also clearly not environmental policy, because the government did not pass it with the
intent of helping the environment. Therefore, the tariff is not environmental policy, and the affirmative team cannot
reform it.
Preston Black PSDC

D. Impacts
1. Fiat Power
The resolution states that the affirmative team must be resolved to reform as U.S. federal government environmental
policy. This means that their fiat power only extends to the realm of USFG environmental policy. Fiat power is the
tool that the affirmative team uses to assure you as the judge that if you vote for their plan then it will be
implemented in the imaginary world of debate. However, if the affirmative team’s plan is not a reform of
environmental policy, then even if you vote affirmative at the end of this round, they cannot implement their plan
even in the imaginary world of debate. Since the tariff on Brazilian ethanol is trade policy, the affirmative team has
no fiat over that policy, and they cannot change it. Therefore, there is no reason for you to vote affirmative.
2. Burden of Proof Unmet
The affirmative team was supposed to prove to you that environmental policy should be reformed. This is witnessed
through the resolution and the fact that the affirmative team is supposed to affirm the resolution. However, since the
affirmative team has not proved that environmental policy should e reformed (rather, that trade policy should be
reformed), they have not done their job in this round, and they have not upheld their burden of proof! Therefore, my
partner and I strongly urge you to vote negative.
Preston Black PSDC

TOPICALITY – Ethanol Subsidies = Energy Policy

A. Interpretation
1. Resolution
The Unites Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy
2. Definitions
a. Reform
- Reform is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as:
“To amend or improve by change of form.”
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform
b. Environmental Policy
- According to Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya, Professor of Environmental Policy, and Dr. William Ascher, Professor of
Government and Economics:
“A government policy that explicitly intends to promote environmental protection, conservation, and rational use of
natural resources.”
Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [Ph.D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences; visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke
University] & Dr. William L. Ascher [Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University; Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont
McKenna College], “The Guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,” Book Published by the Duke University Press, 2001,
pg. 186 [Google Books]
c. Energy Policy
- Joseph P. Tomain, Professor of Law, said in 2006 that:
“Current United States energy policy is best revealed in two documents – the National Energy Policy of May 2001
and, more recently, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Both documents confirm the country’s commitment to
traditional energy.”
Professor Joseph P. Tomain [Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law; Dean Emeritus at the University of
Cincinnati College of Law; Scholar with the Center for Progressive Regulation; Juris Doctorate from George Washington University],
“Bioethics Symposium: Biofuels and the New Energy Economy: Smart Energy Path: How Willie Nelson Saved the Planet,” Article
Published in the Cumberland Law Review, 2006, (36 Cumb. L. Rev. 417) [PB]
3. Conclusion
The Policy that the affirmative team changes must be one that is passed with the clear and only the intent of
environmental protection. However, if the policy was passed falls under energy policy, it should fall outside of the
resolution.
Preston Black PSDC

B. Standard
Brightline between Environmental Policy and Energy Policy
Our interpretation provides a clear, bright line that determines without a doubt whether the affirmative is upholding
the resolution. We have drawn a line between environmental policy and energy policy. Such a brightline is good for
several reasons. First of all, a brightline provides clarity and clash, and avoids confusion over the meaning of the
resolution. In addition, environmental and energy policy are too distinct from each other to fall under the same
resolution. While environmental policies are passed with the intent of helping the environment, U.S. Energy Policy
– the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – was made with a different intent. The writers of the bill listed its intent (as is done
with all bills) at the very beginning of the bill. They wrote:
“An Act [t]o ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.”
Text of the EPAct of 2005, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf [PB]
While an environmental policy may play into ensuring that this affordable, reliable energy does not have adverse
effect on the environment, the EPAct is not such a policy. Within its listed intent, there is absolutely no “explicit
intent to promote environmental protection.” Allowing an affirmative team to reform anything that falls underneath
this policy is an abominable abuse of the resolution, as allowing environmental policy to include policies with the
intent of creating jobs, and producing energy to reduce foreign dependence makes the resolution extremely broad.
C. Violation
The violation of the affirmative team is clear. The government has designated ethanol as energy policy by placing it
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The American Coalition for Ethanol explained that:
“The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the first-ever Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in federal law, requiring
increasing volumes of ethanol and biodiesel to be blended with the U.S. fuel supply between 2006 and 2012. The
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 amended and increased the RFS, requiring 9 billion gallons of
renewable fuel use in 2008, stepping up to 36 billion gallons by 2022.”
The American Coalition for Ethanol [promotes the production and use of ethanol], “Federal Legislation,” Accessed March 4, 2010,
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=78&parentid=26 [PB]
So we see that the government has designated ethanol subsidies as energy policy, rather than environmental policy.
This is made clear by the fact that the Renewable Fuels Standard (which lays out subsidies and requirements for
ethanol) was established under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and was increased under the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. The government has obviously designated their ethanol policy as an energy policy, because
the intent of it is to reduce energy dependence and increase energy security – NOT to help the environment.
Therefore, the affirmative team’s plan should be help to be un-topical.
D. Impact
Fiat Power
The resolution states that the affirmative team must be resolved to reform as U.S. federal government environmental
policy. This means that their fiat power only extends to the realm of USFG environmental policy. Fiat power is the
tool that the affirmative team uses to assure you as the judge that if you vote for their plan then it will be
implemented in the imaginary world of debate. However, if the affirmative team’s plan is not a reform of
environmental policy, then even if you vote affirmative at the end of this round, they cannot implement their plan
even in the imaginary world of debate. Since ethanol subsidies have been designated by the U.S. federal government
as energy policy, the affirmative team has no fiat over that policy, and they cannot change it. Therefore, there is no
reason for you to vote affirmative.
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. Energy Policy and Environmental Policy are distinct
2. Ethanol emerged with the intent of reducing foreign dependence on oil – not helping the environment
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted tax credits for ethanol in an effort to decrease oil consumption in
the transportation sector – not help the environment
4. The “Blenders Credit” (which encouraged oil companies to blend ethanol with gasoline) was part of the
American Jobs Creation Act – obviously not an environmental policy by designation
5. The Small Ethanol Producer’s Tax Credit falls underneath the Internal Revenue Code, the American Jobs
Creation Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – it is not an environmental policy by designation
6. Tax credits for E85 ethanol (a fuel that is 85% ethanol) are established under the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (ring a bell?)
7. Grants for the creation of infrastructure for mid-level blends of ethanol are established under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (might that be energy dependence policy? What the heck does that
have to do with the environment?!)
8. Special Depreciation Allowances for Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol Plant Property are established under the
Tax and Health Care Act of 2006 and are administered by the IRS (do I smell tax policy?)
9. Standard Extension: Governmental Designation
1. Energy Policy and Environmental Policy are distinct
Professor Lincoln L. Davies [Associate Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah; Juris Doctorate
from Stanford Law School (2000)], “Energy Policy Today And Tomorrow Toward Sustainability,” Article Published in the Journal of
Land, Resource & Environmental Law, 2009, (VO. 29 NO. 1) [JES]
Energy regulation and environmental regulation historically have

“Another way of thinking about the dominant paradigm of energy regulation is this:
been distinct. The two existed in separate spheres. Energy regulators focused on economics. Environmental
regulators concentrated on pollution, risk, and land use. And, as Kipling might have observed, ‘never the twain shall meet.’”
2. Ethanol emerged with the intent of reducing foreign dependence on oil – not helping the environment
Nancy I. Potter [Juris Doctorate Candidate at the Washington University School of Law, St. Lewis (2008)], “Note: How Brazil Achieved
Energy Dependence and the Lessons the Lessons the United States should Learn from Brazil’s Experience,” Article Published in the
Washington University Global Studies Law Review , 2008, (7 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 331) [PB]
“The 1973 oil crisis forced countries around the world to examine and revise their energy policies and explore ways
to reduce their dependence on oil and other foreign energy sources. Following this crisis, the United States and
Brazil both worked at decreasing their energy dependence on foreign oil. The divergent policy decisions of the United States and Brazil have
produced vastly different results.”
**Nancy Potter goes on to explain how the U.S. and Brazil both went on from there to pursue ethanol in hopes of
using it to reduce foreign dependence on oil**
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted tax credits for ethanol in an effort to decrease oil consumption in
the transportation sector – not help the environment
Nancy I. Potter [Juris Doctorate Candidate at the Washington University School of Law, St. Lewis (2008)], “Note: How Brazil Achieved
Energy Dependence and the Lessons the Lessons the United States should Learn from Brazil’s Experience,” Article Published in the
Washington University Global Studies Law Review , 2008, (7 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 331) [PB]
“[The] E[nergy] P[olicy] Act [of] 2005 addressed many energy policy issues and provided a substantial increase in
funding and incentive programs for alternative fuels. By granting tax credits to small producers of ethanol and
biodiesel and to fueling stations for installation of equipment to accommodate these alternative fuels, the Act
provided an additional incentive for the market to develop and produce ethanol and biodiesel. [The] E[nergy]
P[olicy] Act [of] 2005 also provided incentives to consumers for the purchase of hybrid vehicles in an effort to
decrease oil consumption in the transportation sector.”
Preston Black PSDC

4. The “Blenders Credit” (which encouraged oil companies to blend ethanol with gasoline) was part of the
American Jobs Creation Act – obviously not an environmental policy by designation
“Commonly referred to as the ‘blender’s credit,’ the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) was created in
2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. VEETC provides oil companies with an economic
incentive to blend ethanol with gasoline.”
5. The Small Ethanol Producer’s Tax Credit falls underneath the Internal Revenue Code, the American Jobs
Creation Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – it is not an environmental policy by designation
“Under Section 40(b)(3) of the I[nternal] R[evenue] C[ode], ethanol producers that manufacture less than 60 million
gallons of ethanol per year qualify for a tax credit equaling 10 cents per gallon on 15 million gallons of fuel ethanol.
The maximum incentive is $1.5 million annually. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 modified the Small
Ethanol Producer Tax Credit by allowing the $1.5 million credit to be passed-through to farmer owners of ethanol
cooperatives. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made further modifications to the tax credit. [It] amended the
definition of a ‘small ethanol producer’ from 30 mgy of ethanol production to 60 mgy of ethanol production. This
tax credit is on the books through December 31, 2010.”
6. Tax credits for E85 ethanol (a fuel that is 85% ethanol) are established under the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (ring a bell?)
“The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a 50% federal income tax credit, up to $30,000 maximum, to establish
alternative fuel infrastructure. The provision permits taxpayers to claim a 50% credit for the cost of installing clean-
fuel vehicle refueling property to be used in a trade or business of the taxpayer or installed at the principal residence
of the taxpayer. Under the provision clean fuels are any fuel at least 85% of the volume of which consists of ethanol ,
natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and hydrogen and any mixture of diesel fuel and biodiesel containing at least 20% biodiesel. The provision is
effective for property placed in service after December 31, 2005 and before January 1, 2010.”
7. Grants for the creation of infrastructure for mid-level blends of ethanol are established under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (might that be energy dependence policy? What the heck does that
have to do with the environment?!)
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=78&parentid=26 [PB] [parenthesis added]
“Section 244 of The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish
a new program for making grants and providing assistance to retail and wholesale fuel dealers for the installation,
replacement, or conversion of fuel storage and dispensing equipment for renewable fuel blends greater than E10
(containing 10% ethanol) but less than E85 (containing 85% ethanol). Funding assistance is subject to appropriations from Congress.”
Preston Black PSDC

8. Special Depreciation Allowances for Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol Plant Property are established under the
Tax and Health Care Act of 2006 and are administered by the IRS (do I smell tax policy?)
“Section 209 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
It allows a taxpayer to take a depreciation deduction of 50% of the adjusted basis of a new cellulosic ethanol plant in
the year it is put in service. The accelerated depreciation applies only to cellulosic ethanol plants that break down
cellulose through enzymatic processes (as opposed to gasification). Any portion of the cost financed through tax-exempt bonds is exempted from the
depreciation allowance. Any enzymatic cellulosic plant acquired after December 20, 2006 and placed in service before January 1, 2013 qualifies. Plants that had binding contracts for acquisition
before December 20, 2006 do not qualify. The provision is effective through December 31, 2012.”
9. Standard Extension: Governmental Designation

When debating environmental policy, we need to realize that there are hundreds of ways of defining it, making it
hard to decipher what the term truly means. However, we are debating the U.S. federal government’s environmental
policy. Thus, we really need to debate policies that the government deems environmental – it doesn’t matter what
anyone else defines it as, because that is not the subject of this year’s resolution. Our definition shows how we can
determine whether or not a government designates a policy as “environmental” – it must have a clear intent of
helping the environment, end of story. However, if the policy falls under an Energy Policy Act, while environmental
concerns may be related to it, the policy is – by designation – energy policy and not environmental policy.
Preston Black PSDC

INHERENCY
1. The U.S. is working with Brazil to Develop better Ethanol
1. The U.S. and Brazil signed a Memorandum of Understanding to share ethanol technology and work
together to promote advanced global development of biofuels
Clare Ribando Seelke [Analyst in Latin American Affairs at the Division of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade at the Congressional
Research Service] & Brent D. Yacobucci [Specialist in Environmental and Energy Policy at the Division of Resources, Science, and
Industry at the Congressional Research Service], “Ethanol and Other Biofuels: Potential for U.S.-Brazil Energy Cooperation,”
2007 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, September 27, 2007,
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34191_20070927.pdf [PB]
“On March 9, 2007, the United States and Brazil, which together produce almost 70% of the world’s ethanol, signed
a Memorandum of Understanding to promote greater cooperation on ethanol and other biofuels in the Western
Hemisphere. The countries agreed to (1) advance research and development bilaterally, (2) help build domestic
biofuels industries in third countries, and (3) work multilaterally to advance the global development of biofuels.”
2. President Bush and Brazil’s President, Lula da Silva, announced the formation of a new partnership
between Brazil and the U.S. aimed at developing new ethanol production technologies and sharing resources
Vanessa M. Cordonnier [Assistant Attorney General in the Environmental Bureau of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General; Juris
Doctorate from the University of Illinois College of Law], “Ethanol’s Roots: How Brazilian Legislation Created the International Ethanol
Boom,” Article Published in the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review , Fall 2008, (33 Wm. & Mary
Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 287) [PB]
“On March 9, 2007, President Bush, in conjunction with Brazil’s President, Lula da Silva, announced the formation
of a new partnership between the two countries. Capitalizing on the strength of the ethanol industry in both
countries, the partnership was aimed at broad goals of developing new ethanol production technologies, sharing
resources and promoting the use of ethanol as an alternative to fossil fuel. Brazil is currently the world’s leading producer and exporter of ethanol
and the United States follows close behind. While the announcement of the deal received international press coverage, the media focused mostly on the fierce protests by Brazilian citizens
against President Bush's policies in Iraq.”
Preston Black PSDC

NEG – U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO P a g e | 10
2. Obama is Pursuing Cellulosic Ethanol

1. Obama leaves corn-based ethanol behind in favor of cellulosics
Keith Johnson [journalist for the Wall Street Journal], “Next Gen Biofuel: Verenium’s Riva on Cellulosic Ethanol’s Challenges,”
Article Published by the Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2009,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/07/next-gen-biofuel-vereniums-riva-on-cellulosic-ethanols-challenges/tab/article/ [PB]
“The Obama administration’s new road map for biofuels, announced this week, was seen as a broad endorsement of
next-generation biofuels, relegating corn-based ethanol to a fading role. The market certainly seems to think so:
Shares in [the] Verenium Corporation, one of the very few publicly traded cellulosic ethanol companies, have risen
more than 70% since the new biofuel policy was announced. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. will rely mostly on so-called cellulosic ethanol to meet its biofuel requirements over the next decade: About
$50 billion of the $59 billion projected investment in renewable fuels through 2022 will come in cellulosic ethanol,
the EPA figures.”
2. The Renewable Fuels Standard mandates 16 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and the industry may be on
the verge of rapid expansion and technological breakthroughs
Tom Capehart [Specialist in Agricultural Policy at the Congressional Research Service ], “Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of
Policy Issues for Congress,” 2008 Congressional Research Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service,
November 7, 2008, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34738_20081107.pdf [PB]
The renewable fuels

Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time – significant hurdles must be overcome before commercial-scale production can occur.
standard (RFS), a major federal incentive, mandates 100 million gallons per year of cellulosic biofuels use in 2010.
After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate
for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether these targets can be met is uncertain. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic
biofuels industry may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. However, at this time, only two small refineries
are scheduled to begin production in 2009, and an additional nine are expected to commence production by 2011 for total output of 300 mgpy per year, compared with an RFS requirement of 500
mgpy in 2012.
3. The federal government is providing financial supports on all levels for the cellulosic industry
Tom Capehart [Specialist in Agricultural Policy at the Congressional Research Service ], “Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of
Policy Issues for Congress,” 2008 Congressional Research Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service,
November 7, 2008, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34738_20081107.pdf [PB]
“The federal government, recognizing the risk inherent in commercializing this new technology, has provided loan guarantees, grants, and tax
credits in an effort to make the [cellulosic ethanol] industry competitive by 2012. In particular, the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246) supports the nascent cellulosic industry through authorized research
programs, grants, and loans exceeding $1 billion. The enacted farm bill also contains a production tax credit of
$1.01 per gallon for ethanol produced from cellulosic feedstocks. Private investment, in many cases by oil companies, also plays a major role in
cellulosic biofuels research and development.”
4. Under the modified Renewable Fuels Standard, corn-based ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons, while
cellulosic biofuels are capped at 21 billion gallons – Conclusion: Cellulosic biofuels are increasing
“Under the modified R[enewable] F[uels] S[tandard], corn-based ethanol is essentially capped at 15 billion gallons
by 2015, while 21 of the 36 billion gallons in 2022 must be derived from advanced biofuel such as cellulosic and
non-corn-based ethanol.”
Preston Black PSDC

5. To address the financial gap, the DOE announced over $240 million in grants for nine small-scale cellulosic
biorefinery projects
BioCycle Magazine [America’s foremost magazine on composting and organics recycling; shows you how to turn organic residuals –
woody materials, yard trimmings, municipal solid waste (MSW), food residuals, biosolids, manure and other feedstocks into value-added
products], “Accelerating the Cellulosic Industry,” BioCycle January 2009, (Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 35),
http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001796.html [PB]
“Moving cellulosic ethanol technology from the laboratory to a commercial-scale biorefinery is an expensive proposition. Price tags for demonstration plants range from $50 million to $80
million, while costs for small commercial facilities are over $200 million. Funding the transition is problematic. Typically banks don’t like loaning money to high-risk projects using first-of-a-
To bridge this financing gap
kind technologies. At the same time, equity investors are reluctant to provide all the financing for demonstration or commercial-scale projects.
and spur commercial development of biofuels produced from nonfood feedstocks, the U.S. Department of Energy
announced over $240 million in grants for nine small-scale cellulosic biorefinery projects in 2008. The awards,
ranging from $25 to $30 million, will fund up to 50% of the design and construction of one-tenth commercial-scale
biorefineries that serve as prototypes for full-scale commercial opportunities.
Preston Black PSDC

3. The Cellulosic Ethanol Industry is Taking Off

“Celunol” and other companies are moving forward with plans to build cellulosic ethanol plants
Kevin Bullis [Editor of Nanotechnology and Materials Science at the MIT Technology Review], Technology Review by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Will Cellulosic Ethanol Take Off? Fuel from grass and wood chips could be big in the next 10
years – if the government helps,” Published by MIT Technology Review, February 26, 2007,
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18227/?a=f [PB]
“Cellulosic ethanol, a fuel produced from the stalks and stems of plants (rather than only from sugars and starches,
as with corn ethanol), is starting to take root in the United States. This month, Celunol, based in Cambridge, MA,
broke ground on an ethanol plant in Louisiana that will be able to produce 1.4 million gallons of the fuel each year
starting in 2008. Other companies are moving forward as well with plans to build plants.”
Preston Black PSDC

SIGNIFICANCE
1. Cellulosic Ethanol Pollutes Less
1. Cellulosic ethanol is attractive because the feedstock is abundant, requires less fossil fuel – therefore
decreasing pollution – and produces more – solving land degradation problems
“Cellulosic ethanol is attractive because the feedstock, which includes wheat straw, corn stover, grass, and wood
chips, is cheap and abundant. Converting it into ethanol requires less fossil fuel, so it can have a bigger effect than
corn ethanol on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Also, an acre of grasses or other crops grown specifically to
make ethanol could produce more than two times the number of gallons of ethanol as an acre of corn, in part
because the whole plant can be used instead of just the grain.”
2. Cellulose ethanol has GHGs reductions of about 80% over gasoline, while corn ethanol only has a 20-30%
reduction
products], “Creating Cellulosic Ethanol: Spinning Straw into Fuel,” BioCycle April 2005,
http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001796.html [PB] [some brackets in original, some added]
“‘The [Well to Wheel] model for cellulosic ethanol showed greenhouse gas emission reductions of about 80% [over
gasoline],’ said [Michael] Wang [of Argonne National Laboratories]. ‘Corn ethanol showed 20 to 30% reductions.’
Cellulosic ethanol’s favorable profile stems from using lignin, a biomass by-product of the conversion operation, to
fuel the process. ‘Lignin is a renewable fuel with no net greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Wang. ‘Greenhouse
gases produced by the combustion of biomass are offset by the CO2 absorbed by the biomass as it grows.’”
Preston Black PSDC

2. Cellulosic Ethanol Contributes more to Energy Dependence

1. Cellulosic sources should be able to produce 150 billion gallons of ethanol by 2050 – more than two-thirds
of current gasoline consumption in the U.S.
“The greater productivity of cellulosic sources should eventually allow them to produce as much as 150 billion
gallons of ethanol by 2050, according to a report by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That’s the
equivalent of more than two-thirds of the current gasoline consumption in the United States.”
2. Cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol
Thanks to advances in biotechnology, researchers can now transform

“In the Grimm Brother’s fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin spins straw into gold.
straw, and other plant wastes, into ‘green’ gold – cellulosic ethanol. While chemically identical to ethanol produced
from corn or soybeans, cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol and emits
a low net level of greenhouse gases. Recent technological developments are not only improving yields but also
driving down production cost, bringing us nearer to the day when cellulosic ethanol could replace expensive,
imported ‘black gold’ with a sustainable, domestically produced biofuel.”
3. Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to substantially reduce our consumption of gasoline
http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001796.html [PB] [brackets added]
“Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to substantially reduce our consumption of gasoline. ‘It is at least as likely as
hydrogen to be an energy carrier of choice for a sustainable transportation sector,’ say the National Resources
Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists in a joint statement. Major companies and research
organizations are also realizing the potential. Shell Oil has predicted ‘the global market for biofuels such as
cellulosic ethanol will grow to exceed $10 billion by 2012.’ A recent study funded by the Energy Foundation and
the National Commission on Energy Policy, entitled ‘Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End America’s Oil Dependence’, concluded [that]
‘biofuels coupled with vehicle efficiency and smart growth could reduce the oil dependency of our transportation
sector by two-thirds by 2050 in a sustainable way.’”
Preston Black PSDC

3. Cellulosic Ethanol doesn’t Use Food Sources to Produce Fuel

1. Cellulosic ethanol is produced using biomass – such as the stalks of plants not used for food and plant
wastes from industrial processes
“Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural
plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), [and] plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust,
paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of
proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining
dry mass.”
2. Cellulosic ethanol can also be produced using paper sludge – usually a negative cost feedstock
“Industrial wastes and municipal solid waste can also be used to produce [cellulosic] ethanol. Lee Lynd, an
engineering professor at Dartmouth, has been working with the Gorham Paper Mill to convert paper sludge to
ethanol. ‘Paper sludge is a waste material that goes into landfills at a cost of $80 [per] dry ton,’ says Lynd. ‘This is
genuinely a negative cost feedstock. And it is already pretreated, eliminating a step in the conversion process.’”
3. Most cellulosic ethanol plants aren’t food crops, two-thirds of what we throw in landfills could be used for
fuel, cellulosic ethanol has a net energy return of 80%, and DOE says that we can grow more than 1 billion
tons of biomass on available farmland while using minimal fertilizer
Wired Magazine [an American magazine and on-line periodical that reports on how technology affects culture, the economy, and politics],
“One Molecule Could Cure Our Addiction to Oil,” September 24, 2007, http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-
10/ff_plant?currentPage=all [PB]
Most of the plant species suitable for producing [cellulosic] ethanol – like switchgrass, a fast-
“Cellulosic ethanol, in theory, is a much better bet.
aren’t food crops. And according to a joint study by the U.S.
growing plant found throughout the Great Plains, and farmed poplar trees –
Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we can sustainably grow more than 1 billion tons of such biomass on
available farmland, using minimal fertilizer. In fact, about two-thirds of what we throw into our landfills today
contains cellulose and thus potential fuel. Better still: Cellulosic ethanol yields roughly 80% more energy than is
required to grow and convert it.”
Preston Black PSDC

4. The only Difference between Different Types of Ethanol is the Process

Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced using different
feedstocks and processes
“Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks
and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock,
is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme
converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is
Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including
fermented into ethanol.
agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy
crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of
proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining
dry mass.”
Preston Black PSDC

DISADVANTAGES
1) Monoculture in Brazil
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Removes the Tariff on Brazilian Ethanol, thus
Increasing Imports of it [Or, Abolishing Our Ethanol Subsidies would Mean We
Don’t Produce Ethanol, which means that We would Likely Import it from Brazil –
Look in Extension for Evidence on this]
B. Internal Link #1: Logically, if we Increase Our Imports of Brazil’s Ethanol, they
will Increase Production (law of supply-and-demand)
C. Internal Link #2: Brazil Uses Monocultures to Produce its Ethanol
“Though sugar cane production is concentrated mainly in two geographic regions of Brazil, the Northeast and the
Center-South, dramatic land use changes are evident in both those regions since the establishment of Proalcool. Less
than 1% of Brazil’s total territory would be needed to reach production of 30 billion liters of alcohol per year. However, the area in which sugar cane production is
most concentrated has experienced the negative effects of a large monoculture crop. A monoculture is the growing
of only one species of crop, grown densely over a large land area. As such, monocultures require increased use of
pesticides, since the area would be an ideal location for crop pests and diseases to grow. Monocultures require vast
areas of land, and therefore can lead to the destruction of natural habitats.”
D. Internal Link #3: Any Expansion of Ethanol Production in Brazil would Result
in the Increased Use of Protected and Sensitive Lands
“This ethanol partnership merits a far greater examination, however, as its effects could be extraordinarily far-reaching. An increase in the already large-scale ethanol industry in the U.S. and
an expansion of
Brazil could portend a similar increase in harmful environmental effects on a national and international level. For example, there is evidence to suggest that
ethanol production in any country necessarily demands an expansion of land area used to grow the crops from which
ethanol is produced – primarily corn in the U.S. and sugar cane in Brazil. If crop production for ethanol use proves to be
economically viable for farmers and large industries, such expansion could push crops used for food to marginal or
protected land, or largely eliminate land currently used for food production. Additionally, questions still surround the level of harmful emissions created both from the mobile sources
that use ethanol as well as emissions from ethanol plants themselves. Debate over the efficiency of ethanol production remains unresolved. Critics point to data that questions the overall net
energy used to produce ethanol in comparison to production of fossil fuels. Additionally, large monocultures of corn or sugar cane could be disastrous
to the surrounding ecosystems.”
Preston Black PSDC

E. Impact: Monocultures are Disastrous to the Environment and Poor Communities

Friends of the Earth [an international network of environmental organizations in 77 countries; the world’s largest
grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues; challenges the current model of
economic and corporate globalization, and promotes solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies],
“Harvesting Harm: Agrofuels as a False Solution to Climate Change and Poverty,” Policy Brief on the Inter-American Development Bank
Agrofuels Strategy, April 2008, http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs-members/agrofuels/HarvestingHarm.pdf [PB]
“Production of agrofuels from crops grown on large-scale monoculture plantations is not a solution for climate
change or poverty alleviation. The direct or indirect conversion of biodiverse and carbon-rich land to large-scale
agrofuels production poses a substantial new threat to the environment and in many cases actually releases more
greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. Moreover, funding large, export-oriented private sector ventures over
small- and medium-scale enterprises aimed at rural community development will not alleviate poverty, as it brings
rural displacement, unemployment of rural workers and small farmers and ultimately urban poverty.”
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. Brazil’s lack of instruments to contain the damage done by sugarcane monoculture is a cause for concern
2. The environmental and social problems created by extensive sugarcane plantations are well known in
Brazil
3. Ethanol production is associated with heavy concentration of land ownership, deforestation, soil, air, and
water pollution, and the displacement of small farmers
4. The current rise in ethanol demand is grounds for fearing Brazil will be transformed into “gigantic
sugarcane fields” – logically, increased demand would exacerbate the problem
5. Monocultures of sugarcane in Brazil account for 13% of the nation’s herbicide application, and studies
have shown that water contamination is linked to pesticide use for cane growth
6. If the Renewable Fuel Standards for ethanol were to be met by Brazilian sugarcane, Brazil would need to
increase production by 135 billion liters per year
7. Eliminating the ethanol tax credit would pave the way for Brazilian ethanol to come in
1. Brazil’s lack of instruments to contain the damage done by sugarcane monoculture is a cause for concern
The Inter Press News Service [the world’s leading provider of information on global issues, backed by a network of journalists in more
than 100 countries; a global news agency focusing on the production of independent news and analysis about events and processes affecting
economic, social and political development], “Brazil-US: A Giant Shadow Over Ethanol Politics,” Analysis by Mario Osava [IPS’s Brazil
correspondent; covers political, economic and social issues, including human rights, labor, environment, poverty, indigenous issues, and
sustainable development; has travelled the corners of Latin America’s largest country to bring stories], April 2, 2007, Site last updated
March 5, 2010, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37185 [PB]
“Presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela , however, condemned the idea of greatly expanding the
acreage of crops grown for fuel, which could exacerbate world hunger if they displace food crops. Social
movements and environmentalists also attacked the Bush-Lula alcohol alliance. [Energy Expert Delcio Rodrigues
told the Inter-Press News Service that] The headlong way in which the U.S. is acting and the lack of ‘instruments to contain the damage
done by sugarcane monoculture’ in Brazil [is a] cause for concern , energy expert Delcio Rodrigues of the NGO Vitae Civilis, which works on issues
related to climate change, told IPS.”
2. The environmental and social problems created by extensive sugarcane plantations are well known in
Brazil
“The environmental and social problems created by extensive sugarcane plantations are well known in Brazil.
Burning the leaves to make cutting easier pollutes the air and causes health problems, especially respiratory
disorders. Sugarcane cutters are subjected to inhuman working conditions, in return for only temporary work at
harvest time.”
3. Ethanol production is associated with heavy concentration of land ownership, deforestation, soil, air, and
water pollution, and the displacement of small farmers
“Ethanol production, however, has its costs, and is largely associated with heavy concentration of land ownership,
deforestation, soil, air and water pollution, and the displacement of small farmers, according to a statement last week
by ActionAid, an international N[on]-G[overnmental] O[rganization].”
Preston Black PSDC

4. The current rise in ethanol demand is grounds for fearing Brazil will be transformed into “gigantic
sugarcane fields” – logically, increased demand would exacerbate the problem
“The sharp rise in ethanol demand in the United States, Japan and Europe, due to rising oil prices and the need to reduce greenhouse gases
emitted by burning fossil fuels, are grounds for fearing that Brazil and other tropical countries may be transformed into ‘gigantic
sugarcane fields’ with undesirable consequences, like raising arable land prices and stimulating deforestation.”
5. Monocultures of sugarcane in Brazil account for 13% of the nation’s herbicide application, and studies
have shown that water contamination is linked to pesticide use for cane growth
Miguel A. Altieri [Professor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley] & Elizabeth Bravo [Red por una América
Latina Libre de Transgenicos Quito, Ecuador],“The ecological and social tragedy of crop-based biofuel production in the Americas,” Article
Published by the Institute for Food and Development Policy, March 20, 2007, http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1662 [PB]
“Brazil has produced sugar for ethanol fuel since 1975. As of 2005, there were 313 ethanol processing plants with a production capacity of 16 million cubic
meters. Brazil is the largest producer of sugarcane in the world, and produces 60% of the world’s total sugar ethanol with cane grown on 3 million hectares (Jason 2004). In 2005, production
Monocultures of sugarcane alone account for 13% of the nation’s
reached a record 16.5 billion liters, of which two billion were slated for export.
herbicide application. Studies conducted in 2002 by EMBRAPA (The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation)
confirmed the presence of water contamination linked to pesticide use in the Guarani Aquifer, attributable primarily
to cane growth in the State of Sao Paulo.”
6. If the Renewable Fuel Standards for ethanol were to be met by Brazilian sugarcane, Brazil would need to
increase production by 135 billion liters per year
Miguel A. Altieri [Professor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley] & Elizabeth Bravo [Red por una América
Latina Libre de Transgenicos Quito, Ecuador],“The ecological and social tragedy of crop-based biofuel production in the Americas,” Article
Published by the Institute for Food and Development Policy, March 20, 2007, http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1662 [PB]
“The U.S. is the largest importer of Brazilian ethanol, importing 58% of the nation’s total produced ethanol in 2006. This trade relation was reinforced by the Bush administration’s recent ethanol
Far from good news for Brazil, if the renewable fuel standards for ethanol proposed by the Bush administration were
agreement with Brazil.
to be met by Brazilian sugarcane, Brazil would need to increase its production by an additional 135 billion liters per
year. The planted area is rapidly expanding in the Cerrado region, whose natural vegetation cover is expected to have disappeared by 2030. 60% of sugar-growing lands are managed by 340
large distilleries that control more than 60% of the sugarcane acreage (Bravo 2006).”
7. Eliminating the ethanol tax credit would pave the way for Brazilian ethanol to come in
NOTE: Also, point out that it’s simply logical that we will import ethanol from Brazil if we cannot produce it in the
U.S. – all Aff does is shift the environmental problem (which is worse, morally)
The Kansas City Star, “Kansas newspapers calls for end to ethanol subsidy,” October 19, 2009, Article by Sam Abuelsamid,
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/19/kansas-newspapers-calls-for-end-to-ethanol-subsidy/ [PB]
“The subsidies were intended to be a carrot to stimulate production, but with production now mandated, the subsidies now seem redundant, at least according to the editorial board of the Kansas
Eliminating the 45
City Star. The paper is calling for the repeal of the corn ethanol subsidies which seem to do little more than line the pockets of big corn producers and processors.
cent per gallon credit [for ethanol in the U.S.] would also pave the way for cheaper sugarcane ethanol to come in from
Brazil. There should also be more rigorous study of the effects of corn ethanol production including water and land use.”
Preston Black PSDC

2) Foreign Dependence
Shell:
A. Link: A. Link: The Affirmative Team Eliminates Ethanol Subsidies and/or
Eliminates the Brazil Sugarcane Ethanol Tariff, which would Destroy the U.S.
Ethanol Industry (establish in Cross-X) [Or, Abolishing Our Ethanol Subsidies
would Mean We Don’t Produce Ethanol, which means that We would Likely Import
it from Brazil – Look in First DA Extension for Evidence on this]
B. Internal Link #1: The U.S. Ethanol Industry Reduces Foreign Dependence
1. The ethanol industry reduces our dependence on imported oil, which is the largest component of the
expanding U.S. trade deficit
John M. Urbanchuk [economist specializing in agriculture and the economics of alternative fuels with a particular
emphasis on biofuels; Master’s of Arts Degree in economics from Temple University; has completed all course requirements for a Ph.D. at
Temple University ; Director of LECG LLC (an expert services consulting firm providing expert testimony and analysis, original authoritative
studies, and strategic advisory services); manages and provides a broad range of economic, planning, marketing and policy analysis consulting
services to firms and associations involved in industries including agriculture, renewable fuels and consumer foods; works with firms in a wide
range of industries to estimate the impact of operations and investment on the national and state economy; some of his clients include the
Congressional Budget Office, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association and
United Soybean Board, the National Biodiesel Board, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, the Farm Credit Council, the Energy
Information Administration and the Association of Washington Business], “Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United
States,” Report Prepared for the Renewable Fuels Association, February 21, 2006,
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Ethanol_Economic_Contribution_Feb_06.pdf [PB]
“Ethanol reduces our dependence on imported oil and reduces the U.S. trade deficit. The production and use of
ethanol displaces crude oil needed to manufacture gasoline. According to the Energy Information Administration,
imports account for 65% of our crude oil supplies and oil imports are the largest component of the expanding U.S.
trade deficit. The production of 4 billion gallons of ethanol means that the U.S. needed to import 170 million fewer
barrels of oil in 2005, valued at $8.7 billion, to meet the same demand levels.”
2. The soon-to-be expanded ethanol industry will reduce foreign dependence even more
“The investment in an additional 6 billion gallons of new ethanol capacity and production of 9.3 billion gallons by
2015 will make a significant contribution to the U.S. economy… Ethanol reduces our dependence on imported oil and reduces the U.S. trade deficit.
The production and use of ethanol displaces crude oil needed to manufacture gasoline. According to the Energy Information Administration, imports account for 65% of our crude oil supplies
The production of 9.8 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015 means that
and oil imports are the largest component of the expanding U.S. trade deficit.
the U.S. will import 3.7 billion fewer barrels of oil between 2005 and 2015. This means that $197.4 billion dollars
will stay in the U.S. instead of being shipped offshore to pay for foreign oil.”
C. Internal Link #2: While Producing Ethanol in the U.S. Reduces Foreign
Dependence, the Affirmative Team is Destroying Our Ethanol Industry and Making
us Reliant on Foreign Countries Once More for Fuel (either to the East for Oil, or to
Brazil for ethanol)
Preston Black PSDC

D. Brink: Dependence on Foreign Countries for Fuel Threatens Our Economy

The National Resources Defense Council [a non-profit international environmental advocacy group promoting conservation of the
natural and built environment; has a staff of more than 300 scientists, attorneys and other specialists], “Safe, Strong and Secure: Reducing
America’s Oil Dependence: America’s rising consumption of oil threatens the economy and national security,” July 2004,
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp [PB]
“With U.S. gasoline consumption accounting for 11% of world oil production, the U.S. has been hit hard by our
dependence on oil, intensifying our economic and political vulnerability. Of the $54 billion trade deficit reported in
August, more than a fifth or $12 billion is from imported crude oil. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has
called the higher value of imported oil a tax on U.S. citizens that has cost us three quarters of a percent of our
economic output in 2004, and warned economic impacts for the U.S. will intensify if current trends in oil demand
and prices continue.”
E. Impact: Increased Foreign Dependence (either from Brazil for Ethanol or the
East for Oil) Resulting in an Increased Trade Deficit that Continues to Strangle Our
Already Suffering Economy
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
The ethanol industry is ever increasing – there is reason to anticipate that an additional 4.1 billion gallons of
new capacity will be added between 2006 and 2015
“According to the Renewable Fuels Association 34 new plants and eight major plant expansions representing an
additional 2,100 million gallons of capacity currently are under construction and more are planned. A review of
conversations with and public statements of ethanol industry analysts, plant developers, builders, and financiers lead
us to anticipate that an additional 4.1 billion gallons of new capacity will be added between 2006 and 2015, with
most of the capacity coming on line within the next three years.”
Preston Black PSDC

3) U.S. Economic Loss
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Eliminates Ethanol Subsidies and/or Eliminates the
Brazil Sugarcane Ethanol Tariff, which would Destroy the U.S. Ethanol Industry
(establish in Cross-X)
B. Internal Link #1: The U.S. Ethanol Industry Provides much Benefit to Our
Economy
1. The current spending associated with current ethanol production creates jobs, generates household income,
and provides tax revenue for the government
“The spending associated with current ethanol production and investment spending on new plant capacity will
circulate throughout the entire economy several fold. Consequently this spending will stimulate aggregate demand,
support the creation of new jobs, generate additional household income, and provide tax revenue for government at
all levels. The impact of the ethanol industry on the American economy was estimated by applying the appropriate final demand multipliers for output, earnings, and employment for the
relevant supplying industry calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to the estimates of spending described above. The final demand multipliers for output, earnings, and
employment for the selected industries are shown in Appendix Table 1.”
2. The soon-to-be expanded ethanol industry will provide even more economic benefit
“The investment in an additional 6 billion gallons of new ethanol capacity and production of 9.3 billion gallons by
2015 will make a significant contribution to the U.S. economy: The combination of spending for annual operations and capital spending for new
capacity will add $83.1 billion (2005 dollars) of gross output to the American economy by 2015. Adjusting for the difference between gross output and GDP, the U.S. economy
measured by Gross Domestic Product will be nearly $46 billion (in 2005 dollars) larger by 2015 as a result of the
ethanol industry. New jobs are created as a consequence of increased economic activity caused by ethanol production. The increase in gross output resulting
from ongoing production and construction of new capacity supports the creation of as many as 203,879 jobs in all
sectors of the economy by 2015. Increased economic activity and new jobs result in higher levels of income for American households. The production of
ethanol will put an additional $14.6 billion into the pockets of American consumers in 2015.”
Preston Black PSDC

C. Internal Link #2: The U.S. Ethanol Industry Also Strengthens the Individual
State Economy
Just one 100 MGY ethanol plant will add $406 million annually to the state economy, increase Gross State
Output by $223 million, support the creation of 1,600 jobs on the state level, and increase household income
locally by more than $50 million
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Ethanol_Economic_Contribution_Feb_06.pdf [PB] [brackets added]
“While the precise impact on a specific community will depend on the structure of the local community (reflected in unique multipliers), the generalized annual contribution of a 50 and 100
MGY ethanol plant is summarized in Table 2: A 50 MGY ethanol plant will use 18.2 million bushels of corn annually and a 100 MGY plant will require 36.4 million bushels annually.
The spending for production for a
Feedstocks account for about two-thirds of annual operational spending. If all grain is sourced locally, the economic impact is maximized.
50 MGY plant will generate $209 million (in 2005 dollars) of new gross output while a 100 MGY plant will generate $406 million annually for the
local economy. When viewed at the State level, a 50 MGY ethanol plant will add $115 million annually to the size of the State economy measured by Gross State
Output. A 100 MGY plant will increase G[ross] S[tate] P[roduct] by $223 million. That is, the State economy will, be larger as a result of the
operations of the ethanol plant. New jobs are created as a consequence of increased economic activity caused by ethanol production. The increase in gross output
resulting from ongoing production of a 50 MGY ethanol plant will support the creation of as many as 836 jobs in all sectors of the local economy while a 100
MGY plant will generate nearly 1,600 new jobs. Increased economic activity and new jobs results in higher levels of income. The ongoing annual
operations of a 50 MGY plant will increase household income in the local economy by nearly $30 million annually. A 100 MGY plant will increase
household income by more than $50 million.”
D. Impact: Why Lose an Industry that Provides Billions of Dollars in Revenue for
Our Country, Individual States and Consumers, and Provides Thousands of Jobs to
Bolster Our Suffering Economy to a Foreign Product? It Doesn’t Make Economic
Sense!
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. The ethanol industry helps farmers
2. The ethanol industry added $17.7 billion to the nation’s GDP in 2005
3. The ethanol industry supports the creation of 153,725 jobs, with 19,000 in America’s manufacturing sector
4. Ethanol production puts an additional $5.7 billion in consumers’ pockets each year
5. The ethanol industry generate $1.9 billion in tax revenues for the Federal government annually, and $1.6
billion for state governments annually
6. Spending towards ethanol stimulates incomes, jobs, and the overall economy
1. The ethanol industry helps farmers
“The ethanol industry provides a significant contribution to the American economy. The industry spent almost $5.1 billion on raw
materials, other inputs, goods and services to produce an estimated four billion gallons of ethanol during 2005. The largest share of this spending was for corn and other grains used as the raw
material to make ethanol. The ethanol industry used more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn in 2005, valued at $2.9 billion. Ethanol production represents the third largest component of corn
In addition to providing a growing and reliable
demand after feed use and exports and will account for 16 percent of total corn utilization this marketing season.
domestic market for American farmers, the ethanol industry also provides the opportunity for farmers to enjoy some
of the value added to their commodity by further processing. Farmer-owned ethanol plants account for half of U.S.
fuel ethanol plants and almost 40% of industry capacity.”
2. The ethanol industry added $17.7 billion to the nation’s GDP in 2005
“The combination of spending for annual operations and capital spending for new plants under construction added
$32.2 billion of gross output to the American economy in 2005. Gross output represents the market value of an
industry’s production, including commodity taxes, and it differs from GDP. Generally speaking, Gross Output is
larger than GDP since it includes the value of intermediate goods and services, which are ‘netted out’ of GDP.
Reflecting this difference, the ethanol industry added $17.7 billion to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product in 2005.”
Preston Black PSDC

3. The ethanol industry supports the creation of 153,725 jobs, with 19,000 in America’s manufacturing sector
“New jobs are created as a consequence of increased economic activity caused by ethanol production. The increase
in gross output (final demand) resulting from ongoing production and construction of new capacity supports the creation of
153,725 jobs in all sectors of the economy this year. These include more than 19,000 jobs in America’s
manufacturing sector – American jobs making ethanol from grain produced by American farmers.”
4. Ethanol production puts an additional $5.7 billion in consumers’ pockets each year
“Increased economic activity and new jobs result in higher levels of income for American households. The
production of ethanol will put an additional $5.7 billion into the pockets of American consumers this year.”
5. The ethanol industry generate $1.9 billion in tax revenues for the Federal government annually, and $1.6
billion for state governments annually
“The combination of increased output and GDP and higher income generates tax revenue for government at all
levels. The full impact of the annual operations of the ethanol industry and spending for new construction will add
more than $1.9 billion of tax revenue for the Federal government and nearly $1.6 billion for State and Local
governments.”
Preston Black PSDC

6. Spending towards ethanol stimulates incomes, jobs, and the overall economy
John Urbanchuk [teaches agricultural price analysis & industrial policy at St. Joseph’s University & Delaware Valley College, Master’s of
Arts Degree in economics], “Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy Of the United States,” Report Prepared for the
Renewable Fuels Association, February 21, 2006,
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/576/economic_contribution_2006.pdf
“The spending associated with current ethanol production and investment spending on new plant capacity will
circulate throughout the entire economy several fold. Consequently this spending will stimulate aggregate demand,
support the creation of new jobs, generate additional household income, and provide tax revenue for government at
all levels. The impact of the ethanol industry on the American economy was estimated by applying the appropriate final demand multipliers for output, earnings, and employment for the
relevant supplying industry calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to the estimates of spending described above.”
Preston Black PSDC

COUNTERPLAN TEXT – Increase Cellulosic Funding and Research

Agency: Congress, the President, and State Governments
Mandates:
(1) Eliminate all Federal and State funds for conventional ethanol.
(2) Redirect the funds to investment in cellulosic ethanol.
(3) The Plan will be done in such a way as to not preempt state action. In other words, the states will
redirect their current ethanol projects into cellulosic ethanol projects controlled by them, and the federal
government will do likewise.
Enforcement: For the Federal programs will come from the USDA, the EPA, the DOE, and the IRS. Enforcement
for the state programs will come from the existing state agencies that currently control state ethanol programs.
Funding: Shall come from the funds in the federals budget and states’ budgets that are currently dedicated to the
subsidizing of and research for conventional ethanol.
Preston Black PSDC

NEG - U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO (Improved)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEG - U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO (Improved)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEG – U.S.

Ethanol Policy PRO Page |1

NEG – U.S. Ethanol Policy – PRO

TOPICALITY – Ethanol Subsidies = Energy Policy..............................................................5

COUNTERPLAN TEXT – Increase Cellulosic Funding and Research.............................30

Preston Black PSDC

TOPICALITY – Sugarcane Tariff = Trade Policy

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

TOPICALITY – Ethanol Subsidies = Energy Policy

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

1. Energy Policy and Environmental Policy are distinct

Energy regulation and environmental regulation historically have

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

9. Standard Extension: Governmental Designation

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

2. Obama is Pursuing Cellulosic Ethanol

The renewable fuels

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

3. The Cellulosic Ethanol Industry is Taking Off

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

2. Cellulosic Ethanol Contributes more to Energy Dependence

Thanks to advances in biotechnology, researchers can now transform

Preston Black PSDC

3. Cellulosic Ethanol doesn’t Use Food Sources to Produce Fuel

Preston Black PSDC

4. The only Difference between Different Types of Ethanol is the Process

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

E. Impact: Monocultures are Disastrous to the Environment and Poor Communities

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

D. Brink: Dependence on Foreign Countries for Fuel Threatens Our Economy

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

3) U.S. Economic Loss

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

1. The ethanol industry helps farmers

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

COUNTERPLAN TEXT – Increase Cellulosic Funding and Research

Preston Black PSDC

You might also like