9 Generic Culpepper Alternative Energy Disads

Alternative Energy DAs
DDI 2008
Culpepper Generic et al.
Alternative Energy Disads (Solar and Wind)

Alternative Energy Disads (Solar and Wind)......................................................................................................1
Space Mil 1NC Shell..............................................................................................................................................3
Space Mil 1NC Shell..............................................................................................................................................4
Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell..........................................................................................................................5
Solar Space Key To Space Mil............................................................................................................................10
Heg Scenario.........................................................................................................................................................11
Ext – DOD Wants Space Mil...............................................................................................................................12
Ext – Other Nations Will Follow.........................................................................................................................13
Russia Scenario....................................................................................................................................................14
China Scenario.....................................................................................................................................................15
China Scenario.....................................................................................................................................................16
China Scenario Brink..........................................................................................................................................17
India Scenario.......................................................................................................................................................18
Non U – Space Mil................................................................................................................................................19
Non U – Space Mil................................................................................................................................................20
Non U – Space Mil................................................................................................................................................21
Non U – Solar Space............................................................................................................................................22
No Impact.............................................................................................................................................................23
AFF – Solar Power Key To Econ........................................................................................................................24
Birds Of Prey 1NC...............................................................................................................................................25
Birds Of Prey 1NC...............................................................................................................................................26
Birds Of Prey Key................................................................................................................................................27
Birds Of Prey Key................................................................................................................................................28
Birds Of Prey Key................................................................................................................................................29
Birds Of Prey Key................................................................................................................................................30
Birds Of Prey Key................................................................................................................................................31
Turbines Kill Birds...............................................................................................................................................32
Ext – Faulty Surveys............................................................................................................................................38
Ext – Faulty Surveys............................................................................................................................................39
Ecosystems Key....................................................................................................................................................40
Ecosystems Key....................................................................................................................................................41
Ecosystems Key....................................................................................................................................................42
Ecosystems Key....................................................................................................................................................43
Readiness Shell.....................................................................................................................................................44
Readiness Shell.....................................................................................................................................................45
1
DDI 2008
Readiness Shell.....................................................................................................................................................46
Uniqueness............................................................................................................................................................47
Link Ext................................................................................................................................................................48
Link Ext................................................................................................................................................................49
Link Ext................................................................................................................................................................50
Readiness Brink...................................................................................................................................................51
Readiness Good....................................................................................................................................................52
Readiness Good....................................................................................................................................................53
Earthquake Module.............................................................................................................................................54
Wind -> Earthquakes..........................................................................................................................................55
Earthquake Detection Key..................................................................................................................................56
Readiness = Iraq Withdrawal.............................................................................................................................57
Terrorism Module................................................................................................................................................58
Inefficient disad?..................................................................................................................................................59
Marine Ecosystems Module................................................................................................................................60
Marine Ecosystems Module................................................................................................................................61
Climate Change Module......................................................................................................................................62
Wind = Climate Change......................................................................................................................................65
Wind -> Climate Change.....................................................................................................................................66
Climate Change = Extinction..............................................................................................................................67
Wind Power Hurts Environment........................................................................................................................68
Wind Power = FF Use..........................................................................................................................................71
AFF Answers........................................................................................................................................................72
AFF Answers........................................................................................................................................................73
2
DDI 2008
Space Mil 1NC Shell

A. Uniqueness
Various space and defense agencies recognize the need to provide both
security for energy and humanity in space
National Security Space Office, 10/10/07. Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security"
http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to
include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic
idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect
gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via
direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity
broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar
flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.
This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental
stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP
capability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by
comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). The
first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was
proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative to
other lower‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995-1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the concept
relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technology
vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for various
reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. The
post-9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a
decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now under
threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by
emerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, often
imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologies
to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets
and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.
B. Link
A renewed interest in solar development leads to an ambitious new space
program
John C. Mankins, was with NASA for 25 years, including 10 years with JPL in Pasadena, and 15 years at NASA Headquarters in
Washington "Space-based Solar Power: Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit", Spring 2008. Ad Astra Magazine.
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
Photographs of the sky over Beijing on a hot summer day—dark with particulates and unburned hydrocarbons dangerous to the young
and the elderly—illustrate that the air pollution crisis that once plagued Los Angeles is not gone, but has only relocated. Similarly,
making the energy to run civilization releases enormous volumes of greenhouse gasses—over two pounds (one kg) of carbon dioxide
for each kilowatthour (kwh) generated by coal. Global average temperatures and ocean
surface temperatures are rising, along with insurance premiums for coastal areas—when insurance can be found at all.
At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitious
missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of
new space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as
they do on progress in space transportation. New energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for the
climate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs.
3
DDI 2008
Space Mil 1NC Shell

Should the US militarize space, India, Russia, Pakistan and Japan are all sure to
follow
Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-
4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104
Perhaps of even greater concern is that several other nations, including one of China's regional rivals, India, may feel compelled to
seek offensive as well as defensive capabilities in space. The U.S. trade journal Defense News, for instance, quoted unidentified
Indian defense officials as stating that their country had already begun developing its own kinetic-energy (nonexplosive, hit-to-kill)
and laser-based antisatellite weapons. If India goes down that path, its archrival Pakistan will probably follow suit. Like India,
Pakistan has a well-developed ballistic missile program, including medium-range missiles that could launch an antisatellite system.
Even Japan, the third major Asian power, might join such a space race. In June 2007 the National Diet of Japan began considering a
bill backed by the current Fukuda government that would permit the development of satellites for "military and national security"
purposes. As for Russia, in the wake of the Chinese test President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's stance against the
weaponization of space. At the same time, though, he refused to criticize Beijing's actions and blamed the U.S. instead. The American
efforts to build a missile defense system, Putin charged, and the increasingly aggressive American plans for a military position in
space were prompting China's moves. Yet Russia itself, as a major spacefaring power that has incorporated satellites into its national
security structure, would be hard-pressed to forgo entering an arms race in space. Given the proliferation of spacefaring entities [see
box at left], proponents of a robust space warfare strategy believe that arming the heavens is inevitable and that it would be best for
the U.S. to get there first with firepower. Antisatellite and space-based weapons, they argue, will be necessary not only to defend U.S.
military and commercial satellites but also to deny any future adversary the use of space capabilities to enhance the performance of its
forces on the battlefield.
C. Internal Link and Impact

Amassing space weaponry leads to a catastrophic international exchange
Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor and Dir Debate – U Pittsburgh, Et al., ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense, July 2001,
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses over
the tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is
strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-
satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems
from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN
Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target
something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such
interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The
dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-
second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would
enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands
and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale
sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have
many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking
complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal
accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36
Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles
would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to
contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile
reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a
nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David
Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled
people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would
retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a
computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.
4
DDI 2008
Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

A. Uniqueness-No solar power now, lack of R&D funding kills widespread
success
Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. WaldMonday, International Herald Tribune, "Lack of financing casts shadow on solar
power", July 16, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/solar.php
Solar power, which has captured the public imagination strongly in Europe, is making big inroads in the United States. Panels that
convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world - from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and
farmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.But for
all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors in solar technologies say that moving this
energy source from niche to mainstream - last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the U.S. electricity supply - is unlikely without
significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not
expected to happen anytime soon.Indeed, even a quarter century from now, said the U.S. Energy Department official in charge of
renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 percent or 3 percent of the energy supply in the United States.In the
meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the
world at the rate of more than one a week.Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of
American states, sales of photovoltaic silicon panels have soared, helping steadily drop manufacturing costs and leading to widespread
product refinements.But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur focused on energy, said the market-driven
improvements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment."Most of the
environmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet's problems," Khosla said.Scientists
long ago calculated that an hour's worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a
year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago.Yet research on solar
power and methods for storing intermittent energy flows has long received less spending, in the United States and other industrialized
countries, than energy options with more political support.For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received
dominant shares of government energy-research money.These days, a growing amount of government money in the United States is
headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research ways to burn coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main
heat-trapping smokestack gas.In this fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and
development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million,
on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development.For the moment, the biggest government support for
solar power is coming from the states, not the national government. But there, too, the focus remains on spurring markets, not
laboratory research.The U.S. government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large
sustained energy quest, many experts say."This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,"
said Nathan Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
B. Link
New incentives boost solar developments, but kills R&D when they terminate
Solar Energies Industry Association, "Senate Fillibuster Once Again Prevents Vote on Solar Tax Credits", 6/17/08.
http://seia.org/solarnews.php?id=189
SEIA STATEMENT ON H.R. 6049, THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND AND TAX RELIEF ACT
Statement by SEIA president Rhone Resch following the Senate's failure to end the filibuster of H.R. 6049, the Energy Independence
and Tax Relief Act, which would extend the solar investment tax credit (ITC) for 8 years. The motion failed 52 - 44 (on a cloture
motion requiring support of 60 Senators). "I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to reach a bipartisan
consensus that would allow this important legislation to move forward. Not extending the solar tax credits is an enormous tax increase
that will cost America tens of thousands of jobs. If the Senate is unable to act - and the solar tax credits are allowed to expire - it will
result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar. "Time is running out. I strongly urge the Senate to reach a bipartisan
consensus and pass this legislation, now."
5
DDI 2008

C. Internal Link: To continue investment, businesses turn to horrifically
unsanitary Chinese factories
Ariana Eunjung Cha Washington Post Sunday, 3/9/08; A01. "Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595_pf.html
The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened.
Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the
ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.This ritual has been going
on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial
growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the
central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon
destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a
highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards."The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will
grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a
professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.The situation in Li's village points to the environmental
trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like
palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower
dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.Likewise in
China, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.With the prices of oil and coal soaring,
policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years,
however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up
prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption.With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to
$300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap.In China, polysilicon plants are the new dot-
coms. Flush with venture capital and with generous grants and low-interest loans from a central government touting its efforts to seek
clean energy alternatives, more than 20 Chinese companies are starting polysilicon manufacturing plants. The combined capacity of
these new factories is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons -- more than double the 40,000 tons produced in the entire world today.But
Chinese companies' methods for dealing with waste haven't been perfected.Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon
companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process.
But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more
than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like Luoyang
Zhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not
brought those systems fully online, industry sources say. "The recycling technology is of course being thought about, but currently it's
still not mature," said Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.Shi, chief executive
of Pro-EnerTech, a start-up polysilicon research firm in Shanghai, said that there's such a severe shortage of polysilicon that the
government is willing to overlook this issue for now."If this happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested," he said.An
independent, nationally accredited laboratory analyzed a sample of dirt from the dump site near the Luoyang Zhonggui plant at the
request of The Washington Post. The tests show high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, which can result from the
breakdown of silicon tetrachloride and do not exist naturally in soil. "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people to
live nearby," said Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences.Wang Hailong, secretary of the
board of directors for Luoyang Zhonggui, said it is "impossible" to think that the company would dump large amounts of waste into a
residential area. "Some of the villagers did not tell the truth," he said.However, Wang said the company does release a "minimal
amount of waste" in compliance with all environmental regulations. "We release it in a certain place in a certain way. Before it is
released, it has gone through strict treatment procedures."Yi Xusheng, the head of monitoring for the Henan Province Environmental
Protection Agency, said the factory had passed a review before it opened, but that "it's possible that there are some pollutants in the
production process" that inspectors were not aware of. Yi said the agency would investigate.In 2005, when residents of Li's village,
Shiniu, heard that a new solar energy company would be building a factory nearby, they celebrated.The impoverished farming
community of roughly 2,300, near the eastern end of the Silk Road, had been left behind during China's recent boom. In a country
where the average wage in some areas has climbed to $200 a month, many of the village's residents make just $200 a year. They had
high hopes their new neighbor would jump-start the local economy and help transform the area into an industrial hub.The Luoyang
Zhonggui factory grew out of an effort by a national research
6
DDI 2008

<card continues no text removed>
institute to improve on a 50-year-old polysilicon refining technology pioneered by Germany's Siemens. Concerned about intellectual
property issues, Siemens has held off on selling its technology to the Chinese. So the Chinese have tried to create their own.Last year,
the Luoyang Zhonggui factory was estimated to have produced less than 300 tons of polysilicon, but it aims to increase that tenfold
this year -- making it China's largest operating plant. It is a key supplier to Suntech Power Holdings, a solar panel company whose
founder Shi Zhengrong recently topped the list of the richest people in China.Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand
-- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduce
impurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, the
process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste.When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transforms
into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chests
contract.While it typically takes companies two years to get a polysilicon factory up and running properly, many Chinese companies
are trying to do it in half that time or less, said Richard Winegarner, president of Sage Concepts, a California-based consulting firm.As
a result, Ren of Hebei Industrial University said, some Chinese plants are stockpiling the hazardous substances in the hopes that they
can figure out a way to dispose of it later: "I know these factories began to store silicon tetrachloride in drums two years ago."Pro-
EnerTech's Shi says other companies -- including Luoyang Zhonggui -- are just dumping wherever they can."Theoretically, companies
should collect it all, process it to get rid of the poisonous stuff, then release it or recycle. Zhonggui currently doesn't have the
technology. Now they are just releasing it directly into the air," said Shi, who recently visited the factory.Shi estimates that Chinese
companies are saving millions of dollars by not installing pollution recovery.
Further environmental damage will lead to widespread political discontent against the CCP, resulting in
its collapse
Nathan Nankivell, Senior Researcher, Office of the Special Advisor at Joint Task Force Pacific Headquarters, Canada, 10/25/2005.
"China's Pollution and its Threat to Domestic and Regional Stability". http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=146.
There is little disagreement that China’s environment is a mounting problem for Beijing. The country produces as many sulphur
emissions as Tokyo and Los Angeles combined but with only a fraction of the vehicles; China is home to 16 of the
world’s 20 most polluted cities; water pollution affects as much as 70 percent of the country; air pollution is blamed for the premature
death of some 400,000 Chinese annually; crop returns are steadily decreasing in quantity and quality because of polluted land and
water; and solid waste production is expected to more than double over the next decade, pushing China far ahead of the U.S. as the
largest producer (The Economist, August 19, 2004). While the general accessibility of this information is creating greater awareness,
trends indicate that pollution and environmental degradation will worsen. Chinese consumers are expected to purchase hundreds of
millions of automobiles, adding to air pollution problems. Despite pledges to put the environment first, national planners still aim to
double per capita GDP by 2010 (China Daily, October 20, 2005). Urban populations are expected to continue expanding, leading to
the creation of slums and stressing urban sanitation and delivery systems. Steadily richer Chinese will be able to purchase more goods
and consume more resources. The nation lacks a powerful national body able to coordinate, monitor, and enforce environmental
legislation: the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is under-staffed, has few resources, and must compete with other
bureaucracies for attention. The devolution of decision-making to local levels has placed environmental stewardship in the hands of
officials who are more concerned with economic growth than the environment. Finally, the deficiency of capital and the lack of will to
promote massive spending on environmental repair necessary to reverse more than two decades of destruction are perhaps most
indicative of the fact that environmental restoration will not occur: estimates on the final cost of environmental repair range into the
tens of billions of dollars (Canadian Security Intelligence Services Division; The Economist, October 20, 2005).
From the examples above, it is clear that China’s environmental crisis will only worsen before it gets better. SEPA’s impotence,
Beijing’s contradictory policy statements, expanding consumption, and a lack of funds to reverse already serious problems all suggest
that pollution and degradation will most likely worsen in the decades to come. Pollution, Unrest, and Social Mobilization As the
impact of pollution on human health becomes more obvious and widespread, it is leading to greater political mobilization and social
unrest from those citizens who suffer the most. The latest statement from the October 2005 Central Committee meeting in Shanghai
illustrates Beijing’s increasing concern regarding the correlation between unrest and pollution issues. There were more than 74,000
incidents of protest and unrest recorded in China in 2004, up from 58,000 the year before (Asia Times, November 16, 2004). While
there are no clear statistics linking this number of protests, riots, and unrest specifically to pollution issues, the fact that pollution was
one of four social problems linked to disharmony
7
DDI 2008

<card continues no text removed>
by the Central Committee implies that there is at least the perception of a strong correlation. For the CCP and neighboring states,
social unrest must be viewed as a primary security concern for three reasons: it is creating greater political mobilization, it threatens to
forge linkages with democracy movements, and demonstrations are proving more difficult to contain. These three factors have the
potential to challenge the CCP’s total political control, thus potentially destabilizing a state with a huge military arsenal and a history
of violent, internal conflict that cannot be downplayed or ignored. Protests are uniting a variety of actors throughout local
communities. Pollution issues are indiscriminate. The effects, though not equally felt by each person within a community, impact rich
and poor, farmers and businessmen, families and individuals alike. As local communities respond to pollution issues through united
opposition, it is leaving Beijing with no easy target upon which to blame unrest, and no simple option for how to quell whole
communities with a common grievance. Moreover, protests serve as a venue for the politically disaffected who are unhappy with the
current state of governance, and may be open to considering alternative forms of political rule. Environmental experts like Elizabeth
Economy note that protests afford an opportunity for the environmental movement to forge linkages with democracy advocates. She
notes in her book, The River Runs Black, that several environmentalists argue that change is only possible through greater
democratization and notes that the environmental and democracy movements united in Eastern Europe prior to the end of the Cold
War. It is conceivable that in this way, environmentally-motivated protests might help to spread democracy and undermine CCP rule.
A further key challenge is trying to contain protests once they begin.
The steady introduction of new media like cell phones, email, and text messaging are preventing China’s authorities from silencing
and hiding unrest. Moreover, the ability to send and receive information ensures that domestic and international observers will be
made aware of unrest, making it far more difficult for local authorities to employ state-sanctioned force. The security ramifications of
greater social unrest cannot be overlooked. Linkages between environmental and democracy advocates potentially challenge the
Party’s monolithic control of power. In the past, similar challenges by Falun Gong and the Tiananmen protestors have been met by
force and detainment. In an extreme situation, such as national water shortages, social unrest could generate widespread, coordinated
action and political mobilization that would serve as a midwife to anti-CCP political challenges, create divisions within the Party over
how to deal with the environment, or lead to a massive show of force. Any of these outcomes would mark an erosion or alteration to
the CCP’s current power dynamic. And while many would treat political change in China, especially the implosion of the Party, as a
welcome development, it must be noted that any slippage of the Party’s dominance would most likely be accompanied by a period of
transitional violence. Though most violence would be directed toward dissident Chinese, a ripple effect would be felt in neighboring
states through immigration, impediments to trade, and an increased military presence along the Chinese border. All of these situations
would alter security assumptions in the region. Other Security Concerns While unrest presents the most obvious example of a security
threat related to pollution, several other key concerns are worth noting. The cost of environmental destruction could, for example,
begin to reverse the blistering rate of economic growth in China that is the foundation of CCP legitimacy. Estimates maintain that 7
percent annual growth is required to preserve social stability. Yet the costs of pollution are already taxing the economy between 8 and
12 percent of GDP per year [1]. As environmental problems mount, this percentage will increase, in turn reducing annual growth. As a
result, the CCP could be seriously challenged to legitimize its continued control if economic growth stagnates. Nationalists in
surrounding states could use pollution as a rallying point to muster support for anti-Chinese causes. For example, attacks on China’s
environmental management for its impact on surrounding states like Japan, could be used to argue against further investment in the
country or be highlighted during territorial disputes in the East China Sea to agitate anti-Chinese sentiment. While nationalism does
not imply conflict, it could reduce patterns of cooperation in the region and hopes for balanced and effective multilateral institutions
and dialogues.
8
DDI 2008

D. Impact-CCP collapse causes global nuclear war
San Renxing,. The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths
proposed", 8/5/05. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html
What, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: A cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a
battle with humanity. If you don’t believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches.
We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese people
will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation
from the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need
to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward
fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we
have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever
gone! In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire
globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that since
the nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another
kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be
finished, and the world will be finished. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that
will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.
But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it
is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and
members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! Since the Party’s life is above
all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its
life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight
hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every
cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.
9
DDI 2008
Solar Space Key To Space Mil

The military is ready and willing to pursue space militarization—they need only
a fresh interest in solar space capabilities
JOSEPH D. Rouge, SES Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07. "Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity
for Strategic Security" http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high priority for the
Department of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space. In March
2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of space‐based solar power (SBSP) as a
potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well.
First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look” Study. In the decade since this last
study, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications of
SBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a no‐cost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring and
Summer of 2007. Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the attached report was compiled through an innovative and
collaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal,
and business experts around the world. I applaud the high quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants who
contributed in the last six months. I encourage them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek
to answer the question of whether SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable,
clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind. This interim assessment contains significant initial findings and
recommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders, and
citizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is improving with
each passing year. Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actually
developing a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP presents as part of a national
and international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.
10
DDI 2008
Heg Scenario
Even if a new balance of power was struck after space militarization, it would
be inevitably unstable and without US primacy
Yet any arms race in space would almost inevitably destabilize the balance of power and thereby multiply the risks of global conflict.
In such headlong competition--whether in space or elsewhere--equilibrium among the adversaries would be virtually impossible to
maintain. Even if the major powers did achieve stability, that reality would still provide no guarantee that both sides would perceive it
to be so. The moment one side saw itself to be slipping behind the other, the first side would be strongly tempted to launch a
preemptive strike, before things got even worse. Ironically, the same would hold for the side that perceived itself to have gained an
advantage. Again, there would be strong temptation to strike first, before the adversary could catch up. Finally, a space weapons race
would ratchet up the chances that a mere technological mistake could trigger a battle. After all, in the distant void, reliably
distinguishing an intentional act from an accidental one would be highly problematic.
US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war.

Zalmay Khalilzad, 1995, Director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND and current US Ambassador to Iraq, "Losing
the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," The Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. Lexis) Under the third
option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for
the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in
itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation,
threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of
another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
11
DDI 2008
Ext – DOD Wants Space Mil

The DOD is in favor of translating solar power into weapons capabilities
The National Space Security Office Space-Based Solar Power Study Group, Spring, 2008.
"Strategic importance: Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth" Ad Astra Magazine.
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
The 21st century is shaping up to be one of potential environment- and resource-driven conflict, and as the United States’ ultimate
guarantor of national security, the Department of Defense (DoD) is keenly aware of this future scenario. History teaches us that the
application of sufficient energy and imagination to almost any problem ultimately leads to solutions
for a better future. Ensuring abundant long-term energy security then becomes a fundamental pursuit of all societies. Compared to
Earth, the resources of space are infinite. In the Age of Exploration, Europe looked beyond the horizons of her surrounding oceans to
solve a growing resource problem for a growing population. A similar time distance problem separates human society today from the
space resources needed to prevent its collapse and deliver the resources needed to support its ever-increasing levels of scale and
complexity. While space already delivers ubiquitous telecommunication, global positioning, and surveillance commodities, these
intangibles are higher-order services and not true life-sustaining resources. The first true resource delivered from space may very well
be nearly limitless clean energy. Enter the four-decade-old concept of space solar power (SSP). Originally invented in 1968 by Dr.
Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little, and last validated in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC),
SSP is a simple concept analogous to the hydroelectric dam as an energy-collection device. The traditional SSP architecture utilizes
very large (kilometer-scale) photovoltaic arrays in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) to convert a continuous stream of intense solar
radiation into carbon-neutral electrical energy, which is then transmitted 24/7 through night and weather via microwave beams to
collection
rectennas on Earth’s surface. In honor of its inventor, these space solar power satellites are sometimes fondly called, “Glasers.” Total
calculated end-to-end system efficiency for base-load power approaches 10 percent- -remarkably high for any known natural or
artificial energy production scheme. Variations on the basic concept include using solar dynamic versus photovoltaic collection
systems, optical wavelength versus microwave power transmission, lunar versus orbital basing, and low-Earth orbit versus GEO
architectures. Despite their differences, all systems share a common philosophy with the hydroelectric power model: invest in a high-
capital infrastructure expense up front to then enable decades of clean, reliable, low-maintenance and low unit-cost energy collection,
free from the volatile fuel expenses and vulnerabilities of conventional energy systems. So why do we not have SSP satellites in orbit
today when the NRC validated the concept as scientifically sound and on a healthy path toward technical feasibility as recently as five
years ago? Over the course of 40 years the answer has always centered around “the business case” in the face of less-expensive
competing conventional terrestrial energy sources. But that calculus is about to change. The very real risks of climate change, energy
nationalism and scarcity, unconstrained technology explosion, and potential resource conflicts weigh heavily on the futurist minds of
the action officers of the Air Force Future Concepts and Transformations Office and National Security Space Office (NSSO) These
officers are charged with visualizing the world 25-or-more years from now, and informing and guiding Air Force and space strategy
development. For a military that is fundamentally dependent on high-energy capabilities to protect its nation and the international
commons for the good of all humanity, not only are the strategic risks associated with energy scarcity that lie ahead great, but so too
are the operational and tactical vulnerabilities for the finest war-fighting and peacekeeping machine humans have ever known. It was
from within this Air Force policy incubator and the NSSO that the spark to reexamine SSP as a strategic, operational, and tactical
energy solution was struck. Beginning in the 1970s through 2001, the SSP was examined on multiple previous occasions by the
Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA, but failed to find a champion in large part because SSP fell between organizational gaps
(DOE does energy but not space, and NASA does space, not energy). On the other hand, because of its unique mission, DoD is the
first government agency that will have to deal with the harsh realities of a coming energy peak. Self-developed, complex modern
weapon systems spend two decades in pre-production and another five in operation— a 70-year life cycle that clearly places any new
platforms (and our entire war-fighting doctrine) squarely on the backside of peak oil, and permanently in a hangar unless DoD can
reinvent itself to remain relevant in an energy-scarce world. Therefore, DoD is in a position of greatest need for examining all
alternate energy options. On a more tactical level, the very real high cost in dollars and lives lost to deliver large quantities of fuel and
energy supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has informed the military that energy logistics is a reality that begs for a
paradigm change.
12
DDI 2008
Ext – Other Nations Will Follow

Should the US militarize space, India, Russia, Pakistan and Japan are all sure to
follow
Perhaps of even greater concern is that several other nations, including one of China's regional rivals, India, may feel compelled to
seek offensive as well as defensive capabilities in space. The U.S. trade journal Defense News, for instance, quoted unidentified
Indian defense officials as stating that their country had already begun developing its own kinetic-energy (nonexplosive, hit-to-kill)
and laser-based antisatellite weapons. If India goes down that path, its archrival Pakistan will probably follow suit. Like India,
Pakistan has a well-developed ballistic missile program, including medium-range missiles that could launch an antisatellite system.
Even Japan, the third major Asian power, might join such a space race. In June 2007 the National Diet of Japan began considering a
bill backed by the current Fukuda government that would permit the development of satellites for "military and national security"
purposes. As for Russia, in the wake of the Chinese test President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's stance against the
weaponization of space. At the same time, though, he refused to criticize Beijing's actions and blamed the U.S. instead. The American
efforts to build a missile defense system, Putin charged, and the increasingly aggressive American plans for a military position in
space were prompting China's moves. Yet Russia itself, as a major spacefaring power that has incorporated satellites into its national
security structure, would be hard-pressed to forgo entering an arms race in space. Given the proliferation of spacefaring entities [see
box at left], proponents of a robust space warfare strategy believe that arming the heavens is inevitable and that it would be best for
the U.S. to get there first with firepower. Antisatellite and space-based weapons, they argue, will be necessary not only to defend U.S.
military and commercial satellites but also to deny any future adversary the use of space capabilities to enhance the performance of its
forces on the battlefield.
Other nations will follow suit if the US militarizes

Karl Grossman, Professor of Journalism at State University of New York, 01,
http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newsletter/april2001/grossman.htm
Some 163 nations supported the resolution titled “Prevention of An Arms Race In Outer Space.” It recognized “the common interest of
all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes” and reiterated that the use of space “shall be for peaceful
purpose . . . carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries.” The measure stated that the “prevention of an arms race in
outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.” The United States, backed by Israel and Micronesia,
abstained. Canada and China have been leaders at the United Nations in challenging the U.S. space military plans and seeking to
strengthen the Outer Space Treaty by banning all weapons in space (the treaty currently prohibits nuclear weapons and weapons of
mass destruction). Marc Vidricaire, counselor with the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, in a speech last October 19 stated:
“It has been suggested that our proposal is not relevant because the assessment on which it rests is either premature or alarmist. In our
view, it is neither. ” Moreover, he continued, it is clear that technology can be developed to place weapons in outer space, and no state
can expect to maintain a monopoly on such knowledge — or such capabilities — for all time. If one state actively pursues the
weaponization of space, we can be sure others will follow.”
13
DDI 2008
Russia Scenario
Any weapon put in space by the US will be immediately followed by war with
Russia
James Oberg, 22-year veteran of NASA Mission Control, 10/9/07, Weaponization of space: who’s to blame?,”
http://thespacereview.com/article/976/1
In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base
weapons in space might lead to war. Western news media accounts report these statements straight, as if there really were such “plans”
to do what the Russians complain about (station weapons in space for space-to-space combat), instead of only studies and tests—the
kinds of activities that were they to occur in Russia or China, wouldn’t even be known to exist. “We don’t want to fight in space,”
Popovkin told his audience, “but on the other hand, we’ll not allow any other country to play the master in outer space. The
consequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious.” And he wrote himself a blank check for a future free hand: “If
any country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same,” he added, to the approving echo of press coverage
around the world.
US/Russian nuclear war causes extinction – its categorically different than

other impacts
Nick Bostrom, PhD Philosophy – Oxford University, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios", Journal of
Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March 2002, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
The unique challenge of existential risks Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it is
useful to distinguish them from other risks. We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing such
risks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile
individuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War
I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our
cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the
people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these
catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven't significantly affected the total amount of human
suffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species. With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid
impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentieth
century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about. The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural
detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by
"igniting" the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk
that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some
subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad
happening. If we don't know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense
is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the
objective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An
all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough
to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a
nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and
the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk
that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and
Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind's potential permanently. Such a war
might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon
and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
14
DDI 2008
China Scenario
Space militarization would lead to dangerous precarious US-Sino relations,
assuring mutual destruction
William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island and
Doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 03, Washington Quarterly,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26.4martel.html
Strategists in the United States and in China are clearly monitoring the other's developments in space. How the United States judges
Chinese intentions and capabilities will determine Washington's response; of course, the reverse is equally true. As each side eyes the
other, the potential for mutual misperceptions can have serious and destabilizing consequences in the long term. In particular, both
countries' exaggerated views of each other could lead unnecessarily to competitive action-reaction cycles. [End Page 26] What exactly
does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some
critical sectors of China's economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same
period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and
Beijing could increasingly hold each other's space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, then
potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a major
contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the
other's space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption
(already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese
strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S.
military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides
would enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides
stand ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, which
seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example,
Washington's reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa.In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly
vulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space assets
would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may not
generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the
international community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.
15
DDI 2008
China Scenario
That leads to global nuclear war and the end of civilization
Ching Cheong, The Straits Times 2k, “No one gains in war over Taiwan,”
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington
were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on
such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has
already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking
China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent,
Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers
elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order.With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political
landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between
India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war
lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the
Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military
defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on
future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which
could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter
acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US
estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go
for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use"
principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies,
told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by
that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons
mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass,
we would see the destruction of civilisation.
16
DDI 2008
China Scenario Brink

Tensions between the US and China have been rising ever since the satellite
incident
The Economist, 1/17/08, “Dangerous driving in the heavens,”
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533956
A year ago, the Americans fumed when China tested a missile by shooting up one of its own weather satellites. One thing that made
the test look anti-social was that it created the worst-ever cloud of man-made debris in the heavens. Ever since, other satellites have
had to be moved periodically to avoid the shrapnel. And bumping into things is not just a matter of collecting scratches. At orbital
speeds, colliding with an object the size of a pebble can ruin the day of a multi-billion dollar spacecraft. There was, however, a second
reason for America's anger over the Chinese test. America is space's pre-eminent military power. Or, more exactly, given that America
has held back from putting weapons in space, it has used space to preserve and extend the pre-eminent military power it enjoys on
earth. By using a missile to blow apart one of their own satellites, the Chinese showed that they could if they chose blow apart the spy
and navigation satellites on which America's armed forces (and grateful drivers everywhere using GPS systems) depend. Indeed, the
Chinese test may have been intended to send precisely this warning. Given the dangers of a clash in space, and the degree to which the
military and civilian uses of space have blurred together (see article), why have the big powers so far failed to negotiate either arms-
control agreements or simple rules of the road, as they have on earth? In the case of arms control, the explanation is that America is
suspicious. Russia and China have offered to negotiate a treaty banning space weapons. The Americans are not sure whether that is
feasible.
17
DDI 2008
India Scenario
India would use space technology to preemptively avert an attack from its
nuclear neighbors
Monotapash Mukherjee, Political Writer, 1/29/08, The Global Politician, http://www.globalpolitician.com/24048-india
Post nuclear situation, India is being visited by a pre-nuclear weaponization dilemma—to be or not to be a space-weapons state. The
territorial warfare is not a thing of the past yet, but once again the shadow of space weaponization is looming large.Post-Cold War the
US became the sole superpower of the globe. The threat of "star wars" subsided for the time being. But new geo-political urgencies
unnerved the US and it began to be concerned by the specter of "space Pearl Harbor".America was visibly unsettled by the emergence
of the "Axis of Evil" which constituted Iraq, Iran, North Korea with more states to join it. Iraq was bombed and its ruler hanged (of
course, illegally and unethically). But Iran and North Korea proved to be invincible. The USA became concerned about their nuclear
ICBMs hitting the US heartland and revived the "Star War" as National Missile Defence System. Again the rapid rise of China as an
economic and military superpower unnerved the US strategic community. A Chinese General once threatened the US with raining
nuclear bombs if it sided with Taiwan in any future confrontation with China. Furthermore the Russian rise as a Phoenix as the
challenger of the US complicated the US predicament. The USA's proposed deployment of the missile defense components in Poland
and Czech Republic angered the resurgent Russia so much that it declared its sophisticated system would jeopardize the missile
defense system. All this became more complicated when China conducted an A-Sat test by destroying one of its ageing weather
satellite by throwing a ballistic missile.All these factors pushed the US towards space weaponization and space utilisation to influence
warfare on earth. The domino effect of space weaponisation has not left India untouched. China's A-Sat test threatened Indian security
too, particularly its space assets.First of all, let us count upon us why India should use it for military means.· India is surrounded by
two declared and symbiotic nuclear powers and a nascent nuclear power. There is a visible co-ordination in the field of missiles
technology among these countries. So India must build an effective missile defence system to counter any threat from these countries.
A missile defence system without any military satellite network has no efficacy.· Secondly, for reconnaissance of the ground-based and
troop movement of the enemy, for tapping communication, jamming the enemy network and destroying enemy satellites, India must
prepare for space applications.· Thirdly, to monitor the launch of enemy ballistic missiles, thermal imaging satellites are a must.·
Fourthly, in modern network-centric system, all the three services—army, navy, air-force—should be integrated by linking all the
radars and sensors to the satellite system for early warning and control system.
INERT IMPACT
18
DDI 2008
Non U – Space Mil

Indian military officials confirm that space militarization is certain for the
country
Gavin Rabinowitz, Associated Press, 7/17/08, “Indian army wants military space program,”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jImmb7wnVKkZLN4SCz6tj-huEEhAD91BUR780
India said that it needs a military space program to defend its satellites from threats like China's newly revealed ability to shoot down
targets in orbit.The comments by India's army chief raise the possibility of a regional race that could accelerate the militarization of
space and heighten tensions between the Asian giants, who have been enjoying their warmest ties in decades.India urgently needs to
"optimize space applications for military purposes," Gen. Deepak Kapoor said Monday at a conference in New Delhi on using space
for military purposes.He noted that "the Chinese space program is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive and
defensive content." His remarks were first reported by The Indian Express newspaper and confirmed by the Defense Ministry's
spokesman on Tuesday.China destroyed one of its own defunct weather satellites with a ballistic missile in January, becoming the third
country, after Russia and the U.S., to shoot down an object in orbit.In February the United States shot down a satellite that it said
posed a threat as it fell to Earth. Kapoor did not mention that, singling out China in a statement analysts said was designed to send a
clear message to Beijing."In an unsubtle way this is related to China," said Ashok Mehta, a retired Indian army general and leading
strategic analyst.Kapoor said that while militarization of space by India was at "a comparatively nascent stage," there was an urgent
need for a military space command for "persistent surveillance and rapid response."Army spokesman Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Mathur
said, "We are not talking about deploying weapons, but about self-defense." Neither man elaborated on their remarks.The Indian
military does not have its own dedicated spy satellites and uses civilian ones to gather imagery and other intelligence. India has an
advanced civilian space program and frequently launches both types of satellites for other countries, including an Israeli spy satellite
in January.Other Indian generals speaking at the conference said a military space race was almost certain."With time we will get
sucked into a military race to protect our space assets and inevitably there will be a military contest in space," the Indian Express
newspaper quoted Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder as saying."In a life-and-death scenario, space will provide the advantage," said Lidder, who
heads the military department that deals with space technology.
19
DDI 2008
Non U – Space Mil

The US already has military satellites in orbit, and China is fast investing
enough money to become the next space superpower, yet scientists believe
this competition breeds good relations
Marc Kaufman, The Washington Post, 7-13-08, “Space race goes global — and the U.S. is lagging,”
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/nation/story/80c5c31eaae902b3862574840013a0d8?OpenDocument
Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing
"the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe.Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields
— and owns half the military satellites orbiting Earth — experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are
expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace."We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the
Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said
his agency's budget is down 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992."We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40
years and have not … chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead."In a recent in-depth study of international
space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda, Md., found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more
broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company
president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated
satellites and spacecraft into orbit — and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry
Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites,"
and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as
NASA's.While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps that
once defined NASA:— Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November
the European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launch
rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is in
Kourou, French Guiana.— Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are working on lunar orbiters.
NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronauts
to the moon.— The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians,
Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nation
European Space Agency and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the U.S. space-based Global
Positioning System.— South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-
cost satellite launchers. South Korea and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities.This explosion
in international space capabilities has largely taken place since the turn of the century. While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese,
Israeli and European space efforts go back several decades, their capability for highly technical feats — sending humans into orbit,
circling Mars and the moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a comet — are all new developments.In
contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the global competition today is being
driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women and the confidence that
achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits.China has sent men into space twice in the past
five years and plans another manned mission in October. More than any other country besides the United States, experts say, China
has decided that space exploration, and its commercial and military purposes, are as important as the seas once were to the British
empire and air power was to the United States.The Chinese space program began in the 1970s, but it was not until 2003 that astronaut
Yang Liwei was blasted into space in a Shenzhou 5 spacecraft, making China one of only three nations to send humans into
space."The Chinese have a carefully thought-out human spaceflight program that will take them up to parity with the United States
and Russia," Griffin said. "They're investing to make China a strategic world power second to none — not so much to become a grand
military power, but because deals and advantage flow to world leaders."
20
DDI 2008
Non U – Space Mil

India pays no attention to US space militarization—it wants capabilities solely
because of China
The New Zealand Herald, 6-19-08, “Asian giants battle to be No 1 in space,”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10517144
With China blasting satellites out of the sky, India needs a military space programme to defend its orbiters, the country's Army chief
said.The talk of a possible push into space by India's military chief, General Deepak Kapoor, is a sign the rivalry between the two
Asian giants could spark a new race to militarise space and highlights India's perception of China as a threat, even as Beijing and New
Delhi enjoy their warmest ties in decades.India urgently needs to "optimise space applications for military purposes", Kapoor was
quoted as saying by the Indian Express. He noted that "the Chinese space programme is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in
both offensive and defensive content".Defence Ministry spokesman Praveen Kavi confirmed the comments.In February the United
States also shot down a satellite it said posed a threat as it fell to earth, but Kapoor did not mention that, singling out China in a move
analysts said was meant to send a clear message to Beijing."In an unsubtle way this is related to China," said Ashok Mehta, a retired
Indian Army general and leading strategic analyst.Ties between India and China - which together account for about one-third of the
world's population - are at their closest since China defeated India in a brief 1962 border war. Last year, trade between India and China
grew to US$37 billion ($48.9 billion) and their two armies conducted their first joint military exercise.However, the Asian powers
remain sharply divided over territorial claims dating back to the war. China claims India's northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh and
occupies a chunk of territory in Kashmir that India regards as its own.Talks on the disputed border have gone nowhere, and Kapoor's
"statement is in relation to what is happening on the border dispute and the Chinese taking an uncompromising position", Mehta
said.This, plus China's heavy military spending and a growing rivalry for influence, has alarmed the Indian military, which has been
gearing up for possible conflict.India has announced plans to have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines at sea in the next decade
and recently tested nuclear-capable missiles that put China's major cities in range. It is also reopening air force bases near the Chinese
border.Now, India is also talking about boosting its military presence in space.
21
DDI 2008
Non U – Solar Space

Florida’s new and massive solar project proves that nationalized solar space is
just around the corner
MarketWatch, 7-15-08, “FPL Receives Approval to Build First Commercial-Scale Solar Power Facilities in Florida,”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fpl-receives-approval-build-first/story.aspx?guid={9AEEB046-1777-4890-A3BA-
81FBE99F7B64}&dist=hppr
Florida Power & Light Company today received approval from the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) to begin construction of
three solar energy centers that will make Florida the second largest supplier of utility-generated solar power in the nation. "Today's
decision by the PSC represents a major step forward in making Florida a leader in solar power generation. At a time of record-setting
fossil fuel prices and concern over global climate change, solar power helps to meet the goals of protecting the environment and
enhancing Florida's energy security. Governor Crist and the state legislature set a goal of increasing renewable energy in Florida, and
as a clean energy company we are committed to playing a meaningful role in this endeavor," said FPL President Armando J. Olivera.
Earlier this year, the Florida Legislature approved and the Governor signed into law a comprehensive energy bill which provided for
the development of renewable energy, subject to PSC approval. FPL, a subsidiary of clean energy leader FPL FPL 67.23, +0.41,
+0.6%) , presented a proposal to the PSC for three solar energy centers that includes the world's largest photovoltaic solar array and
the first "hybrid" energy center that will couple solar thermal technology with an existing natural gas combined-cycle generation unit.
NASA has already used sun power in space on previous missions, and intends
to do so on a larger scale before the end of the summer
Holly Jackson, Technician, 6-27-08, “Solar power to set sail in space,” CNetNews.com, http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-
9979259-7.html
On earth, people are beginning to use the sun's light to power their houses, office buildings, and even gadgets. Now, outside of our
planet, the sun's energy is going to be utilized for something else--space travel.If NASA can successfully implement solar sails, which
have been referenced in some sci-fi books of the past, using the sun's energy for space exploration may become a reality this
summer.According to a report by NASA Science, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Ames Research Center have teamed up to
make history, by deploying its first solar sail, the NanoSail-D.The solar sail, made of aluminum and space-age plastic, has the ability
to harness the radiation of the sun for movement. Since outer space is frictionless, the sail could potentially accelerate forever,
traveling much faster and much farther than a rocket running on fuel. Travel back to Earth would require a turn of the sail.This
technology isn't the first of its kind. In 2005, The Planetary Society launched a solar sail spacecraft, hoping to be the first successful
launch. However, later that day, there was no confirmation that the craft, names Cosmos 1, had entered orbit, and the mission was
deemed unsuccessful.
Both India and China agree a military space contest is inevitable between the
two
Hannah Gardner, Foreign Correspondent in New Delhi, 6-26-08, The National, “China’s clout in space rattles India,”
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080626/FOREIGN/286517292/1015/NEWS&Profile=1015
But China’s successful attempt to put a man into space in 2003, again only the third country after the United States and Russia to do
so, has made India re-evaluate such principles.“With time, we will get sucked into a military race to protect our space assets and
inevitably there will be a military contest in space,” said Lt Gen HS Lidder, chief of integrated defence staff. “In a life and death
situation, only space resources would provide an advantage to any military force.”The two countries are already engaged in a race to
the moon. This year the agency will launch Chandrayaan to the moon, the first Indian satellite to venture beyond the Earth’s orbit and
by 2013 it hopes to launch a probe to Mars. A few years later it could be sending up its first gaganaut – one suggestion for the Sanskrit
version of astronaut.The Chinese are hoping to put their first taikonaut – derived from the Chinese word taikong, meaning space, on
the moon by 2020.Right now, one of the Indian military’s main priorities is to develop similar technology to that which China used to
down its satellite, more than 800km above the Earth’s surface.Abdul Kalam, India’s former president, said in February that India had
the capacity to destroy an object located 200km above Earth.Such targets, however, come into direct conflict with India’s long-held
position, opposing the weaponisation of space. “Things are changing in India, we don’t get much reaction to our Gandhian principles,”
said Jabin Jacobs, a China expert at the Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. China’s heavy military spending has
spurred India into action in other spheres too, with the county announcing plans to have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in the
next decade.
22
DDI 2008
No Impact
No impact—Russia recently proposed a Europe-US strategic partnership to
expand transparency in space missions
Chinaview.com, 7-18-08, “Will Russia's new policy paper renew Russia-West ties?” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-
07/18/content_8567464.htm
It is necessary to switch over Russian-U.S. relations to the state of strategic partnership, to overstep barriers of strategic principles of
the past," says the document posted Tuesday on the Kremlin Web site. Russia and the United States should "concentrate on real
threats, and where differences persist, to work on their settlement in the spirit of mutual respect," says the paper ratified by President
Dmitry Medvedev. Moscow will work along with Washington in taking confidence-building measures, ensuring transparency in space
explorations, anti-missile defense and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, securing development of peaceful nuclear
power, enhancing cooperation in countering terrorism and other challenges, it says. However, the often soft-spoken Medvedev
Tuesday slammed a U.S. proposal to deploy missile shield components in Central Europe, which have soured bilateral ties since it was
raised in early 2007.
23
DDI 2008
AFF – Solar Power Key To Econ

Solar Power serves as an economic Fix in both the long and short-term
Sarah Lozanova, MBA in Sustainable Management from the Presidio School of Management in San Francisco, 2008, "Solar
Energy Creating Economic Boom for Nevada", July 3rd, 2008. http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/03/solar-energy-creating-economic-
boom-for-nevada/]
The American Southwest has some of the best solar resources on the globe. Nevada, with abundant land and sunshine is becoming a
hot bed for the solar industry. The result is green jobs and billions of investment dollars. Solar Panel Manufacturing The opening of
Ausra's solar thermal power factory earlier this week in Las Vegas is a prime example. As the largest plant of its kind in the world, it
employs 50 factory workers. At full capacity, the plant can generate 700 MW of solar panels, which could produce enough power for
500,000 homes. This quantity of panels would create an estimated 1,400 solar plant construction jobs. The factory will produce giant
mirrors and absorber tubes that are used for solar power plants. This technology uses the sun to generate heat and spin turbines, thus
creating electricity. The giant mirrors follow the sun and reflect it onto fixed absorber tubes that are mounted above. "Nevada is poised
to be a leader in the clean energy revolution," said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "This facility will help position
our state as the premiere place to invest in these new technologies. As the factory expands operations and we continue to invest in
clean energy, we'll create thousands of good-paying jobs and keep our outdoors pristine for future generations." Solar Power Plants
Solar projects totaling more than 10,000 MW have land requests from the Bureau of Land Management in Southern Nevada. If
constructed, these solar plants would bring over $40 billion of investment to Nevada. Power plants benefit the economy in the short-
term by creating large quantities of construction jobs. In the long-term, they create plant operations jobs, tax revenue, raise property
values, and generate income through land leases. A recent example is Acciona's Nevada Solar One, located in Boulder City, NV. As
the third largest solar concentrated plant in the world, its maximum output is 75 MW of electricity. It generates enough power for
15,000 homes annually and had a cost of $260 million. Operating since June, 2007, there are 300 acres of solar fields. The plant will
produce peak power, with nearly zero carbon emissions and created approximately 28 operations related jobs.
24
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey 1NC

A. Wind famers are few and far between because of turbine shortages now
Charleston Post and Courier, 7/15/07, “Turbine shortage knocks wind out of project,”
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/15/turbine_shortage_knocks_wind_out_projects/
The race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.
In recent years, improved technology has made it possible to build bigger, more efficient windmills. That, combined with surging
political support for renewable energy, has driven up demand. Now, makers can't keep up, mostly because they can't get the parts they
need fast enough.
B. Wind Farms Put Birds Of Prey On The Edge Of Extinction

USA Today. 1/5/05. John Ritter, staff writer. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in
one of the nation's first big wind-power projects. But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have
been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other
raptors. After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough
corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized
that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3
Energy. The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in
the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route
regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles. Scientists
don't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species into
decline. "They didn't realize it at the time, but it was just a really bad place to build a wind farm," says Grainger Hunt, an ecologist
with the Peregrine Fund who has studied eagles at Altamont. Across the USA — from Cape Cod to the Southern California desert —
new wind projects, touted as emission-free options to oil- and gas-fueled power plants, face resistance over wildlife, noise and vistas.
The clashes come as wind-energy demand is growing, in part because 17 states have passed laws requiring that some of their future
energy — 20% in California by 2010 — come from renewable sources. Environmental groups, fans in principle of "green" power, are
caught in the middle. "We've been really clear all along, we absolutely support wind energy as long as facilities are appropriately
sited," says Jeff Miller, Bay Area wildlands coordinator for the Center for Biological Diversity, which took 12 companies to court.
Wind energy is a tiny but fast-growing share of U.S. energy — 0.4%, up from less than 0.1% five years ago. Since November, when
Congress reinstated a key tax credit for wind producers, the industry is poised to expand by as much as a third this year, the American
Wind Energy Association says. In 2004, wind generated enough electricity to power 1.6 million households, the association says.
Altamont's turbines are the nation's No. 2 producer. Few energy experts think environmental concerns will discourage wind
development long-term because the tradeoff is too appealing. "When you opt for wind turbines, you don't opt for pollution that harms
children and crops from fossil-fuel power plants," says Dan Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California-Berkeley.
But windmills — derisively dubbed by some "toilet brushes in the sky" — draw fire when they're planned in areas prized for their
pristine landscapes: • Cape Cod groups are fighting what they call visual pollution from 130 turbines, each taller than the Statue of
Liberty, sought for Nantucket Sound. Fishermen fear loss of prime fishing grounds from the USA's first offshore project. • Rep. Nick
Rahall, D-W.Va., asked the Government Accountability Office to study the effects more windmills would have in the Appalachians.
Research found that existing turbines killed up to 4,000 bats on Backbone Mountain last year. • In the Flint Hills of Kansas, the
Audubon Society worries that windmills could despoil views in one of America's few remaining stands of native tallgrass prairie and
harm habitats of migrating prairie birds. • Acting Gov. Richard Codey last month ordered a 15-month wind-power moratorium on the
New Jersey shore, where the desire to preserve Atlantic views has collided with plans for offshore turbines near Ocean City and other
sites. Altamont Pass bird kills have been known for years, but turbine owners and federal regulators ignored them except to urge more
research, says Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. But a California Energy Commission study in August found bird fatalities
much higher than had been thought and laid out steps to limit them. At the same time, 20-year-old county permits were up for renewal,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to crack down. "Twenty years has just been too long to resolve this problem," says
Scott Heard, the agency's chief Northern California enforcement agent. Fish and Wildlife can prosecute those responsible for kills
under federal laws that protect eagles and migratory birds. The center's lawsuit was withdrawn but filed again in November because
the wind companies' bird-protection plan was "not a serious attempt," Miller says.
25
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey 1NC

C. Raptors Key To Ecosystems
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, 2000. ("Birds of Prey," ASPEN, http://www.aspennature.org/locations/hallam-
lake/birds-prey)
“Bird of prey” refers to eagles, hawks, falcons, ospreys and owls; all of which are adapted for a lifestyle of aerial hunting. These birds
are also called raptors, from the Latin raptor (a robber) and rapere (to seize) referring to their ability to seize and carry off prey.
Raptors share several characteristics including: Powerful talons for gripping and killing prey Sharp, curved beaks for tearing food
Keen eyesight to spot prey from great distances Why are Birds of Prey so important? The presence of raptors in the wild serves as a
barometer of ecological health. Birds of prey are predators at the top of the food chain; because pesticides, drought and habitat loss
have the most dramatic impact on top predators, we refer to them as indicator species. The raptors also play an important ecological
role by controlling populations of rodents and other small mammals.
D. Human Survival Depends On Stable Ecosystems

Millenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”
http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf
Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon Earth’s ecosystems. The ways in which
ecosystems are affected by human activities will have consequences for the supply of for the prevalence of diseases, the frequency and
magnitude of floods and droughts, and local as well as global climate. Ecosystems also provide spiritual, recreational, educational, and
other nonmaterial benefits to people. Changes in availability of all these ecosystem services can profoundly affect aspects of human
well-being—ranging from the rate of economic growth and health and livelihood security to the prevalence and persistence of poverty.
Human demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly. At the same time, humans are altering the capability of ecosystems to
continue to provide many of these services. Management of this relationship is required to enhance the contribution of ecosystems to
human well-being without affecting their long-term capacity to provide services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was
established in 2001 by a partnership of international institutions, and with support from governments, with the goal of enhancing the
scientific basis for such management.
26
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey Key

Birds Of Prey Are A Keystone Species
Absalom Shigwedha - Windhoek correspondent – 5/10/07, "Namibia: Birds of Prey Keep Mother Nature Healthy,"
BushDrums.com, http://www.bushdrums.com/news/index.php?shownews=956)
WHILE birds of prey (raptors) are very useful in keeping the environment healthy, they are facing a very serious risk of poisons used
by farmers. Throughout the world, vultures are useful to people for purposes ranging from clairvoyance in Africa and the disposal of
human corpses by the Parsees in India, writes Ann Scott in the April newsletter of the Vulture Working Group in Namibia. The group
works under the umbrella body Raptors Namibia, funded by the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF), aimed at protecting birds of prey.
Scott said scavenging raptors, including vultures, Tawny Eagles and Bateleur Eagles, clean the carcasses of dead livestock, thus
alerting farmers to livestock deaths. "This rapid disposal of carcasses assists in combating the spread of diseases such as anthrax and
helps maintain farm hygiene. Because they can find and consume carcasses very quickly, vultures also control blowfly infestations on
rotting carcasses," Scott writes. Therefore, the presence of birds of prey indicates that the environment is healthy, with a wide and
balanced diversity of animals and plant species, enough ground cover and no poisons, just like a resident pair of fish eagles
demonstrates the health of a river or wetland. Furthermore, Scott continues, large and powerful birds of prey such as eagles control
small mammals such as dassies, hares and rodents that compete with livestock for grazing resources. "Verreaux's Eagles feed mainly
on dassies and one pair will catch at least one dassie per day, amounting to 350 to 400 per year, which equals grazing for 22 sheep.
Martial Eagles feed on Helmeted Guinea fowl, hares and ground squirrels, mongooses and suricates that have occasionally been
implicated in the spread of rabies," writes the conservationist. Owls are extremely efficient nocturnal predators with well-adapted
eyesight and hearing and mostly hunt rats, mice and insects and control these pests in towns and on farms. One pair of Barn Owls with
six chicks is able to catch 30 rodents a night. Liz Komen of the Namibia Animal Rehabilitation, Research and Education Centre
(Narrec) says poisons and habitat loss through the felling of trees are the major threats to the survival of birds of prey. Some birds are
electrocuted by power lines while others fall victim to wild cats. Raptors are characterised by dramatically curved beaks and claws,
powerful wings and superb eyesight - adaptations that contribute to their specialised ecological role as meat eaters at the top of the
food pyramid. Because of these attributes, they are also held in awe as one of the most charismatic groups of birds. They are,
traditionally, a symbol of strength, courage and freedom and appear on many flags, coats of arms and emblems. WHY CONSERVE
RAPTORS? * They maintain a healthy environment and their absence could ultimately contribute to serious environmental problems.
* Responsible, sustainable bird-based tourism provides much-needed income to people, especially in rural areas, as well as incentives
for the conservation of raptors and the environment as a whole.
27
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey Key

Raptor Extinction Kills The Ecosystem
The Peregrine Fund- 1/28/2004 ("Asian Vulture Crisis Press Releases," The Peregrine Fund,
http://www.peregrinefund.org/press_full.asp?id=21&category=Asian%20Vulture%20Crisis)
A major discovery documenting a pharmaceutical as threatening the extinction of three species will be published in the journal Nature
The paper links the veterinary use of “diclofenac” with the catastrophic crash of three species of raptors. The discovery is the result of
a three-year effort by an international team of scientists. The team was assembled and led by The Peregrine Fund and included
members from Washington State University, The Ornithological Society of Pakistan, Bird Conservation Nepal, United States
Geological Service, Zoological Society of San Diego, and University of California, Davis. “To lose three of the world’s species of
raptors would be a tragedy beyond comprehension,” stated Dr. Tom Cade, Founder of The Peregrine Fund. “The speed of the decline
is eerily similar to the decline of the Peregrine Falcon in the 1960s,” continued Cade. “We’re in another race against time to save
these species,” finished Cade. In the last decade, population losses of more than 95% of three raptor species have been reported in
many areas. A decline of this magnitude is without precedence among vertebrate species. The three species are the Oriental White-
backed Vulture, Long-billed Vulture, and Slender-billed Vulture in South Asia. “This discovery is significant in that it is the first
known case of a pharmaceutical causing major ecological damage over a huge geographic area and threatening three species with
extinction,” said Dr. Lindsay Oaks of Washington State University, the lead diagnostic investigator for The Peregrine Fund’s team.
“Finding that a drug is responsible for the collapse and threatened extinction of these species is helpful yet alarming,” stated Dr. Rick
Watson, International Programs Director for The Peregrine Fund. “Helpful, because now we can do something about it and we may
have time to save these species. Alarming, because this may not be the only pharmaceutical impacting wildlife,” concluded Watson.
Diclofenac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has been in human use for pain and inflammation for decades.
The veterinary use of diclofenac on livestock in South Asia has grown in the past decade and is now widespread. Livestock that die
shortly after being treated with diclofenac contain sufficient residues to cause kidney failure and death in vultures that consume
livestock carcasses. Like Peregrine Falcons and DDT, vultures in this case are the “canary in the coal miner’s cage” warning of a
potentially dangerous environmental health hazard. Vultures are sampling the environment and their deaths and population collapse
have demonstrated a widespread toxic effect. The results are important to toxicologists, conservationists, and drug manufacturers
worldwide. “Vultures have an important ecological role in the Asian environment, where they have been relied upon for millennia to
clean up and remove dead livestock and even human corpses. Their loss has important economic, cultural, and human health
consequences,” says Dr. Munir Virani, Biologist for The Peregrine Fund. Virani coordinated the massive field investigations across
Nepal, India, and Pakistan. “Declines of this magnitude in once very common species have not been seen since the extinction of the
Great Auk, or the Passenger Pigeon in the 19th century,” stated Dr. Martin Gilbert, veterinarian for The Peregrine Fund. Gilbert
conducted and supervised ecological field studies, and vulture necropsy and tissue collection in Pakistan. To expedite this transfer of
knowledge and responsibility to the various countries, The Peregrine Fund and partners have organized an international Summit
Meeting on 5 and 6 February 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. The Kathmandu Summit Meeting will include senior government officials
from the affected countries and carries the endorsement of the United States Department of State. In a letter to invitees from John
Turner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs urged national
governments of the region to participate. The summit will include a briefing on the scientific evidence of the role diclofenac has in the
catastrophic population collapse of these species, potential solutions to mitigate the effects of diclofenac, and a forum to develop a
strategic response to this new environmental threat and to begin the effort to restore these species. The Peregrine Fund was founded in
1970 and works worldwide to conserve wild populations of birds of prey. Conserving raptors provides an umbrella of protection for
entire ecosystems and their biodiversity. The organization is non-political, solution-oriented, hands-on, science-based organization.
Goals are achieved by restoring and maintaining viable populations of species in jeopardy; studying little-known species;
accomplishing research; conserving habitat, educating students, and developing local capacity for science and conservation in
developing countries; and providing factual information to the public.
28
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey Key

Raptors Key To Human Survival
Bjom Carey – LiveScience staff writer – 7/19/2006, "Top predators key to ecosystem survival," MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13939039
Top-level predators strike fear in the hearts of the animals they stalk. But when a deer is being mauled by a wolf, at least it can know
that it's giving its life for the greater good. A new study reveals how ecosystems crumble without the presence of top predators be
keeping populations of key species from growing too large. It also provides a cautionary lesson to humans, who often remove top
predators from the food chain, setting off an eventual collapse. The study is detailed in the July 20 issue of the journal Nature. The
researchers studied eight natural food webs, each with distinct energy channels, or food chains, leading from the bottom of the web to
the top. For example, the Cantabrian Sea shelf off the coast of Spain has two distinct energy channels. One starts with the
phytoplankton in the water, which are eaten by zooplankton and fish, and so on up to what are called top consumer fish. The second
channel starts with detritus that sinks to the sea floor, where it's consumed by crabs and bottom-dwelling fish, which are consumed by
higher-up animals until the food energy reaches top-level consumers. The top predators play their role by happily munching away at
each channel's top consumers, explained study leader Neil Rooney of the University of Guelph in Canada. "Top predators are kind of
like the regulators of the food web—they keep each energy channel in check," Rooney told LiveScience. "The top predator goes back
and forth between the channels like a game of Whac-a-Mole," a popular arcade game in which constantly appearing moles are
smacked down with a mallet. Constant predation of the top consumers prevents a population from growing larger than the system can
support. Boom or bust Removing a top predator can often alter the gentle balance of an entire ecosystem. Here's an example of what
can happen: When an area floods permanently and creates a series of islands, not all the islands have enough resources to support top
predators. Top consumers are left to gobble up nutrients and experience a reproductive boom. The boom is felt throughout the system,
though, as the booming species out-competes others, potentially driving the lesser species to extinction and reducing biodiversity.
Rooney refers to this type of ecosystem change as a "boom-and-bust cycle," when one species' population boom ultimately means
another will bust. Bigger booms increased chances of a bust. "With each bust, the population gets very close to zero, and its difficult
getting back," he said. Human role in 'boom-and-bust' Humans often play a role in initiating boom-and-bust cycles by wiping out the
top predator. For example, after gray wolves were hunted to near extinction in the United States, deer, elk, and other wolf-fearing
forest critters had free reign and reproduced willy-nilly, gobbling up the vegetation that other consumers also relied on for food. Or,
more recently, researchers found that when fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean are over fished, jellyfish populations boom. While
jellyfish have few predators, removing the fish frees up an abundance of nutrients for the jellyfish to feast on. Ecosystems provide us
with the food we eat and help produce breathable air and clean water. But they're generally fragile and operate best when at a stable
equilibrium, scientists say. "These are our life support systems," Rooney said. "We're relying on them. This study points to the
importance of top predators and that we need to be careful with how we deal with them."
29
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey Key

Key To Ecological Services Which Are Key To Survival
Mainka, McNeely and Jackson - senior coordinator in the Global Programme Team at IUCN-The World Conservation Union,
chief scientist, and deputy director – 4/08
Susan A, Jeffrey A, William J., "Depending on Nature: Ecosystem Services for Human Livelihoods," RedOrbit,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1290207/depending_on_nature_ecosystem_services_for_human_livelihoods/
A new paradigm is emerging in the world of environmental conservation. Conservationists have traditionally spoken of conserving the
building blocks of nature-genes, species, and ecosystems, along with the air, water, and land with which these interact. But this
approach has not captured the interest of those who influence the activities that degrade these building blocks. The drivers of
degradation-including habitat loss and fragmentation, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, and climate change- continue their
march, and the results have been documented regularly in updates of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and other reports on
the status of the environment: continuing loss of biodiversity and accelerating threats to nature. Although the effects of climate change
and the emerging challenge of how to address it are now making front-page headlines, the underlying role of biodiversity, both as
victim and potential solution, has yet to receive adequate attention. Conservationists have been seeking language that will make the
importance of a healthy environment more obvious and relevant to the politicians, economists, business people, and development
specialists who make decisions upon which nature's future depends. One such concept is embodied in the idea of ecosystem services
as the benefits that nature provides to people. Ecosystem services incorporate the language of economics and business, through their
valuation, and the language of development, through their support for human well-being. Efforts to support the long-term sustainable
supply of those services are as important to human well-being and survival as they are for nature itself. Although the building blocks
and processes that sustain human life are nearly as old as our planet, regarding them as "ecosystem services" is a more recent concept.
With the book Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Stanford University conservation biologist Gretchen
Daily and coauthors popularized the concept a decade ago, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005, brought it
into the political mainstream.1 The latter adopted a framework that described these services, analyzed the current state of their
delivery, and assessed the drivers that affected their delivery. Why Are Ecosystem Services Important? The benefits of ecosystem
services come in many forms, from the tangible provision of the necessities of life-food, water, medicine, and clean air-to aesthetic
inspiration for culture and society. These services are the foundation of daily life, and they are available without people necessarily
being conscious of the many and complex processes involved in their production and delivery. The Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment framework provides a clear understanding of the many ways nature supports human well-being (see Figure 1 on page 45).
But these services are highly dependent on functioning ecosystems, including both biotic and abiotic components. Therefore, the
quality of biodiversity, air, water, and land forms the bedrock of human welfare.
30
DDI 2008
Birds Of Prey Key

Death Adversely Affects The Ecosystem
Lovgren – staff writer – 426/05
(Stefan, "Without Top Predators, Ecosystems Turn Topsy-Turvy," National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0426_050426_strangedays2.html)
When the construction of a hydroelectric dam on Venezuela's Caroni River was finally completed in 1986, it flooded an area twice the
size of Rhode Island, creating one of South America's largest human-made lakes: Lake Guri. As floodwaters turned hilltops into
islands, a key group of animals—predators such as jaguars, harpy eagles, and armadillos—disappeared from the islands. Some swam
or flew away. Others drowned or starved to death. In the predator's absence, their prey—howler monkeys, iguanas, leaf-cutting ants—
began multiplying. Soon these plant-eaters had devoured most of the once pristine forest. It is a classic cautionary tale of the dangers
of removing top predators from an ecosystem. "Taking out predators has a cascade of effects on other populations, down to the plant
life," said John Terborgh, a professor of environmental science at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The Lake Guri story is
recounted in a National Geographic four-part TV series, Strange Days on Planet Earth, which airs this Wednesday on PBS. Mass
Exodus The creation of Lake Guri may have been an ecological disaster. But it offered biologists like Terborgh an unprecedented
opportunity to study the effects of removing top predators from an ecosystem. The first phase of the two-part Guri dam project was
completed in 1968. It raised the water level over 390 feet (120 meters) above that of the original Caroni River. When the dam's
second phase was finished in 1986, the water level rose steadily over a year by another 164 feet (50 meters), and about a thousand
hilltops became islands in a human-made lake. Terborgh found that predators such as pumas, jaguars, anacondas, eagles, armadillos,
and some weasels were not able to persist on islands smaller than 37 acres (15 hectares). Some of the animals swam or flew from the
islands. Others starved to death. Not surprisingly, the mass exodus of predators had a huge impact on their prey. Populations of
howler monkeys, iguanas, and leaf-cutting ants exploded. The booming herbivore populations devoured the islands' vegetation. "The
impact of massive herbivory [plant eating] was to increase the mortality of trees, especially small saplings," Terborgh said. "Our
model showed very dramatically that the vegetation [on the islands in Lake Guri] is in a state of collapse." Return of the Wolves The
loss of top predators could also explain the disappearance of aspens and willows in the oldest national park in the United States:
Yellowstone. Scientists determined that aspens stopped regenerating in Yellowstone in the 1930s, around the time that wolves went
extinct in the area. Research suggests that the elimination of Yellowstone's wolves allowed one of their prey animals, elk, to browse
aspens and willows undisturbed. This led to the disappearance of trees and streamside vegetation—and the loss of beaver habitat.
Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, aspen and willow have begun growing again, and a few beavers have
returned to the park. Algae Invasion Similar phenomena have been observed in the oceans. Overfishing may have caused the
populations of hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic Ocean to drop by as much as 90 percent in some places. "Sharks are top predators
… they keep their prey in check. And that, in turn, helps their prey's prey," said Mike Heithaus, a marine biology professor at Florida
International University in Miami. "These effects cascade through the whole ecosystem." Overfishing may also at least partly explain
why a suffocating layer of algae now blankets the once vibrant Discovery Bay coral reef in Jamaica. Fisheries in the area first
decimated top predatory fish, such as sharks, groupers, and jacks. Smaller fish became the next commercial target, including plant-
eating species that kept fast-growing algae in check. But the story is more complicated, says Rich Aronson, a senior marine scientist
at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama. Sampling the fossil record of the reef, Aronson found that the corals stopped growing in
the early 1980s, after a hurricane hit Jamaica and destroyed much of the reef. A few years later a lethal disease swept across the
Caribbean Sea, killing the main remaining grazers, sea urchins, and paving the way for the algae to take over. "The combination of
killing the corals and the loss of herbivores resulted in this vast goo of seaweed," Aronson said. "It has to be some kind of outside
disturbance that kills the coral and provides the entrée for the algae."
31
DDI 2008
Turbines Kill Birds

Wind Turbines Kill Birds and Bats
D'Agnese – staff writer -7/23/2007 (Joseph, "Wind: The Farmer's New Cash Crop," AlterNet,
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/
While Maple Ridge was still in the planning stages, Moore hired Paul Kerlinger, a migration biologist who often consults with wind
power companies, to document over four years the number of dead birds or bats found beneath the turbines. Kerlinger says the study is
not complete. A preliminary report shows that bird deaths have numbered in the hundreds annually -- but that a potentially more
worrisome number of bats have been killed. No one knows why. One theory is that bats switch off their sonar while migrating. Maple
Ridge is exploring technology that will make the turbines more obvious, or less attractive, to migrating bats.
Wind Power Kills a Ton Of Birds

Energy Center of Wisconsin- 2000 ("Wind Power and the Environment" Energy Center of Wisconsin,
www.ecw.org/prod/433-3.pdf)
Wind power and the natural environment Despite these benefits, wind power is not completely benign. In some locations, primarily
the Altamont Pass in California, wind turbines have affected bird populations. East of Oakland, California, the windy Altamont Pass is
a popular feeding spot for birds of prey, as well as home to 7,000 wind turbines. In 1992, a study of bird mortality at the Altamont Pass
found 182 dead birds over a two-year period, including 119 birds of prey (raptors). About half of the raptor deaths were attributed to
collisions with the wind turbines. After extensive studies it was determined that the leading causes of the bird kills were the lattice
towers (that look much like the Eiffel Tower), which allowed the birds to perch, and the high rotational speed of the blades. Since the
release of these studies the wind turbine industry has largely eliminated the use of lattice towers and significantly reduced the speed of
the rotating blades, each of which has significantly reduced avian mortality. In Wisconsin (and the Midwest in general) wind turbines
seem to have a smaller effect on bird populations than those in more mountainous regions like the Altamont Pass. The landscape is
relatively flat, there no narrow flyways, and birds can maneuver around or over the turbines with relative ease. Indeed, in five years of
research, wind turbines in the Midwest have not been found to cause any impact on bird populations. Further, many of the turbines in
California were small and had high rotational speeds. The larger turbines being installed in Wisconsin have slower rotational speeds,
so birds can more easily avoid the moving blades. Of course, wind turbines are not the only structures that can kill birds. Radio and
television broadcast towers, smokestacks from power plants, and power lines have also been found to kill birds, as do highways,
buildings and pollution. Further, coal mining also destroys bird habitat. Nonetheless, wind turbines should be carefully sited to avoid
excessive harm to birds, especially birds that are threatened or endangered.
Wind Power Kills Birds

James Taylor - managing editor of Environment & Climate News – 8/1/2006 (James, "California Wind Power Worries
Environmentalists," The Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724)
Full Impact Unknown Defenders of Wildlife contends any new wind farms should be required to comply with a long list of siting
considerations in addition to the guidelines designed to prevent them from being built in roadless forest areas or avian flyways. The
group says species other than birds and bats, while not directly killed by the giant blades of wind turbines, may be significantly
affected by the turbines. The group says studies must be conducted to determine how industrial wind farms change the behavior of
small mammals and migratory species, for example. "We are concerned about where wind farms are placed," said Kim Delfino,
California program director for Defenders of Wildlife. "There are some areas that are more sensitive than others. There are also many
impacts beyond direct bird and bat deaths, especially along migratory bird routes. Very few studies have been done on potential
disruption of [the migration of] songbirds." Delfino also noted wind farms often require substantial infrastructure, which destroys still
more pristine wilderness. "Ground-disturbing activities, such as road construction and the clearing of forests for new power lines, also
result from wind farm construction," Delfino said. "We want to make sure that the state maximizes protection for species. We don't
want another Altamont Pass. There are a significant number of wind power projects proposed in California, and the current regulatory
system is not set up to deal with all of the attendant environmental impacts."
32
DDI 2008
Turbines Kill Birds

Wind Power Kills Raptors
Wade- staff writer – 10/14/2005, Will, "Unexpected Downside of Wind Power," Wired.com,
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177
Thousands of aging turbines stud the brown rolling hills of the Altamont Pass on I-580 east of San Francisco Bay, a testament to one
of the nation's oldest and best-known experiments in green energy. Next month, hundreds of those blades will spin to a stop, in what
appears to be a wind-energy first: Facing legal threats from environmentalists, the operators of the Altamont wind farm have agreed to
shut down half of their windmills for two months starting Nov. 1; in January, they will be restarted and the other half will be shut
down for two months. Though the Altamont Pass is known for its strong winds, it also lies on an important bird-migration route, and
its grass-covered hills provide food for several types of raptors. "It's the worst possible place to put a wind farm," said Jeff Miller, a
wildlife advocate at the nonprofit href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org">Center for Biological Diversity. "It's responsible for an
astronomical level of bird kills." The dispute at Altamont Pass marks the highest-profile confrontation yet in an unlikely clash between
wind-power proponents and environmental activists opposed to noncritical wind-farm development. A 2004 report by the California
Energy Commission found that 880 to 1,300 raptors are killed at Altamont every year, such as red-tailed hawks and the federally
protected golden eagle. Altamont isn't the only scene of a showdown. Environmental groups have already blocked a proposed wind-
power facility in the Mojave Desert, and opponents of another project, in Nantucket Sound, have cited wildlife concerns in their
lobbying efforts. A recent government report found that sites in other regions could pose a threat to bats. According to the American
Wind Energy Association, wind farms in 34 states were generating 6,740 megawatts as of January, enough juice to power 1.6 million
homes. Another 2,500 megawatts of wind power is expected to come on line this year. Though nobody is saying that wildlife issues
will curtail wind development, some environmentalists say that much more care should go into picking locations for wind farms.
Miller stressed that the Center for Biological Diversity is not opposed to wind farms, but said they must be built in areas where they
will have minimal impact on wildlife. "We definitely support wind power, but it needs to be sited in appropriate areas." One area that
his group says is definitely not appropriate for wind power is Altamont Pass. Miller said more than 5,000 turbines were installed there
in the 1970s without any type of environmental impact study. Steve Stengel, a spokesman for FPL Energy, one of several power
companies that collectively operate the Altamont windmills, said the goal is to reduce avian collisions by 35 percent in three years,
and to determine which turbines are the most dangerous. "If they aren't running, birds won't fly into them," he said. Stengel also said
the Altamont site is an anomaly. Besides its poor location, he said many of the turbines there, some decades old, use older designs,
with faster-spinning blades that reach closer to the ground than recent models -- where birds are more likely to be flying as they hunt
for prey. FPL and its partners are also replacing some turbines with newer ones that the company says are safer for birds, and are
relocating or removing about 100 of the most dangerous windmills from locations such as ridge tops.
href="http://www.ecw.org">Energy Center of Wisconsin, said birds are a big issue at Altamont, but not elsewhere, simply because
there are so many in the area. Raptors are especially vulnerable, she said. "If they are looking for a mouse while they are flying, that's
all they are looking for. They aren't looking for a wind turbine."
Wind Power Has Killed Thousands Of Birds In CA

Taylor - managing editor of Environment & Climate News – 8/1/2006 (James, "California Wind Power Worries
Environmentalists," The Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724)
Under pressure from environmental activist groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Los Angeles Audubon Society, the
California Energy Commission on August 10 released bird and bat protection guidelines for local wind power permitting agencies.
Although the guidelines are neither mandatory nor enforceable, the move represents growing concern that industrial wind farms are
taking an unacceptable toll on bird and bat populations. The most recent avian mortality studies show between 1,750 and 4,700 birds
are killed every year at California's Altamont Pass wind farm alone. Similar mortality numbers are reported at industrial wind farms in
Solano County and other parts of the state. The Los Angeles Audubon Society says there is a lack of research into how industrial wind
farms, many of which are located in migratory flyways, affect songbird flight patterns. The group is seeking a moratorium on turbine
operation for several hours each day during the spring and autumn migration seasons.
33
DDI 2008
Turbines Kill Birds

Avian Fatalities Due To Wind Turbines Are Growing. Every Effort To Reduce
Deaths Is Key.
National Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing
Studies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”
Data collected to date indicate an average of 2.19 avian fatalities per turbine per year in the U.S. for all species combined and 0.033
raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 15,000 operational wind turbines in the U.S. by the end of 2001,
the total annual mortality was estimated at approximately 33,000 bird fatalities per year for all species combined. This estimate
includes 4,500 house sparrows, European starlings and rock doves, and 488 raptor fatalities per year. We estimate a range of
approximately 10,000 to 40,000 bird fatalities. The majority of these fatalities are projected to occur in California where
approximately 11,500 operational turbines exist, and most are older smaller turbines (100- to 250-kW machines). Data collected
outside California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine per year, and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year.
Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the U.S. by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual
mortality was estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined. This estimate includes 400 house
sparrows, European starlings, and rock doves, and 20 raptor fatalities per year. While there have been numerous single mortality
events recorded at communication structures that document several hundred avian fatalities in one night, the largest single event
reported at a wind generation facility was fourteen nocturnal migrating passerines at two turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota,
Windplant during spring migration. Based on current estimates, windplant-related avian collision fatalities probably represent from
0.01% to 0.02% (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000 avian fatalities) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States. While
some may perceive this level of mortality as small, all efforts to reduce avian mortality are important.
34
DDI 2008
Turbines Kill Birds

Predatory Bird Fatalities Caused By Wind Turbines Are Effecting Overall
Populations
The first large-scale wind energy development took place in California. In response to several reported incidents of avian collisions,
the California Energy Commission (CEC) obtained data on bird strikes at the Altamont and Tehachapi windplants through interviews
and review of unpublished data collected over a 4-year period from 1984 to 1988 (CEC 1989). This study documented 108 raptor
fatalities of seven species. Collisions with windplant structures accounted for most of the avian fatalities (67%), including 26 golden
eagles and 20 red-tailed hawks. Several subsequent studies were initiated to further examine windplant-related fatalities at California
windplants. Many of these studies have been conducted at Altamont Pass, where more than 5,000 turbines exist within the WRA. In
general, these studies focused on obtaining raptor fatality estimates with other bird fatalities recorded coincidentally. An early 2-year
study documented 182 bird deaths on study plots, 68% of which were raptors and 26% of which were passerines. The most common
raptor fatalities were red-tailed hawk (36%), American kestrel (13%), and golden eagle (11%). Causes of raptor mortality included
collisions with turbines (55%), electrocutions (8%), and wire collisions (11%) (Orloff and Flannery 1992). Based on the number of
dead birds found, the authors estimated that as many as 567 raptors may have died over the 2-year period due to collision with wind
turbines. Further investigations at Altamont continued to document levels of raptor mortality sufficient to cause concern among
wildlife agencies and others. During a study at Altamont, Howell (1997) found 72 fatalities over an 18-month period, of which 44
were raptors. Most of the remaining fatalities were passerines. Other avian groups with some mortality at Altamont included
waterfowl, waterbirds, and doves, especially rock doves. During a one-time search of turbines included in the original 1992 Altamont
study, Orloff and Flannery (1996) found 20 carcasses, including 15 raptors, two ducks, two rock doves, and one common raven. From
1998 to 2000, Thelander (2000, pers. comm.) documented 256 fresh bird carcasses at Altamont. Most (54.3%) of the fatalities were
raptors, 25.0% were passerines, 18.0% were doves, and the remaining 2.8% were waterfowl and waterbirds. Many of the fatalities at
Altamont have been golden eagles, and annual golden eagle mortality at this facility has been estimated to range from 25 (Howell and
Didonato 1991) to 39 (Orloff and Flannery 1992). Population modeling suggests that the local golden eagle population may be
declining in the Altamont region, at least in part due to windplant mortality (Hunt et al. 1999), with other sources (e.g., expanded
housing developments and landfills, road and industrial park development and a new reservoir) also considered possible contributors.
Not all studies have documented high relative proportions of raptor fatalities compared to other avian groups (e.g., passerines) at
Altamont. During an experiment to assess effects of painting turbine blades in an effort to reduce collisions, Howell et al. (1991b)
found 10 dead birds, of which only one was a raptor; however, this study was of short duration and was based on small sample sizes.
Avian mortality has also been documented at other California windplants. Researchers estimated 6,800 birds were killed annually at
the San Gorgonio wind facility based on 38 dead birds found while monitoring nocturnal migrants. McCrary et al. (1983,1984)
estimated that 69 million birds pass through the Coachella Valley annually during migration; 32 million in the spring and 37 million in
the fall. The 38 avian fatalities were comprised of 25 species, including 15 passerines, seven waterfowl, two shorebirds, and one
raptor.
35
DDI 2008
Turbines Kill Birds

Bird And Bat Collisions With Wind Turbines Are A Problem Of Unknown
Magnitude
Pandey, A., et al. 2006. Development of a Cost-Effective System to Monitor Wind Turbines for Bird and Bat Collisions—Phase
I: Sensor System Feasibility Study. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2007-
004.
Bird and bat collisions with wind turbines are of increasing concern to utilities, regulatory agencies, and environmental organizations.
Kills have been documented at several wind farms; however, the magnitude of the problem throughout the industry is unknown, in
large part because there is currently no cost-effective means for monitoring collisions with turbine blades on a regular and widespread
basis. An automated collision monitor is needed to provide the basis for meaningful study. Such a monitor would collect the
information necessary to better define the collision problem and help assess the effectiveness of potential solutions.
8.1 Birds Die Per Megawatt Per Year At Altamont Pass

Pandey, A., et al. 2006. Development of a Cost-Effective System to Monitor Wind Turbines for Bird and Bat Collisions—Phase
I: Sensor System Feasibility Study. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2007-
004.
A large number of surveys of avian fatalities have been conducted at wind plants in U.S. and Europe (Howell et al. 1991, Johnson et
al. 2000, Benner et al. 1993, and Musters 1991, Smallwood and Thelander 2004, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996). Synthesizing the
results of these studies has been problematic due to a number of factors (Sterner 2002). Field survey methods vary, and the bias in the
detection and removal of bird carcasses is sometimes known and often unknown. There has been an emphasis on larger birds such as
raptors, despite the knowledge that smaller birds are also affected. Very few studies have been peer-reviewed or published in scientific
journals. The design and layout of turbines, as well as the climate, topography, and avian species present vary greatly among the wind
plants studied. Finally, the relatively low numbers of observed fatalities in the studies result in inadequate sample sizes. Despite these
difficulties, consideration of the available data can yield insight into the impacts of wind turbines on avian species. By the end of
2003, there were about 4,700 turbines (producing 4,300 megawatts) installed in the U.S. outside of California, and studies showed an
average avian fatality rate of 2.3 birds and 3.4 bats per turbine per year and 3.1 birds and 4.6 bats per megawatt per year (NWCC
2004). These fatality rates are based on 12 studies and have been adjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenging bias. In California by
the end of 2003, there were about 7,300 turbines (producing 2,100 megawatts) installed (NWCC 2004). Most of these turbines are
older and smaller than those elsewhere in the U.S. Methods used in early California studies of avian fatalities at wind power projects
led to high uncertainty or did not account for searcher efficiency and scavenging bias. Two California studies which have been
adjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger bias report estimates of 2.3 birds per turbine at San Gorgonio and 8.1 birds per
megawatt per year at Altamont Pass (NWCC 2004). A report for Tehachapi Pass, California, estimated 0.047 raptor fatalities per
turbine per year and 0.25 raptor fatalities per year, unadjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger bias and with a high level of
uncertainty resulting from methods used (Anderson et al. 2004). A recent report for San Gorgonio, California, estimated 0.006 raptor
fatalities per turbine per year and 0.03 raptor fatalities per megawatt per year, unadjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger bias
and with a high level of uncertainty resulting from methods used (Anderson et al. 2005). One recent study at the High Winds project in
California reported avian fatality rates of 2.45 birds per turbine per year and 3.63 bats per turbine per year, adjusted for searcher
efficiency and scavenger bias (Kerlinger et al. 2006).
36
DDI 2008
Turbines Kill Birds

Efforts To Reduce Avian Fatalities Are Top Priority And Can Be Effective
National Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of
Existing Studies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”
Making projections of the potential magnitude of windpower-related avian fatalities is problematic because of the relative youth of the
wind industry and the resulting lack of long-term data. For example, of the existing windplants, only the Altamont Pass, Buffalo Ridge
and Foote Creek Rim wind resource areas(WRA) have been studied for more than two years, and most of the studies at Altamont
focused on raptor mortality. The data collected at Altamont and other older-generation windplants may not be representative of avian
mortality of future wind developments. Newer generation windplants incorporate improvements in site planning and changes in the
design of the wind turbines. For example, turbines at the Foote Creek Rim Windplant were moved back away from the rim edge
because baseline data detected a pattern of raptor use along the edge of the rim (Johnson et al. 2000a). Also, many of the newer
generation turbines are designed to provide little perching and no nesting structure (tubular towers, enclosed nacelle). Although it's not
clear that perching increases risk of collision, the lack of perching and nesting opportunities may discourage some bird species from
using the WRA. Furthermore, some efforts have been made in Altamont to remove turbine s associated with higher raptor mortality,
and re-powering efforts may result in the replacement of many of the older, smaller turbines with fewer larger, newer generation
turbines. If these efforts effectively reduce raptor mortality at Altamont, our raptor mortality projections would also be reduced.
Finally, most wind plant developers are required to carry out site evaluations at proposed wind plant sites to determine impacts on
birds and other wildlife. While newer generation turbines may be considered more representative of future developments, they have
only been in operation in the recent past (i.e. <10 years), and less information on avian collision hazards is available for these turbines.
Endangered Predatory Birds Collide With Wind Turbines

M. Morrison. White Mountain Research Station. 6/2/2002. “Searcher Bias and Scavenger Rates in Bird/Wind Energy Studies.”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The commercial production of electricity using wind power has been increasing in the United States and Europe since the 1970s. The
potential environmental impact of wind energy development in regard to birds dying because of collisions with wind turbine blades
has been an issue of concern. This concern was highlighted because of high rates of collisions at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area (WRA) in California, where an estimated 30–40 golden eagles and hundreds of other raptors are being killed annually (Orloff
and Flannery 1992). Although high rates of fatalities have been found in some studies in Europe (AWEA 1995), no other study in
North America has documented as high a rate of kill as that at Altamont Pass WRA. Nevertheless, concern by various individuals,
organizations, and government agencies led to the creation of standardized and rigorous methods of evaluating bird fatalities in
existing and planned wind developments (Anderson, Morrison, Sinclair, and Strickland 1999).
37
DDI 2008
Ext – Faulty Surveys

Significantly More Birds Are Killed Than Surveys Show
Evaluation of the impact of wind developments on birds (and bats) requires quantification of fatality rates because of collisions with
rotating turbine blades. Such quantification requires sampling for dead animals around turbines. However, it is well known that
observers vary in their ability to detect objects in the field (Morrison, Block, Strickland, and Kendall 2001). Such variation is due, in
part, to innate differences in observers (e.g., physical ability or eyesight), training, and interest in the study. Searching for animals
killed by turbines is inherently difficult because it often requires locating small objects in poor condition in dense vegetation (e.g.,
grass or shrubs) on steep terrain. Additionally, the ability of even trained observers to locate objects may change because of fatigue
and extreme weather. Thus, estimates of animal fatalities in wind developments are biased to unknown degrees by inefficiencies of
observers. Estimates of fatalities are also biased by the removal of carcasses by scavenging animals or other actions (e.g., wind,
plowing) before their detection by observers. All wind developments will be inhabited by various species of scavengers, primarily
birds (e.g., vultures, ravens and other corvids) and mammals (e.g., squirrels, skunks, and coyotes). Thus, infrequent or unplanned
surveys for carcasses can result in extremely biased and likely underestimated quantification of the impacts on animals in the
development. Scavenging activity will vary seasonally because of the movement and activity patterns of the scavengers and the size of
the carcass, further complicating evaluation of the influence of scavenging on collision data.
Fatality Survey Bias Means More Birds Are Killed Than Reported
This survey indicates that estimates of animal fatalities in wind developments should incorporate correction factors based on observer
efficiency and scavenging rates. Because observer efficiency and scavenging are influenced by season and vegetation, these correction
factors should be calculated based on season- and vegetation-specific data for every study and should not rely on literature values
because of substantial variability between studies. Scavenging trials should be conducted for a period of time sufficient to detect when
an asymptote in loss occurs (if indeed an asymptote occurs). These data will thus help determine the optimal period of time between
carcasses searches. Estimates of total bird or bat fatalities should be determined after correcting for searcher bias and carcass removal
bias; Strickland et al. (2000) present methods and calculations. Additionally, before beginning any study, field methods typically used
to locate carcasses and conduct experimental trials of observer and carcass removal biases should be reviewed (e.g., Strickland et al.
2000).
38
DDI 2008
Ext – Faulty Surveys

More Predatory Birds Are Killed Than Fatality Surveys Show-Survey
Inadequacies Prove
Results of this survey indicate that searcher efficiency is highly variable, with several studies reporting relatively low rates (i.e., 35%–
50%) and several studies reporting relatively high rates (i.e., 75%–85%) of recovery. Few studies considered the influence of
vegetation type on searcher efficiency. Studies testing vegetation type indicated that efficiency can, in fact, be influenced by the height
and type of vegetation present. Additionally, the size of the bird used in the trials substantially influenced results. For example,
Strickland, Johnson, and Erickson (no date) showed that only about 50% of small birds, compared to about 87% of larger birds
(raptors), were recovered. The causes for variations in searcher efficiency during and between studies appears to be a function of (1)
observer training, (2) vegetation type (and seasonal effects on plant development), and (3) size of bird. It is evident that relatively
small birds are being missed at high rates, with most studies likely underestimating the fatality of small birds by 50%–75%. Results
also indicate that corrections for observer efficiency need to be based on vegetation type, plant phenology (season), and bird (or bat)
size. Studies of scavenging rates were also highly variable and were influenced by bird size and season. Results did show a trend
toward a substantial (50%–75%) loss of carcasses of small to midsize birds within one to four weeks. Few studies followed carcasses
for more than a few weeks, which renders estimates of the eventual fate of larger carcasses difficult. It appears, however, that in
certain locations even large raptors will disappear after a month or so.
39
DDI 2008
Ecosystems Key
Ecosystem Provides Key Benefits
The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological - 5/22/2008
("Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being," CBD, http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-factsheet-01-en.pdf)
Healthy ecosystems provide services that are the foundation for human well-being including health. Ecosystem services are the
benefits people obtain from ecosystems: provisioning services (also known as goods) such as food and water; regulating services such
as flood, pest, and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual and recreational benefits; and supporting services, such as
nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functioning. Figure 1 taken from
Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 demonstrates the link between ecosystem services and human well-being and drivers of change.1 The
different levels (genes, species, ecosystems) and aspects of biodiversity directly and indirectly contribute to ecosystem goods and
services, which not only deliver the basic materials needed for survival but also underlie other aspects of a good life: health, security,
good social relations, and freedom of choice. Humans, through social and economic activities and environmental management, create
indirect and direct drivers of change that can affect, positively and negatively, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005 by more than 1360 scientists working in 95 countries, examined the state of 24
services. The assessment concluded that 15 of the 24 services are in decline, including the provision of fresh water, marine fisheries
production, the number and quality of places of spiritual and religious value, the ability of the atmosphere to cleanse itself of pollution,
and the capacity of agro-ecosystems to provide pest control.
40
DDI 2008
Ecosystems Key
Retaining Ecosystem Is Top Priority
Environment News Service- 5/24/2005
("Humans Undermining the Very Biodiversity Needed for Survival," Environment News Service, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-24-01.asp)
In the last 50 years, humans have changed the diversity of life on the planet more than at any other time in history. Human activities
have lifted many people out of poverty, but at a price - the loss of biodiversity. A new assessment of biodiversity and human well
being by top scientists from throughout the world shows that if humanity continues down this road, biological diversity will be
depleted with life-threatening consequences for all, including human beings. "Biodiversity is where the human hunger for resources is
taking its heaviest toll, and the inclusion of 15,589 species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the clearest sign that we
need to change the way we produce and consume,” said Jeff McNeely, chief scientist of the IUCN-World Conservation Union and
contributor to the report. The assessment, launched as part of the celebrations for the International Day for Biological Diversity on
May 22, was conducted by a panel of the Millenium Assessment, a partnership involving some 1,360 scientists who are experts in
their fields. It is supported by 22 of the world’s scientific bodies, including The Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the Third
World Academy of Sciences. The panel defined biodiversity as "the variability among living organisms from all sources, including
terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part." “Loss of biodiversity is a major
barrier to achieving development goals, and poses increasing risks for future generations,” said Dr. Walter Reid, director of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The second Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report, "Biodiversity and Human Well-being: A
Synthesis Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity," finds that although biodiversity is the foundation for human well-being,
all of the likely future scenarios in the report lead to a further decline in biodiversity, contrary to the agreed global target to reduce the
rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The diversity of life provides the materials humans need for food, clothing and shelter, and also
bestows security, health and freedom of choice. But, the assessment found, "the current pace and rhythm of human activities are
harming ecosystems, consuming biological resources and putting at risk the well-being of future generations." "If the wetlands,
forests, rivers and coral reefs were factories and other ecosystems providing these services were art galleries, universities and the like,
it would be considered gross vandalism or arson to damage them in the way we do," said UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer.
"Our recklessness goes further than this. It is also economic madness," said Toepfer. "The assessment points out that, for example, an
intact hectare of mangroves in a country like Thailand is worth more than $1,000. Converted into intensive farming, the value drops to
an estimated $200 a hectare."
41
DDI 2008
Ecosystems Key
Human Survival Depends On Stable Ecosystems
Global Economies Are Dependent On Stable Ecosystems – Global Economy

Doomed To Fail If Ecosystems Are Unstable
All economies depend on ecosystem services. The production and manufacture of industrial wood products in the early 1990s
contributed on the order of $400 billion to the global economy (Matthews et al. 2000). The world’s fisheries contributed $55 billion in
export value in 2000 (FAO 2000). Ecosystem services are particularly important to the economies of low-income developing
countries. Between 1996 and 1998, for example, agriculture represented nearly one fourth of the total gross domestic product of low-
income countries (Wood et al. 2000). Certain ecosystem services—such as inland fisheries and fuelwood production— are particularly
important to the livelihoods of poor people. Fisheries provide the primary source of animal protein for nearly 1 billion people, and all
but 4 of the 30 countries most dependent on fish as a protein source are in the developing world (WRI et al. 2000). In Cambodia, for
instance, roughly 60 percent of the total animal protein consumed is from the fishery resources of the Tonle Sap, a large freshwater
lake. In Malawi, freshwater fisheries supply 70–75 percent of the animal protein for both urban and rural low-income families (WRI et
al. 2000). Similarly, more than 2 billion people depend directly on biomass fuels as their primary or sole source of energy, and in
countries like Nepal, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania, woodfuel meets 80 percent or more of total energy requirements (Matthews et
al. 2000). Moreover, poor people are highly vulnerable to health risks associated with ecosystems: some 1–3 million people die each
year from malaria, with 90 percent of them in Africa, where problems of poverty are most pressing (WHO 1997).
42
DDI 2008
Ecosystems Key
Ecosystems Key To Preventing Climate Change And The Health Of The
Environment
Yet many ecosystem services are largely unrecognized in their global importance or in the pivotal role they play in meeting needs in
particular countries and regions (Daily 1997a). For example, terrestrial and ocean ecosystems provide a tremendous service by
absorbing nearly 60 percent of the carbon that is now emitted to the atmosphere from human activities (IPCC 2000), thereby slowing
the rate of global climate change. A number of cities—including New York and Portland, Oregon, in the United States, Caracas in
Venezuela, and Curitiba in Brazil—reduce water treatment costs by investing in the protection of the natural water quality regulation
provided by well-managed ecosystems (Reid 2001). The contribution of pollination to the worldwide production of 30 major fruit,
vegetable, and tree crops is estimated to be approximately $54 billion a year (Kenmore and Krell 1998). Even in urban centers,
ecosystems contribute significantly to well-being, both aesthetically and economically: Chicago’s trees remove more than 5,000 tons
of pollutants a year from the atmosphere (Nowak 1994). A society’s “natural capital”—its living and nonliving resources—is a key
determinant of its well-being. The full wealth of a nation can be evaluated only with due consideration to all forms of capital:
manufactured, human, social, and natural. (See Figure 1.1.)
Current Demands For Ecosystem Services Are Growing Rapidly – Ecosystems

Will Not Be Able To Keep Up If Unstable
Current demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly and often already outstrip capacity. Between 1993 and 2020, world
demand for rice, wheat, and maize is projected to increase by some 40 percent and livestock production by more than 60 percent
(Pinstrup-Andersen et al. 1997). Humans now withdraw about 20 percent of the base flow of the world’s rivers, and during the past
century withdrawals grew twice as fast as world population (Shiklomanov 1997; WHO 1997). By 2020, world use of industrial
roundwood could be anywhere from 23 to 55 percent over 1998 consumption levels (Brooks et al. 1996). These growing demands can
no longer be met by tapping unexploited resources (Watson et al. 1998; Ayensu et al. 2000). A country can increase food supply by
converting a forest to agriculture, but in so doing it decreases the supply of goods that may be of equal or greater importance, such as
clean water, timber, biodiversity, or flood control. Even more significant, humans are increasingly undermining the productive
capability of ecosystems to provide the services that people desire. For example, world fisheries are now declining due to overfishing,
and some 40 percent of agricultural land has been strongly or very strongly degraded in the past 50 years by erosion, salinization,
compaction, nutrient depletion, biological degradation, or pollution (WRI et al. 2000)
43
DDI 2008
Readiness Shell
A. UNIQUENESS – WIND FARMS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN BECAUSE OF
TURBINE SHORTAGES NOW
Charleston Post and Courier, 7/15/07, “Turbine shortage knocks wind out of project,”
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/15/turbine_shortage_knocks_wind_out_projects/
The race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.
In recent years, improved technology has made it possible to build bigger, more efficient windmills. That, combined with surging
political support for renewable energy, has driven up demand. Now, makers can't keep up, mostly because they can't get the parts they
need fast enough.
B. LINK – PLAN’S RAPID INFLUX OF WIND TURBINES WOULD KILL MILITARY

READINESS – THEY DISRUPT RADAR BROADCASTS AND PREVENT TROOPS FROM
TRAINING AND TESTING WEAPONS
John Hartzell [staff writer, Pioneer Press, MN], 9/29/06, “DOD report says wind farms will affect military readiness,”
http://www.windaction.org/news/5428
MILWAUKEE - Large turbines generating electricity in a radar line of sight can harm the ability of air defense radars to detect and
track aircraft or other aerial objects, the U.S. Department of Defense said Thursday in a new study.
The only way to make sure that U.S. forces can perform their air defense missions is to avoid putting the wind turbines in the line of
sight of the radars, said the report submitted to the Senate and House Armed Services committees.
Efforts have started to find other ways but they "require further development and validation" before they can be used, given that some turbines with rotating blades
reach 500 feet high, the report said.
"The numbers, height and rotation of these wind turbines present technical challenges to the effectiveness of radar systems that must
be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure acceptable military readiness is maintained," the report said.
At least a dozen wind farm projects in Illinois, Wisconsin and North Dakota have been stalled pending the completion of the military study.
Minnesota is fourth in the nation in wind energy installed, and Wisconsin is 20th, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a Washington trade group.
Testing has demonstrated that wind farms can "degrade target tracking capabilities" because they can cause shadowing and clutter on
radar, said the study, which was requested in the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress late last year.
Randall Swisher, executive director of the trade group, said he was disappointed in the Defense Department report, calling it incomplete and lacking mention of ways to
mitigate wind turbines' effects on radar, such as relocating turbines or upgrading radar systems.
Decades of experience indicate that wind turbines and radar can coexist, Swisher said.
"The American wind energy industry will continue to work collaboratively with government and others on efforts to constructively address challenges and refine
solutions," he said. "We need to further develop clean, renewable energy sources like wind to reduce dependence on imports and increase our energy security."
The association said it welcomed recent Federal Aviation Administration approval of 614 applications for individual wind turbines in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and
South Dakota that will produce more than 1,000 megawatts of power, enough to power about 250,000 homes.
The Department of Defense study said wind turbines located close to military training, testing and development sites and ranges would
"adversely affect" the military's ability to perform those missions.
44
DDI 2008
Readiness Shell
C. IMPACT – MILITARY READINESS IS KEY TO PREVENT LOSS OF LEADERSHIP
Jack Spencer [policy analyst – Heritage Foundation], 9/15/00, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not
prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests,
inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations
from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace. Readiness Defined. Readiness measures the ability of a
military unit, such as an Army division or a carrier battle group, to accomplish its assigned mission. Logistics, available spare parts, training,
equipment, and morale all contribute to readiness. The military recognizes four grades of readiness. 7 At the highest level, a unit is prepared to
move into position and accomplish its mission. At the lowest level, a unit requires further manpower, training, equipment, and/or logistics to
accomplish its mission. There is evidence of a widespread lack of readiness within the U.S. armed forces. Recently leaked Army documents report
that 12 of the 20 schools training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. They also
disclose that over half of the Army's combat and support training centers are rated at the lowest readiness grade. 8 As recently as last November,
two of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest. 9 Every division required
additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in the
Balkans. 10 And 23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its Apaches are
not "mission-capable." 11 In other words, they are not ready. The Facts about Military Readiness The reduction in forces of the U.S. armed forces
began in the early 1990s. After the end of the Cold War, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the military so that it would be
consistent with post-Cold War threats. 12 Under the Clinton Administration, however, that reduction in forces escalated too rapidly at the same
time that U.S. forces were deployed too often with too little funding. The result was decreased readiness as personnel, equipment, training, and
location suffered. Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement
operations. 13 Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreased
nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduced
forces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline. Because the security of
the United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness: FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut
drastically in the past decade. Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and
$50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of
such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout
the 1990s. In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178
bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased
significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of
Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent. In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since
1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve
personnel from 42,300 in 1992. Effect on Readiness. In spite of these drastic force reductions, missions and operations tempo have increased,
resulting in decreased military readiness. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most
operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness. For each service[person]man who
participates in a military operation, two others are involved in the mission: one who is preparing to take the participant's place, and
another who is recovering from having participated and retraining. Therefore, if 10,000 troops are on peace operations in the Balkans,
30,000 troops are actually being taken away from preparing for combat. Ten thousand are actively participating, while 10,000 are
recovering, and 10,000 are preparing to go. Coupled with declining personnel, increased tempo has a devastating effect on readiness.
Morale problems stemming from prolonged deployments, equipment that wears out too quickly, and decreased combat training
levels heighten when troops are committed to non-combat operations. Further exacerbating the military's declining readiness is the
tendency to take troops with special skills from non-deployed units. Thus, a mission may affect non-deployed units as well because
they will not be able to train properly. The soldiers integral to the non-deployed mission are not present, and there is no one to take their
place. A mission's spillover effects are clearly illustrated by a July 2000 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) on the U.S.
commitments in the Balkans: In January 2000 ... four active divisions and one Guard division were affected by these operations [in the
Balkans]. Among the active divisions, the 1st Cavalry Division was recovering from a 1-year deployment in Bosnia, the 10th Mountain
Division was deployed there, and elements of the Guard's 49th Armored Division were preparing to deploy there. At the same time, the
European-based 1st Infantry Division was deployed to Kosovo, and the 1st Armored Division was preparing to deploy there. Although
none of these divisions deployed in its entirety, deployment of key components--especially headquarters--makes these divisions
unavailable for deployment elsewhere in case of a major war.
45
DDI 2008
Readiness Shell
D. THIS CAUSES GLOBAL NUKE WAR
Zalmay KHALILZAD [RAND Corporation], 1995, Losing the Moment?, Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84
Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to
avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would
therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
46
DDI 2008
Uniqueness
WIND POWER WON’T EXPERIENCE GROWTH –TOO MUCH RED TAPE AND
OPPOSITION
Kristin Dispenza [freelance writer, architecture and design], 6/24/08, Cities Look Into Changing Zoning Laws to Accommodate
Wind Power Generators, http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/24/cities-look-into-changing-zoning-laws-to-accommodate-wind-
power-generators/
Even though the residential wind power sector has seen tremendous growth over the last decade, an article in The Arizona Republic
estimates that there are still only 4,000 residential wind turbines nationwide. The primary reason that wind energy has been slow to
take hold is that wind turbines are fairly visible, and therefore highly controversial, installations. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, small wind systems (100 kilowatts or less) need to be at least 30 feet above barriers which might break the force
of the air currents reaching the turbine. Right now, the industry recommends wind turbines only for sites that are at least one 1 acre in
size. Consequently, wind turbines in urban areas are still quite rare. (In a September 2007 post, earth2tech featured a San Francisco
home which sports a turbine, and pointed out that this may be the first urban wind turbine in the country.)
Unfortunately, individual efforts to experiment with wind power, even in outlying areas, have encountered a lot of roadblocks.
Proposed turbine installations are usually evaluated by local governments on a case by case basis, since most city zoning laws have
height restrictions which would implicitly prohibit turbines. Oftentimes, even if permission is granted and a turbine is erected,
neighbors unite to fight the decision. (For individual turbine projects that have made news for seeking exceptions to local codes, see
these articles on Wayne, New Jersey and Atlanta, Georgia
47
DDI 2008
Link Ext.
WIND FARMS KILL BASE SECURITY AND JEOPARDIZE IMPORTANT MILITARY
ACTIVITIES
DoD, 2006, “REPORT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES: The Effect of Windmill Farms On Military
Readiness,” http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf
In some circumstances, wind farm developments near Department facilities and sites may pose temporary or long-term security risks
of various degrees. Similar to other large construction projects near Department installations, the increased level of personnel and
activity during construction requires increased monitoring for security purposes. Additionally, similar to other tall vertical
development, wind turbines can provide increased visual and sensor access to sensitive Department areas and activities.
WIND TOWER RADAR INTERFERENCE CAN JEOPARDIZE PLANE TRACKING

MISSIONS
National Wind Coordinating Committee, 7/27/06, Issue Forum Brief, www.nationalwind.org
Interference occurs because wind towers, nacelles, and blades all reflect radar energy. Energy transmitted by the radar is reflected off
of the blades, generator, and tower and returned to the radar as interference. The rotation of blades causes Doppler reflections. In an
instance where a wind farm is in front of radar, with an airplane on the other side, the interference will create ghosting. When
ghosting occurs, other impacts can be created like dead zones and shadowing. When trying to track airplanes, this type of interference
can influence a mission.
WIND POWER KILLS MILITARY READINESS AND DISRUPTS TOP-SECRET

EQUIPMENT AT AREA 51
Review-Journal, 8/9/03, “Arbitration Sought: Lawsuit Filed Over Wind Farm,” Keith Rogers,
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-09-Sat-2003/news/21910142.html
A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Operations Office in North Las Vegas, declined to comment
on the lawsuit Friday.
The project to build 545 wind turbines for generating electricity was abruptly canceled in July 2002 after Air Force officials, without
explanation, expressed national security concerns relating to the mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration for Defense
Department to train, test and develop tactics in an unfettered environment.
A Nellis Air Force Base spokesman at the time explained that turbine blades whirling atop Shoshone Mountain would disrupt radar
signals during training exercises.
A week later, sources with knowledge of Air Force operations on the outskirts of the test site said the turbines would disrupt sensitive
sound-tracking equipment at the government's secrete installation along the dry Groom Lake bed, widely known as Area 51.
48
DDI 2008
Link Ext.
WIND FARMS DISRUPT RADAR, KILLING MILITARY READINESS
US News & World Report, 7/30/06, “Ill winds blowing,” Bret Schulte, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-
HdjWip8RYoJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060730/7wind.htm+Wind+farms+disrupt+radar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=
us
As the year began, Michael Polsky was poised to plant wind farms in the fields of Wisconsin, Illinois, and South Dakota that would
power some 3,000 homes. But in March, the CEO of Invenergy received a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration saying the
projects could disrupt the radar signals of nearby military installations.
The letter recommended he delay the projects pending results of a Defense Department study. Polsky was stunned, but he's complying.
As many as 12 other proposed wind farms received similar warnings. "I can't imagine how turbines located 12 to 40 miles away can
interfere with radar," Polsky says.
Plenty of other wind-energy producers are baffled, too. With President Bush pushing for alternative energy and with generous tax
credits in place, 2006 was supposed to be a banner year for wind power. Instead, experts say, the industry is faltering while it awaits
the results of the study mandated in this year's defense authorization bill by Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services
Committee.
Wind turbines, which can reach 400 feet high, have cluttered radar signals in the United Kingdom, where wind power is more
prevalent. Experts say that while older American systems are susceptible to similar problems, they can be fixed by hardware and
software upgrades. Warner says an analysis of the problems is necessary to answer questions about radar interference. But critics decry
the study as a political maneuver aimed at derailing one project in particular: Cape Wind, a proposed farm of 130 turbines off the
shores of Cape Cod. "What we're seeing here," says Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "is the NIMBY
phenomenon playing out against green technology." The result is a Washington maelstrom that has jumbled party alliances and left the
future of wind power in limbo.
WIND POWER DISRUPTS RADAR AND KILLS MILITARY READINESS

Review-Journal, 7/13/02, “Air Force concerns thwart Nevada Test Site wind farm,” Keith Rogers,
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-13-Sat-2002/news/19179321.html
A $130 million Nevada Test Site wind power project was abruptly canceled Friday after Air Force officials said turbine blades
whirling atop Shoshone Mountain would disrupt radar signals during training exercises.
The decision by the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that operates the test site for the Department of Energy,
halted years of work by public- and private-sector leaders during the final stage of the project's approval process.
"We had clearly hoped this project could come to fruition," said Kathleen Carlson, the manager of the administration's Nevada
Operations Office in North Las Vegas. "However, we must support the mission requirements of the Air Force to train, test and develop
tactics in an unfettered environment."
Darwin Morgan, a local spokesman for the administration, said the Air Force made its position clear this week.
The announcement was another blow to environmentalists and Nevada's congressional delegation, coming three days after the Senate
approved the placement of a high-level nuclear waste repository inside the test site at Yucca Mountain. Parties involved with the
project, including the consultant for the NTS Development Corp., the public-private venture behind the renewable energy project, said
the timing of the termination announcement was coincidental.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led Tuesday's unsuccessful battle on the Senate floor to stop the Yucca Mountain Project, expressed
disappointment the wind farm project was terminated.
"He's going to keep working to see where we can do this (wind-power) project and move forward with it," Reid spokeswoman Tessa
Hafen said late Friday. She said there was no connection between the Air Force decision on the wind-power site and the Senate
approval of Yucca Mountain.
She said Reid, who chairs the energy and water subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke earlier this week with
Secretary of the Air Force James G. Roche. Reid was told the wind farm can't go forward "because of national security concerns that
are classified," Hafen said.
49
DDI 2008
Link Ext.
WIND POWER UNAVOIDABLY SUCKS – EVEN CHANGING MATERIALS STILL LEADS
TO RADAR JAMMING IN TOP-SECRET AREAS
Review-Journal, 7/13/02, “Air Force concerns thwart Nevada Test Site wind farm,” Keith Rogers,
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-13-Sat-2002/news/19179321.html
Nellis Air Force Base spokesman Mike Estrada said the Shoshone Mountain wind farm "would severely degrade our abilities to train
crews and conduct testing and tactics development out there."
Nellis Air Force Range flanks the Nevada Test Site on three sides, and the top-secret Groom Lake installation, described by former
workers there as an area where U.S. military aircraft are tested against foreign radar systems, sits near the northeast corner of the test
site.
"Basically anytime an aircraft has its radar turned on and is pointed anywhere near the direction of the proposed wind farm, it would
jam his radar," Estrada said. "If DOE decides to look at other locations, we will assist them in determining if it would have impacts."
Estrada said the Air Force conducted studies to determine whether any other material besides metal could be used for the turbine
blades, but even fiberglass would have caused problems.
WIND TURBINES HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RADAR OPERATING

CAPABILITIES
Readiness,” http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf
The report begins with a brief introduction of the key principles of radar systems, describes in what circumstances wind farms might
cause problems for the Department and under what circumstances such wind farms would not cause problems. Radar test results from
multiple flight trials near wind farms performed by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence are discussed. The results from those
flight trials documented that state-of-the-art utility-class wind turbines can have a significant impact on the operational capabilities of
military air defense radar systems. The results demonstrated that the large radar cross section of a wind turbine combined with the
Doppler frequency shift produced by its rotating blades can impact the ability of a radar to discriminate the wind turbine from an
aircraft. Those tests also demonstrated that the wind farms have the potential to degrade target tracking capabilities as a result of
shadowing and clutter effects.
50
DDI 2008
Readiness Brink
READINESS IS ON THE BRINK NOW
Huffington Post, 2/8/08, “War Demands Strain US Military Readiness,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-
demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html#
WASHINGTON — A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with
persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis,
The Associated Press has learned.
Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to
another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.
Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk
level _ pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in
Afghanistan.
The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas
will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to
Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert
Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it.
The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.
On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that
the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter.
"The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant."
He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home.
"We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said.
Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to
replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war.
On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by
President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got
more stability there as an example."
The annual review grades the military's ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy _ which would include fighting
the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China.
The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readiness level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For
example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006.
Last year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is
working to improve its warfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."
51
DDI 2008
Readiness Good
GROUND FORCE READINESS IS CRITICAL TO EXTERNAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE
STRENGTH OF THE US MILITARY. OVEREXTENSION RISKS ENCOURAGING
ADVERSARIAL AGGRESSION
Perry 06 - Senior Fellow @ Hoover Institution [William, The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk, The National Security Advisory
Group, January 2006, pg. National_Security_Report_01252006.pdf]
• In the meantime, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies. The absence
of a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the
United States. Since the end of World War II, a core element of U.S. strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterring
and, if necessary, defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time. As a global power with global interests, the United States
must be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. Today, however, the United
States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations. If the Army were
ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today, its only option would be to deploy units at readiness levels far below what operational plans would require –
increasing the risk to the men and women being sent into harm's way and to the success of the mission. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation, the Army
"continues to accept risk" in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Although the United States can still deploy air, naval,
and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression, the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential to
significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies. pg. 1
52
DDI 2008
Readiness Good
STRONG MILITARY READINESS IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAIN U.S. HEGEMONY
Owens – associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College – 2006 (Mackubin Thomas,
in Newport, R.I., as well as a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, E-Notes, "A Balanced Force Structure to Achieve a Liberal
World Order," January 20, www.fpri.org/enotes/20060120.military.owens.balancedforcestructure.html)
Primacy and the Logic of Force Planning A strategy of primacy requires a balanced force that can be employed across the spectrum of
conflict and prevail under diverse circumstances against adversaries employing a variety of strategies, including conventional,
irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive approaches. These forces must be able not only to prevail in war, but also reassure friends and
allies and generally influence actors in those parts of the world of the greatest importance to the US, especially Eurasia.
These forces must be capable of operating jointly in all operational environments: land, sea, air, space, and across the electromagnetic spectrum, both now and in the
future. Accordingly, while remaining of sufficient size and composition both to fight and win major theater wars and carry out
constabulary operations in the present, this force structure must also be flexible enough to exploit new technologies, doctrine,
organization, and operational concepts in order to maintain military preeminence in the future.
ARMY IS CRITICAL TO OUR FORWARD DETERRENT POSTURE. US WITHDRAWAL

RISK TRANSFORMING ETHNIC CONFLICTS INTO FULL-SCALE WARS
Crane 02 - Research Fellow @ Strategic Studies Institute [Conrad C. Crane, Former Professor of History at the U.S. Military
Academy., Facing the Hydra: Maintaining Strategic Balance While Pursuing A Global War Against Terrorism, Strategic Studies
Institute, May 2002]
Consequently, one result of the global war on terrorism will undoubtedly be to increase American involvement in peace operations such as those in the Balkans. At the
same time, there is no sign that current peacekeeping missions can go away without adverse strategic impacts. Understanding this reality,
the QDR Report states that "these long-standing commitments will, in effect, become part of the U.S. forward deterrent posture."22
Unless soldiers continue to perform security and nation-building tasks in the Balkans, the recent increases in ethnic violence can easily
escalate again into full-scale war.23 The Bush administration has reassured NATO allies that the United States will not prematurely pull out of these Balkan
missions, although Rumsfeld has proposed reductions of all peacekeepers in Bosnia "because the police work there has begun to strain armies needed to fight
terrorism."24 He would also like to withdraw American troops from the multinational observer force in the Sinai Peninsula.25 These peace operations remain very
important for regional stability. Even while the Army initiates new operations against terrorism, it should be wary of any calls to endanger these
peacekeeping missions to provide resources for the new war. pg. 7
53
DDI 2008
Earthquake Module
WIND FARMS GENERATE SEISMIC ACTIVITY THAT INTERFERES WITH EQUIPMENT
THAT DETECTS EARTHQUAKES AND NUCLEAR BLASTS
Canadian Wind Energy Association, April 2007, “Technical Information On The Assessment of the Potential Impact Of
Wind Turbines On Radio Communication, Radar And Seismoacoustic Systems,” http://www.rabc-
cccr.ca/Files/RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok-
RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok1.pdf
An extensive study of micro seismic and infrasonic effects of low frequency noise and vibrations from wind farms has shown that
wind turbines have a negative impact on seismo acoustic (seismological and infrasound) recording equipment that can reduce their
sensitivity and hence effectiveness for monitoring earthquakes and nuclear explosions. Wind turbines generate detectable seismic
vibrations in the earth, and low-frequency acoustic signals in the atmosphere, which increase with wind speed. The greater the number
of wind turbines, the higher the level of seismic and acoustic noise.
SILENT EARTHQUAKE DETECTION IS KEY – ONLY WAY TO PREDICT THE MEGA-

QUAKES THAT FOLLOW
ScienceDaily, 7/6/06, “Silent Earthquakes May Foreshadow Destructive Temblors, Study Finds,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060706100045.htm
These swarms of micro-earthquakes are a clear sign that the silent temblor is adding stress to the fault zone, say the authors, and some
day might provide an early warning that a harmless silent event is likely to trigger a destructive mega-earthquake of M8 or larger.
Global hazards
Unlike seismic earthquakes, which release sudden shock waves, silent temblors are too slow to cause ground shaking and thus are not
considered hazardous. However, some researchers have speculated that silent quakes may be precursors of M8 and M9 mega-temblors
that regularly occur in subduction zones--seismically active regions where one tectonic plate is constantly diving ("subducting")
beneath another. Some of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded have occurred in subduction zones, including the devastating M9.2
Sumatra temblor in 2004, which generated huge tsunamis that killed more than 200,000 people.
"Silent earthquakes have recently been discovered in subduction zones in the Pacific Northwest, Japan, Mexico and elsewhere," Segall
says. "It is likely that as these silent slow-slip events occur, the probability of a bigger seismic quake goes up."
THESE MEGA-EARTHQUAKES RISK EXTINCTION

Al-Ahram Weekly, January 2005, “The post-earthquake world,” http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm
Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global
warming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has
changed following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East
Africa, on 26 December.
This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief that
the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the
human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any
way. We are now forced to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.
54
DDI 2008
Wind -> Earthquakes

WIND FARMS GENERATE SEISMIC ACTIVITY THAT INTERFERES WITH EQUIPMENT
THAT DETECTS EARTHQUAKES AND NUCLEAR BLASTS
An extensive study of microseismic and infrasonic effects of low frequency noise and vibrations from windfarms has shown that wind
turbines have a negative impact on seismoacoustic (seismological and infrasound) recording equipment that can reduce their
sensitivity and hence effectiveness for monitoring earthquakes and nuclear explosions. Wind turbines generate detectable seismic
vibrations in the earth, and low-frequency acoustic signals in the atmosphere, which increase with wind speed. The greater the number
of wind turbines, the higher the level of seismic and acoustic noise.
WIND FARMS SERIOUSLY HARM SEISMOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT AND MAKE IT

IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT EARTHQUAKES AND UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR BLASTS
Low frequency noise/vibration from wind turbines can seriously hamper the ability of a seismological monitoring station to detect and
record low-ampitude ground motion signals related to distant earthquakes or underground nuclear explosions. Similarly, the
introduction of low-frequency noise into the atmosphere can reduce the ability of infrasound monitoring equipment to detect and
record atmospheric explosions.
55
DDI 2008
Earthquake Detection Key

EARTHQUAKE EARLY DETECTION IS KEY
Lamit Company, 2004, http://www.lamit.ro/earthquake-early-warning-system.htm
Earthquakes and seismic activity have always been a hot issue. Attention is stimulated time and again by disasters such as the
earthquakes in Turkey, Taiwan, and Iran. It has become apparent that the power of an earthquake is not something we are currently
prepared to handle. Much of the problem is that the damaging earthquake waves seem to come out of nowhere without warning.
However, this is not truly the case...
Earthquakes, if analysed properly, can actually give warning of their incipient occurrence, even before the ground starts shaking
heavily. A critical objective is to quickly identify the precursors of the destructive waves of the earthquake in time to initiate an alarm.
SENSITIVE SEISMIC EQUIPMENT IS KEY FOR MONITORING SILENT

EARTHQUAKES THAT CAN CAUSE DEVESTATING TSUNAMIS
ScienceDaily, 2/28/02, “Silent Earthquake In Hawaii Offers Clues To Early Detection Of Catastrophic Tsunamis,”
"We don't know how common silent earthquakes are because, up until now, we haven't had the capability or tools to measure them,"
Segall explained.
He pointed out that detecting the silent quake on Kilauea would have been impossible a few years ago, before Stanford and the USGS
established a permanent network of instruments capable of monitoring millimeter-sized movements on the volcanic surface on a daily
basis.
"Now that we have the networks in place, we're finding that silent earthquakes are popping up in all kinds of surprising places - like
volcanoes - that we didn't know about before," Segall added. "This event did not produce a tsunami, but if we can detect potentially
catastrophic ground motion in its early stages, we might be able to issue tsunami warnings in the future."
Ward agreed, noting that the silent earthquake detected by Segall and his colleagues could be interpreted as the early stage of a
catastrophic flank collapse that may occur one day on Kilauea.
56
DDI 2008
Readiness = Iraq Withdrawal

A. A RAPID DECLINE IN MILITARY READINESS WILL LEAD TO IRAQ PULLOUT
The Times, 9/9/07, “Petraeus urged to pull out troops,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2414620.ece
Petraeus is hoping for time to build momentum in Anbar province and Baghdad for greater local reconciliation – “an emerging area of
considerable importance” – and the establishment of “provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.
Critics claim the policy is creating local warlords, encouraging the defacto partition of Iraq into Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish areas, and
building up sectarian militias.
A powerful trio, made up of General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central
Command, and General William Casey, the chief of the army, are concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are overstretching
the American armed forces.
They believe Petraeus and Odierno naturally want to keep every last soldier they can for the surge, but fear they are losing sight of the
need for overall military readiness in the event of an unexpected international crisis.
Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute, said: “If we were to draw down our forces dramatically in a
short period of time, the Iraqi security forces would collapse.”
B. IRAQ PULLOUT WOULD CAUSE MASSIVE CIVIL WAR, TERRORISM, IRAN RISE
TO POWER, AND COLLAPSE OF HEG
James Jay Carafano [Senior Research Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Heritage Foundation],
10/5/06, “The dangerous consequences of cutting and running in Iraq,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/em1012.cfm
Consequence #1: An Army Up for Grabs. A sudden U.S. withdrawal would raise the risks of full-fledged civil war and disintegration
of the army into hostile factions. The defection of soldiers to various militias, taking with them their heavy equipment, would bolster
the militias’ firepower and capacity to seize and hold terrain. The result would be a bloody and protracted civil war such as the conflict
in Bosnia following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Consequence #2: Energy Uncertainty. Growing anarchy in Iraq and the possible breakup of the country into autonomous regions
would severely affect Iraq’s oil exports. In 2005, Iraq produced about 1.9 million barrels per day (MBD) of oil and exported about 1.4
MBD. By June 2006, Iraqi oil production had risen to 2.5 MBD, and the govern–ment hopes to increase produc–tion to 2.7 MBD by
the end of the year. A U.S. withdrawal would undermine the security of oil pipelines and other facilities and increase the vulnerability
of Iraqi oil production to sabotage. The resulting drop in Iraqi oil exports would increase the upward pressure on world oil prices in an
already tight oil market. Energy uncer–tainty would be increased further if Iraq splintered and Iran gained domination over a Shia-
dominated rump state in the oil-rich south.
Consequence #3: Allies in Jeopardy. The chief bene–ficiary of a rapid U.S. pullout would be Iran, which has considerable influence
over the dominant Shiite political parties, which represent most Iraqi Shiites: about 60–65 percent of the population. If Iraq imploded,
Iran quickly could gain dominance over an emerging “Shiastan” rump state endowed with the bulk of Iraq’s oil reserves. This would
give Iran additional resources and a staging area to escalate subversive efforts targeted at the Shiite majority in Bahrain and Shiite
minorities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These and other countries look to the United States to serve as a guarantor against an
aggressive Iran. If the United States fails to follow through on its commitment to establish a stable government in Iraq, it will severely
undermine its credibility. Abandon–ing Iraqi allies would erode the confidence of other allies in U.S. leadership and further fuel
conspiracy theories about American plots to carve up Iraq to keep Arabs weak and divided.
Consequence #4: Al-Qaeda Triumphant. Osama bin Laden would trumpet an abrupt U.S. withdrawal as a victory for al-Qaeda and
proof that America is a “paper tiger,” just as he claimed after the U.S. with–drawal from Somalia in 1994. An unstable, failed state in
Iraq would also provide al-Qaeda and other radical groups with a sanctuary for recruiting a new generation of suicide bombers and a
strategically located staging area for deploying terrorists for attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere around
the world. The recently declassi–fied “key judgments” of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, “Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States,” pointed out that a perceived victory for jihadists in Iraq would boost their strength and ability to
threaten Americans.
Insert Impact
57
DDI 2008
Terrorism Module
WIND FARMS LEAD TO SECURITY BREACHES AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
Readiness 2006,” http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf
In some circumstances, wind farm developments near Department facilities and sites may pose temporary or long-term security risks
of various degrees. Similar to other large construction projects near Department installations, the increased level of personnel and
activity during construction requires increased monitoring for security purposes. Additionally, similar to other tall vertical
development, wind turbines can provide increased visual and sensor access to sensitive Department areas and activities.
SECURITY BREACHES MAKE MILITARY BASES VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST

ATTACKS
Dave Ahearn [editor, Defense Daily], March 2008, Safeguarding Facilities in a Time of Terrorism:
An Immense Task Barely Begun, http://www.defensedaily.com/books/safeguardingfacilities.html
Many experts have said it is not a question of if, but only when, terrorists once again strike a staggering blow inside the United States.
And at present, many prospective targets remain wide open and vulnerable to attack, including aircraft, deepwater ports, government
centers, military installations, urban areas, communications centers, chemical refineries, power plants, and more. What does this
imminent threat mean for the owners of enormous, and enormously costly, public and private facilities that may wind up in the
crosshairs of a lethal terrorist attack?
Insert Impact
58
DDI 2008
Inefficient disad?
WIND BAD – SO SPACE-INEFFICIENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN ALL OF
TEXAS INTO A WIND FARM TO POWER THE COUNTRY
ScienceDaily, 7/25/07, “Renewable Energy Wrecks Environment, According to Researcher,”
On this basis, he argues that technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their evolution. No economies of scale
benefit renewables. More renewable kilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio, because land good for wind,
hydropower, biomass, or solar power may get used first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable in turn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypothetically
flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storing
it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put
another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to
be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500
square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spare
land for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770
square kilometer area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclear plant. To meet 2005 US
electricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 square
kilometers, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.
One hundred windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundry
equipment, microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meter of Connecticut to become a
wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
59
DDI 2008
Marine Ecosystems Module

A. Wind Turbines Have A Devastating Affect On Marine Wildlife
U.S. Department of the Interior – 5/2006
("Technology White Paper on Wind Energy Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf," OCS Alternative Energy and Alternate Use
Programmatic EIS, http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/wind/index.cfm)
Potential impacts on the environment that may occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of offshore wind facilities
are highlighted below. Marine life. Foundations can act as artificial reefs with a resultant increase in fish populations from the new
food supply. These increases in fish population may also have stimulating effects on bird populations in the area, which could cause
collisions between birds and towers or rotors. Migrating birds. Besides potential collisions (bird strikes), it is possible that the birds
would need to consume more energy to avoid collisions and maintain their orientation when navigating around the turbines. Tower
illumination may also cause navigational disorientation for birds. Interference with navigation for endangered and threatened species.
Electromagnetic fields created by the electric cables running from the turbines and underwater noises and vibrations could affect
orientation and navigational ability. Potential alteration of natural environments and diminution of habitats. Underwater support
pilings, anchoring devices, scour-protection materials, and electromagnetic fields could cause a decrease in benthic communities, alter
natural environments, and possibly affect migration patterns. Emissions. Each unit of electricity generated from the wind that saves a
unit generated from fossil fuels, which will help reduce greenhouses gases, pollutants, and waste products that result from fossil fuel
use.
60
DDI 2008
Marine Ecosystems Module

B. Marine Ecosystems Are Key To Human Survival
US EPA – 7/10/2008, "Marine Ecosystems," EPA, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iBupBZU-
LowJ:www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/marine.html+marine+ecosystems+are+key+to+human+survival&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Marine ecosystems are a part of the largest aquatic system on the planet, covering over 70% of the Earth's surface. The habitats that
make up this vast system range from the productive nearshore regions to the barren ocean floor. Some examples of important marine
ecosystems are: Oceans Estuaries and Salt Marshes Coral Reefs and Other Tropical Communities (Mangrove Forests) Coastal areas
like Lagoons, Kelp and Seasgrass Beds and Intertidal systems (rocky, sandy, and muddy shores) Marine ecosystems are home to a host
of different species ranging from tiny planktonic organisms that comprise the base of the marine food web (i.e., phytoplankton and
zooplankton) to large marine mammals like the whales, manatees, and seals. In addition, many fish species reside in marine
ecosystems including flounder, scup, sea bass, monkfish, squid, mackerel, butterfish, and spiny dogfish. Birds are also plentiful
including shorebirds, gulls, wading birds, and terns. Some marine animals are also endangered including whales, turtles, etc. In
summary, many animal species rely on marine ecosystems for both food and shelter from predators. Marine ecosystems contain
several unique qualities that set them apart from other aquatic ecosystems, the key factor being the presence of dissolved compounds
in seawater, particularly salts. This total gram weight of dissolved substances (salts) in one kg of seawater is referred to as salinity. In
general 85% of the dissolved substances are Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl) in seawater. On average seawater has a salinity of 35 parts
per thousand grams (ppt) of water. These dissolved compounds give seawater its distinctive "salty" taste, affect species composition of
particular marine habitats, and prevent oceans from freezing during the winter. Daily changes in factors such as weather, currents, and
seasons as well as variations in climate and location will cause salinity levels to vary among different marine ecosystems. In areas
such as estuaries, tidal marshes, and mangrove forests, tidal and freshwater influences from river and streams makes it necessary for
marine organisms to adapt to a wide range of salinity levels. These organisms such as mussels, clams, and barnacles, are called
euryhaline (salt tolerant) organisms. Other organisms, in particular finfish, are unable to tolerate such changes in salinity. These
organisms are considered to be stenohaline (salt intolerant). These species require more constant levels of salinity, forcing them to
either migrate to new areas when fluctuations in salinity levels occur or to seek out areas where salinity change is minimal (e.g., the
deep ocean). Like other aquatic ecosystems, marine ecosystems require nutrients and light to produce food and energy. However, both
nutrients and light are limiting factors in marine ecosystem productivity. Like many other aquatic plants, photosynthetic marine
organisms (i.e., phytoplankton) rely upon sunlight and chlorophyll a to absorb visible light from the sun as well as nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P), and silicon (Si) to generate food and promote growth and reproduction. However, the amount of light penetrating the
ocean surface tends to decrease with increasing water depth, therefore photosynthesis can only take place within a small band near the
surface of the water (called the photic zone). In addition, nutrient availability often varies significantly from place to place. For
example, in the open ocean, nutrient levels are often very poor causing primary production to be very low. In contrast, nearshore
waters such as estuaries and marshes are often rich in nutrients, allowing primary production to be very high. In some instances,
nearshore ecosystems have an excess of nutrients due to runoff and other terrestrial sources. Excess nutrients can cause an over-
stimulation of primary production, depleting oxygen levels and causing eutrophic conditions to occur in coastal habitats. Marine
ecosystems are very important in to the overall health of both marine and terrestrial environments. According to the World Resources
Center, coastal habitats alone account for approximately 1/3 of all marine biological productivity, and estuarine ecosystems (i.e., salt
marshes, seagrasses, mangrove forests) are among the most productive regions on the planet. In addition, other marine ecosystems
such as coral reefs, provide food and shelter to the highest levels of marine diversity in the world. The diversity and productivity of
marine ecosystems are also important to human survival and well-being. These habitats provide us with a rich source of food and
income, and support species that serve as animal feed, fertilizers for crops, additives in foods (i.e., ice-cream) and cosmetics (i.e.,
creams and lotions). Areas such as mangroves, reefs, and seagrass beds also provide protection to coastlines by reducing wave action,
and helping to prevent erosion, while areas such as salt marshes and estuaries have acted as sediment sinks, filtering runoff from the
land. Despite the importance of marine ecosystems, increased human activities such as overfishing, coastal development, pollution,
and the introduction of exotic species have caused significant damage and pose a serious threat to marine biodiversity.
61
DDI 2008
Climate Change Module

A. Wind power alters the energy patterns of wind, causing climate changes
Kemm- Ph.D. in nuclear physics and CEO of STRATEK Business Strategy Consultants – 2/22/2008
(Kelvin, "Wind farms more harmful to the environment than power stations," Engineering News,
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=126614)
There is a theory in physics called the Chaos Theory. It turns out now that this theory was badly named, because a great deal has been
learned since it was first proposed. But we are stuck with the name. If you watch a lit cigarette lying on an ashtray, you will notice
that, in still air conditions, the smoke goes straight up for about 15 cm. Then what happens is that the smoke breaks up into substantial
turbulence. The same effect is seen with water coming out of a tap slowly - it gets turbulent after a relatively short distance. For many
years, this cigarette smoke phenomenon puzzled scientists because it did not match the maths of the time. The turbulence should not
have occurred, according to that maths. But it did. Well, after such thinking by some bright folks, the Chaos Theory was discovered,
and it explains the cigarette smoke pattern. Now a considerable amount of work has been done on the theory, and it is amazing how
many applications it now has. It even fits certain stock exchange patterns. The Chaos Theory explains the size and distribution of
earthquakes around the world - that seems reasonable. But not so reasonable is that it also indicates personal income distributions
around a country, and the resulting effect that this pattern has on the local economy. One of the factors that comes out of the Chaos
Theory is that a very small disturbance, called a perturbation in physics, which happens at the front end of a sequence of events can
lead to dramatically different answers at the end. One writer described a butterfly under a tree, and pointed out that, if the butterfly
flapped its wings, it would alter the air pattern, which would then move up through the leaves of the tree. Each leaf would alter the air
flow again, and at the top of the tree an air pattern would emerge. The theory says that this air pattern can then slightly alter a gentle
wind direction and, some time later, it could rain 1 000 km away, instead of raining at some other place. In other words, a minor front-
end perturbation can result in a dramatically different final result. This whole image of the butterfly flapping its wings has now
become quite a poetic image, and many people use it without any idea of where it came from. You hear people saying: "Well, if the
butterfly flaps its wings . . .", and you get a knowing look. Now to wind energy - it is quite surprising to me that nobody seems to
have commented on how wind energy can affect the environment. To my mind, large-scale wind energy can do more to alter the
climate than any coal-fired power station. The wind farms are becoming quite large now. Some of them are pulling megawatts of
electricity out of the air. What this means is that the energy pattern of the wind has been altered. We are not talking of one butterfly
here, but rather a major alteration in the wind energy pattern. Think about it - if some wind always blew inland from the sea, usually
carrying a significant amount of water vapour, and the wind had a certain energy content then that wind with its water vapour would
end up at some place. Now some wind farmers pitch up and erect a wind farm that extracts some megawatts of power out of that
wind. The wind is now weaker. It will not end up in the same place as before. Therefore, it could dump its water vapour in the form of
rain, in a completely different place than before. If one wants to look for some mechanism to alter climate, then this is it. One does
not have to wait a hundred years to see the result. Pulling megawatts of energy out of a particular wind pattern will alter that wind and
its consequences immediately. So, if you are looking for some energy extraction method that can result in climate change, then, to my
mind, wind farms are far more likely to do so than fossil-fuelled power stations. Give this some thought, folks. We are talking of
butterflies by the billion.
62
DDI 2008

B. Climate Change Will Lead To Inevitable Ecosystem Changes
National Science Foundation – 9/30/2004
("Climate change plus human pressure caused large mammal extinctions," University of California,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ztFqI9t8IEgJ:www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6653+climate+changes+lead+to+ext
inction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us)
A University of California, Berkeley, paleobiologist and his colleagues warn that the future of the Earth's mammals could be as dire as
it was between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, when a combination of climate change and human pressure resulted in the extinction of
two-thirds of all large mammals on the planet. Paleobiologist Anthony D. Barnosky and his colleagues reached this conclusion after
review of studies of the extensive large mammal, or megafauna, extinctions that occurred in the late Pleistocene, when animals such as
mammoths and mastodons, the saber-toothed cat, ground sloths and native American horses and camels went extinct. In the forensic
quest for who done it, many have pointed fingers squarely at humans. But in a review appearing in the Oct. 1 issue of Science,
Barnosky and his colleagues conclude that climate change also played a big role in driving these extinctions. Barnosky's colleagues
in the study are Paul Koch, professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz; Scott Wing, a paleobotanist in the Department of
Paleobiology at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History; UC Berkeley graduate student Alan Shabel; and
recent UC Berkeley Ph.D. Bob Feranec, now a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford University. "There's been a lot of talk about people
causing the extinction of the megafauna by killing everything they saw, like a blitzkrieg," said Barnosky, professor of integrative
biology and a curator in UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology. "But if you look at all the evidence, it's clear that while humans had
a major role in these extinctions, in many cases climate change was a key part of the recipe. "Humans and climate change were the
one-two punch that drove extinction between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, and the same thing is happening in a major way today."
Because climate change is occurring more rapidly today than even in the late Pleistocene, when the majority of megafauna went
extinct, serious consequences for many large animal species that weathered the Pleistocene extinction could be just down the road,
Barnosky said. And the impact could be even greater today because of impoverished large animal populations and surging populations
of humans taking over former large-animal habitats. "Human activities today, combined with climate change, probably are going to
result in inevitable extinction of many more species and unpredictable ecosystem changes," he said. The authors' warnings are based
on a review of previous studies of Pleistocene animal extinctions around the world, from Australia to Europe to North America. The
Pleistocene, a period starting about 1.8 million years ago, was a time of glacial comings and goings, with more than 20 cycles of
cooling and warming that concluded only about 10,000 years ago with the end of the last ice age. In previous studies of animal
remains layered in caves in the American West, Barnosky has found that during some of the last few glacial/interglacial cycles
between 1 million and 600,000 years ago, the number of small, medium and large mammals in a given community remained fairly
stable, though different species may have filled the various ecosystem niches. In the late Pleistocene, however, something happened to
make the number of large mammals nosedive continent-wide. This new analysis of archeological, climatic, ecological and simulation
studies shows that these extinctions happened around the world. Of more than 150 genera of megafauna - that is, animals weighing
more than 44 kilograms (97 pounds) - living on Earth 50,000 years ago, at least 97 were extinct by 10,000 years ago. If you look at
localized extinctions instead of global extinctions, 121 genera disappeared from at least one continent. Those blaming humans
ascribe the extinctions to human hunting, either through overkill - hunting that could have led to extinction in about 1,500 years - or
through a "blitzkrieg" of hunting that could have knocked off a species in less than 500 years. Another suggestion, dubbed "sitzkrieg"
after the term for a "sitting" war that shows slow or no progress, is that humans caused extinction through long-term habitat alteration.
Barnosky and his colleagues found sparse evidence outside Australia that humans were the sole cause of extinction. Data are sketchy
for the Australian continent, Barnosky cautioned, but little climate change was going on at the time of extinction between 40,000 and
50,000 years ago. However, humans were certainly on the scene, and some scientists think that fires set by humans had as much to do
with extinction as direct hunting. Over a few thousand years, Barnosky said, an extended sitzkrieg may have led to the extinction of
large mammals such as kangaroos, wombats, the marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex) and the largest ever marsupial, the 2 1/2-ton
Diprotodon. Elsewhere, human activities combined to a greater or lesser degree with climate change to lead to extinctions. In Europe
and parts of Asia, mammals such as the giant Irish deer or Irish elk died out broadly toward the end of the late Pliestocene, in some
areas before humans were present. Earlier, though, warm-adapted megafauna such as straight-tusked elephants (Palaeoloxodon) and
hippos, which were abundant during preceding interglacials, disappeared with the cooling of the last ice age, starting around 45,000
years ago and persisting up to the height of the glacial period 20,000 years ago. "This is a very clear case of climate-caused
extinction without the significant input of humans," Barnosky said. Similarly, in Alaska and the Yukon, the disappearances of short-
faced bears, such as the grizzly-like Arctodus simus, the largest land carnivore ever to
63
DDI 2008

<Card continues, no text removed>
inhabit North America; mammoths; and two horse species occurred before apparent signs of human contact. A second pulse of
climate-caused extinctions began in Europe and Asia about 12,000 years ago as cold-adapted animals - the wooly rhino and the
mammoth - died out with warming temperatures. But it's possible, Barnosky said, that the rise of modern humans - Homo sapiens
sapiens - with their broad variety of tools and diverse diet, negatively impacted these animals to an extent not seen in Europe with
earlier human species, such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals. North America, in particular, is an example of a place where humans
speeded the process of climate-caused extinction, in many cases by overkill. Evidence of mammoth kills date from near the first
appearance of stone spearheads made by the human Clovis civilization 11,400 years ago. Only mammoths and mastodons have been
found with incontrovertible evidence that they were killed by humans in North America, though human artifacts have been found in
association with extinct megafauna fossils on all continents, including Africa. Over a period of, at most, 1,500 years, following the
appearance of Clovis-style hunters, camels and horses, rhinos and peccaries, short-faced bears and saber-toothed tigers, as well as the
armadillo-like glyptodonts and the giant ground sloths (Megatheriadae), all disappeared from the North American continent.
"Humans and climate change came together at exactly the same time" to lead to these great megafauna extinctions, Barnosky said.
The case in South America is still muddled, he noted, but there, too, human incursions combined with climate change possibly
coincided with the departure of large mammals, such as a variety of armadillos and llama- and camel-like animals, in a case similar to
that in North America. In Africa, as well, it is unclear why any large mammals went extinct, since humans arose in concert with these
animals and, by some arguments, they should have been in balance with one another. There, as in South America, the uncertainty
comes from lack of data. In these fairly recent large-mammal extinctions, Barnosky sees lessons for the future. "Humans tend to
impact the bigger animals, with the smaller animals as collateral damage," he said. "Climate change is just the opposite - it affects the
little guy first and then, through them, the
big guys. Today, we see humans taking out the bigger animals and climate change affecting the smaller animals, so we can expect to
see some pretty dramatic changes in the ecosystem." One major problem today is that, because of human encroachment, there are no
refuges for animals that might want to relocate because of climate change. "One thing we can do, as conservationists, is to create and
connect natural areas" to allow animals to move around, he added. "Because species can no longer do this by themselves, maybe the
solution is to do it for them."
C. Human Survival Depends On Stable Ecosystems

64
DDI 2008
Wind = Climate Change

Large Scale Wind Power Alters Global Climate; Energy Flow Is Altered And
Disrupted
Keith, et al, DeCarolis, Dekenberge, Lenschow, Malyshev, Pacala, Rasch – Departments of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
and Economics at University of Calgary and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University - 9/14/04,
David W. Joseph F., David C. , Donald H. , Sergey L., Stephen, and Philip J., "The influence of large-scale wind power on global
climate," PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/46/16115.pdf
Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the
atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional
to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the
boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales.
Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would
deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the
climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels. Global
wind-power capacity is growing by _8GW_yr_1, making wind the fastest growing nonfossil source of primary energy (1). The cost of
electricity from wind power is now _40 dollars per MW_h_1 at the best sites, and costs are declining swiftly (2). Wind power could
play a substantial role in global energy supply when CO2 emissions are strongly constrained to limit anthropogenic climatic change.
Although the local environmental and aesthetic impacts of wind power have been explored, there has been little assessment of the
climatic impacts of wind turbines. Wind power is a renewable resource, but the rate of its renewal is finite and, in some respects,
comparatively small. The yearly average horizontal flux of kinetic energy at the_100-m hub heights of large wind turbines can be_1
kW_m_2. These large power fluxes enable the economic extraction of wind power, but an array of wind turbines cannot extract this
power arbitrarily because turbines interfere with their neighbors by slowing local winds. Most of the kinetic energy that drives wind
turbines originates with the generation of available potential energy at planetary scales, which fuels winds throughout the atmosphere.
Within the atmospheric boundary layer, turbulent mixing transports momentum downward to the surface and converts kinetic energy
to heat by means of viscous (frictional) dissipation. The downward flux of kinetic energy averages _1.5 W_m_2 over the global land
surface (3). Ultimately, this small downward flux of kinetic energy limits the power that can be extracted by wind-turbine arrays (4).
Although the generation and dissipation of kinetic energy is a minor (_0.3%) component of global energy fluxes, the winds mediate
much larger energy fluxes by transporting heat and moisture. Therefore, alteration of kinetic energy fluxes can have much greater
climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by an equal magnitude (3, 5).
65
DDI 2008
Wind -> Climate Change

Wind turbines could affect nearby temperatures and weather conditions
Science Daily – 12/20/07, "Wind Turbines Produce 'Green' Energy And Airflow Mysteries," Science Daily,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QLSVKzf9r4IJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071215212425.htm+wind+power+alte
rs+wind+patterns&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us
Using smoke, laser light, model airplane propellers and a campus wind tunnel, a team led by Johns Hopkins University researchers is
trying to solve the airflow mysteries that surround wind turbines, an increasingly popular source of “green” energy. The National
Science Foundation recently awarded the team a three-year, $321,000 grant to support the project. The rise in oil prices and a growing
demand for energy from non-polluting sources has led to a global boom in construction of tall wind turbines that convert the power of
moving air into electricity. The technology of these devices has improved dramatically in recent years, making wind energy more
attractive. For example, Denmark is able to produce about 20 percent of its electric energy through wind turbines. But important
questions remain: Could large wind farms, whipping up the air with massive whirling blades, alter local weather conditions? Could
changing the arrangement of these turbines lead to even more efficient power production? The researchers from Johns Hopkins and
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute hope their work will help answer such questions. “With diameters spanning up to 100 meters across,
these wind turbines are the largest rotating machines ever built,” said research team leader Charles Meneveau, a turbulence expert in
Johns Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering. “There’s been a lot of research done on wind turbine blade aerodynamics, but few
people have looked at the way these machines interact with the turbulent wind conditions around them. By studying the airflow
around small, scale-model windmills in the lab, we can develop computer models that tell us more about what’s happening in the
atmosphere at full-size wind farms.” To collect data for such models, Meneveau’s team is conducting experiments in a campus wind
tunnel. The tunnel uses a large fan to generate a stream of air moving at about 40 mph. Before it enters the testing area, the air passes
through an “active grid,” a curtain of perforated plates that rotate randomly and create turbulence so that air currents in the tunnel
more closely resemble real-life wind conditions. The air currents then pass through a series of small model airplane propellers
mounted atop posts, mimicking an array of full-size wind turbines. The researchers gather information on the interaction of the air
currents and the model turbines by using a high-tech procedure called stereo particle-image-velocimetry. First, they “seed” the air in
the tunnel with a form of smoke—tiny particles that move with the prevailing airflow. Above the model turbines, a laser generates two
sheet-like pulses of light in quick succession. A camera captures the position of particles at the time of each flash. “When the images
are processed, we see that there are two dots for every particle,” said Meneveau, who is the university’s Louis M. Sardella Professor of
Mechanical Engineering. “Because we know the time difference between the two laser shots, we can calculate the velocity. So we get
an instantaneous snapshot of the velocity vector at each point. Having these vector maps allows us to calculate how much kinetic
energy is flowing from one place to another, in much greater detail than what was possible before.” Raul B. Cal, a Johns Hopkins
postdoctoral fellow who is working on the project with Meneveau, said this data could lead to a better understanding of real wind
farm conditions. “What happens when you put these wind turbines too close together or too far apart? What if you align them
staggered or in parallel?” he asked. “All of these are different effects that we want to be able to comprehend and quantify, rather than
just go out there and build these massive structures, implementing them and not knowing what’s going to happen.” Meneveau pointed
out that dense clusters of wind turbines also could affect nearby temperatures and humidity levels, and cumulatively, perhaps, alter
local weather conditions. Highly accurate computer models will be needed to unravel the various effects involved. “Our research will
provide the fluid dynamical data necessary to improve the accuracy of such computer models,” Meneveau said. “We’d better know
what the effects are in order to implement wind turbine technology in the most sustainable and efficient fashion possible.” Meneveau
and Cal are collaborating with Luciano Castillo, associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear
Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Hyung S. Kang, an associate research scientist in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at Johns Hopkins. The project’s funding was provided through the National Science Foundation’s Energy for
Sustainability Program.
66
DDI 2008
Climate Change = Extinction

Climate Change Leads To Species Extinctions
BirdLife International-2004
("Climate change will soon threaten many more species with extinction," BirdLife International,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bny5pY5QE8kJ:www.birdlife.org/action/science/sowb/pressure/48.html+climate+changes+lead
+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us )
Climate change will reduce, and force shifts in, the ranges of many species. Many will not be able to move fast enough, or in concert
with other species. This will result in extinctions. Whether we lose a few species or huge numbers will depend critically on the degree
of warming. We must act now to minimise this. Many species will suffer from range shifts and losses Modelling studies show that the
ranges occupied by many species will become unsuitable for them as climate changes. The climate space that is suitable for particular
species may shift (in latitude or altitude: see box 1), contract (boxes 2 and 3), or even disappear (box 4). Species whose climate space
both contracts and shifts substantially will be of particular concern (box 5). Climate change will result in many extinctions Studies
suggest that many species will not be able to keep up with their changing climate space. As species move at different rates, the
community structure of ecosystems will also become disrupted. Both local and global extinctions are likely, even of species currently
considered safe. One recent global study estimated that 15–37% of species could be committed to extinction by 2050 as a consequence
of climate change. The most susceptible species will be those with restricted ranges, bounded distributions (on the edges of continents,
mountain-tops or small islands), specialised habitat requirements, poor dispersal abilities or small populations. While bird species
differ greatly in dispersal abilities, most are relatively mobile compared to other organisms—which will be impacted even more
severely. The extent of warming will be critical The size of the extinction crisis caused by climate change will be directly related to
the degree of global warming (box 4). A global average temperature rise of 2°C in the next century will lead to numerous extinctions,
but leave open some practical management options for the conservation of biodiversity. Temperature rises beyond this level are
predicted to lead to catastrophic extinction rates, with few management options and a bleak future for both biodiversity and people.
67
DDI 2008
Wind Power Hurts Environment

WIND POWER IS INEFFICIENT, EXPENSIVE, AND DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT
The Guardian, 2/26/05, “Report doubts future of wind power,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy
Critics of wind energy in Germany said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renew
existing power stations.
"The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don't need electricity. The electricity then has to be
moved somewhere else," Klaus Lippold, a Christian Democrat opposition MP, said.
"There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape."
WIND POWER WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

The Engineer, 2/9/05, “A bad case of too much wind,”
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266062/A+bad+case+of+too+much+wind.htm
Too much wind in public places can be a bad thing. So when the Friends of the Forest saw that their legally elected representatives on
the County Council were giving the thumbs up to the development of large Wind Farms across the county, they decided to take the
matter into their own hands.
They felt, you see, that all of these new fangled turbines would not only destroy the look and feel of their green and pleasant neck of
the woods, but make life miserable for the wildlife population into the bargain. And, seemingly oblivious to the importance of global
warming, they weren't about to just sit around and let these enormous erections happen in their back yard without putting up a fight.
WIND FARMS ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT AND DESTROY ECOSYSTEMS

The Guardian, 4/21/08, “Scottish government rejects plans for Lewis wind farm,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/21/windpower.renewableenergy
The Scottish energy minister, Jim Mather, said this morning that the 181-turbine project, which would have dominated the moors of
northern Lewis, would have had "significant adverse impacts" on rare and endangered birds living on the peatlands – a breach of
European habitats legislation.
The decision to turn down the proposals from Amec and British Energy was greeted with delight by local opponents and environment
groups, and dismay by the developers. Nearly 11,000 islanders had objected to the scheme, which had been supported by the Western
Isles council and the island's main community trust.
Dina Murray, a crofter who farms part of the moor affected, said: "I'm absolutely delighted, and I'm delighted for the people of Lewis
who fought long and hard against this, on the same grounds as the wind farm has been rejected. The environment, the landscape and
the peatlands are worth far more than any wind farm."
68
DDI 2008

WIND POWER DESTROYS IMPORTANT ECOSYSTEMS AND INCREASE CARBON
EMISSIONS
The Guardian, 4/21/08, “Scottish government rejects plans for Lewis wind farm,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/21/windpower.renewableenergy
Yet the conflict over the Lewis proposal, which would have generated 650MW of electricity - roughly 10% of Scotland's electricity
needs - has exposed some of the most significant tensions and challenges facing onshore wind farms.
Lewis Wind Power, the joint venture company set up by Amec and British Energy, said it was "bitterly disappointed" by the decision.
The farm would have brought 400 jobs to Lewis, injected £6m a year in rental payments and other benefits to the island, and meant a
crucial "interconnector" to take electricity to the mainland would have been built.
"Sadly all of this has been lost because of the government decision which, we believe, represents a huge missed opportunity," the firm
said.
Wind power opponents are now focusing on the frequent use of peatlands, particularly in Scotland, for major new schemes. They
argue that "industrialisation" of peat moors risks destroying these habitats and will release the carbon stored in the peat through
erosion and drainage.
The Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson urged European commission officials last week to develop a more coherent strategy for
locating wind farms on land, claiming that Scotland's 1.9m hectares of peat and bog were part of the planet's "airconditioning system".
Murray said many crofters fully supported his criticisms. "You can't replace peat with concrete, and ever hope to get away with it.
There are thousands and thousands of years of vegetation growing and rotting, year after year after year. That's how it was intended to
be. But I would fully support going offshore as long as it doesn't have any marine conservation consequences."
WIND POWER DISRUPTS DELICATE ANIMAL HABITATS AND ALTER ANIMAL

BEHAVIOR PATTERNS
Conor Milhell [staff writer, Sault Star], 6/28/08, "Despite their benefits, wind farms aren't without environmental baggage,"
Industrial Wind Action Group, http://www.windaction.org/news/16568
Building roads, erecting towers and installing transformer stations and transmission lines destroys forest habitat, and the noise and
turbulence and vibrations of spinning turbines may alter the behavioural patterns of wildlife, said Mark Nash, the president of the
Canadian Peregrine Foundation, a nongovernmental raptor protection group based in Toronto.
Nash admits that preliminary research in Ontario has shown "no evidence that (wind turbines) are having an impact on bird mortality."
But a survey of a 120-turbine development in New York in 2006 estimated that each turbine killed 23 birds and 59 bats per year.
"Thirty years of wind farming in Europe have shown that turbines kill birds," said Nash. "I predict that as we get more and more of
these big projects we're going to see the same high level of mortality that's been documented in Europe."
Nash is particularly concerned about the impacts of developing large wind farms in ecologically sensitive bird migration, staging and
nesting areas, like much of Lake Superior's north shore. Prince Township, for instance, is a part of an important corridor for thousands
of migrating birds that cross Lake Superior at the narrows between Michigan's Whitefish Point and Ontario's Gros Cap peninsula
every spring and fall.
69
DDI 2008

WIND GENERATORS CAN’T WORK WITHOUT WIND – INEFFICIENT, CO2-
PRODUCING BACKUPS ARE USED
Joseph DeCarolis and David Keith – Ph.D. correspondent for the Atmospheric Protection Branch of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development and thesis adviser – 7/31/2004, "The economics of large-scale wind power
in a carbon constrained world," Elsevier, http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=251
What if the use of wind does increase rapidly enough to provide one third or more of electricity? How much will this cost, and what
problems need to be solved?
Several problems. Utility operators need to use a minute-to-minute method to balance electricity made with electricity taken from the
grid. Backup capacity must exist to deal with days forecast for slow wind, and there must be some backup capacity capable of dealing
with hourly changes in plans. Inefficient fossil fuel plants, and hydroelectric, are the most common backup, as it doesn’t make sense to
use costly efficient natural gas plants.
The costs of dealing with intermittency aren’t well known when wind is a major contributor; the Danish and German models don’t
apply because those wind plants are part of the European grid. The existence of several types of wind subsidies and other reasons
makes wind costs difficult to calculate, but hour-to-hour and minute-to-minute variations add up to 0.3 ¢/kWh to the cost of wind
power.
Wind blows a lot of some days, not so much on most days, and many days hardly at all. Intermittency affects cost today because it
cuts into reserve power. Handling intermittency is a central issue of ramping wind supply up to high levels.
WEAK GAS BACK-UP GENERATORS MAKE WIND MORE EXPENSIVE AND EMIT
MORE CARBON
The Register, 7/3/08, Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/wind_power_needs_dirty_pricey_gas_backup_report/page3.html
Oswald is an expert on gas turbines, having worked for many years at Rolls Royce*. He says that most people, in allowing for gas
backup to wind farms, assume that the current situation of gas-turbine usage applies. Not so, he says. Gas turbines used to compensate
for wind will need to be cheap (as they won't be on and earning money as often as today's) and resilient (to cope with being throttled
up and down so much). Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaning
increased maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will be
more expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won't want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this,
less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume.
70
DDI 2008
Wind Power = FF Use

FOSSIL FUELS ARE USED AS BACK-UP FOR VOLATILE WIND FARMS
The Telegraph, 6/29/08, “Report blows hole in wind power plan,”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml
"Simultaneously, the wind output in neighbouring countries can also be very low, and this suggests that intercontinental transmission
grids will be hard to justify."
The authors used data on wind speeds and electricity demand from the past six years to work out what impact 25 Gigawatts - about 16
per cent of Britain's needs - would have had on the national grid if it had been supplied by wind farms.
The results show wind is highly volatile. In January 2005, for example, wind speeds varied so much that demand on conventional
plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56GW.
In that month, a 1,000MW fossil fuel plant would have had to come on and offline a total of 23 times to make up the shortfall. At 6pm
on February 2 2006 - the point of peak electricity demand for the whole year - wind farms would have been unable to provide any
power at all, researchers found.
71
DDI 2008
AFF Answers
Fatal Bird Collisions With Turbines Caused By Poor Planning, Out-Moded
Technology, and Poor Siting. Fatalities Caused By Wind Turbines Are
Insignificant When Placed In Context
EWEA (European Wind Energy Association) 2004. “Wind Energy and the Environment.”
Wind-related avian collision Collisions with turbines have been an issue at some older wind farm sites form the 1980s, especially the
Altamont Pass in California – a result of poor siting, out-moded turbines and tower technology. Subsequent experiences in Germany
and Denmark show that such effects can be avoided by responsible planning practice. Proper siting of turbines is important if adverse
impacts are to be avoided. In the United States, a study in 2001 estimated an average of 2.2 fatalities for each turbine. By comparison,
between 100 and 1,000 million birds are estimated to die each year in the US from colliding with vehicles, buildings, power lines and
other structures. That is wind-related avian collision fatalities represent 0.01 - 0.02% of annual avian fatalities in the US. In Spain, a
study in the province of Navarre showed that 0.13 birds had died per year per turbine. The impact of birds must be placed in context.
99% of threats to birds are human related, from habitat loss to industrialization, over exploitation of natural resources, hunting, the pet
trade, pollution, etc. Habitat loss is the single greatest threat to birds, and 12% of the world’s 9,800 bird species face extinction.
Bird Fatalaties from Turbine Collisions Insignificant Compared To Other

Mortality Factors
It has been estimated that from 100 million to well over 1 billion birds are killed annually in the United States due to collisions with
human-made structures, including vehicles, buildings and windows, powerlines, communication towers, and wind turbines. Although
wind energy is generally considered environmentally friendly (because it generates electricity without emitting air pollutants or
greenhouse gases), the potential for avian fatalities has delayed and even significantly contributed to blocking the development of
some windplants in the U.S. Given the importance of developing a viable renewable source of energy, the objective of this paper is to
put the issue of avian mortality associated with windpower into perspective with other sources of avian collision mortality across the
U.S. We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in the United States: • Vehicles: 60
million - 80 million • Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million • Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million • Communication
Towers: 4 million - 50 million • Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000 The large differences in total mortality from these sources
are strongly related to the differences in the number (or miles) of structures in each category. There are approximately 4 million miles
of road, 4.5 million commercial buildings and 93.5 million houses, 500,000 miles of bulk transmission lines (and an unknown number
of miles of distribution lines), 80,000 communication towers and 15,000 commercial wind turbines (by end of 2001) in the U.S.
However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely cause no more than a few percent of all
collision deaths related to human structures. There are also other sources that contribute significantly to overall avian mortality. For
example, the National Audubon Society estimates avian mortality due to house cats at 100 million birds per year. Pesticide use, oil
spills, electrocution, disease, etc. are other significant sources of unintended avian mortality. Due to funding constraints, the scope of
this paper is limited to examining only fatalities resulting from collisions with human-made obstacles. Recognize that the cumulative
impacts of all mortality factors on birds continue to increase as the human population climbs and resource demands grow. Every effort
by all industries to reverse avian mortality trends and minimize the number of bird deaths is important. Many of the studies of
buildings, communication towers, and powerlines were conducted in response to known or perceived problems with avian collisions,
and therefore may not be representative of all structures in the United States. As a consequence, using averages of these estimates to
project total avian fatalities in the U.S. would be biased high. The estimates provided for the sources of avian mortality listed above,
except wind generation facilities, are based on subjective models and are very speculative.
72
DDI 2008
AFF Answers
Even If Windplants Were Numerous, Bird Fatalities From Collisions Would Still
Be Insignificant
Our review indicates that avian collision mortality associated with windplants is much lower than other sources of collision mortality
in the United States. We believe there are reasons for the relatively low mortality rates at most windplants. The primary reason is that
there are far fewer windplants and that many of the windplants are located in areas with relatively low bird and raptor use. However,
even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely cause no more than a few percent of all collision
deaths related to human structures. It appears from the available data that siting windplants in areas with low bird and raptor use is
currently the best way to minimize collision mortality. The apparently high raptor mortality levels at Altamont can mostly be attributed
to high prey base for raptors, large populations of raptors, topography and the large size of the windplant. Other factors such as older
turbine designs may also contribute to the raptor mortality levels, but such factors are less understood. Windplants sited in areas of
high bird use can expect to have higher fatality rates than many of those reported in this document although other factors such as
topography, prey abundance, and species composition also likely influence mortality. For example, in the Netherlands, where turbines
are often sited near coastal areas, estimates of collision rates have been as high as 37 birds per turbine per year (Winkelman 1994).
The results of our review and updated estimates indicate that avian collision mortality attributable to windpower at the current level of
production in the U.S. is minor in comparison to other sources of collision mortality. The current levels of mortality caused by
windplants do not appear to be causing any significant population impacts (except possibly for golden eagles at Altamont (Hunt et al.
1999), although several possible contributors to this decline have been proposed). Due to recent declines in many species of birds,
especially some raptors and many neotropical migrants, however, any additional mortality may be a cause for concern. Monitoring
programs in place at many of the newer generation windplants will continue to provide information to better understand avian
mortality levels and to continue to determine factors important for siting windplants. Because the cumulative impacts of all mortality
factors on birds continue to increase as the human population climbs and resource demands grow, efforts by every industry are
important to reverse avian mortality trends and to minimize bird deaths.
AFF: DECADES OF EXPERIENCE SHOW THAT WIND TURBINES HAVE NO ADVERSE

EFFECT ON RADAR
Randall Swisher [executive director of the American Wind Energy Association], 11/1/06, “Can wind turbines and military radar co-
exist?,” http://www.compositesworld.com/columns/can-wind-turbines-and-military-radar-co-exist.aspx [abby]
Most important, however, decades of experience tell us that wind turbines and radar can co-exist. The busy Logan International
Airport in Boston, Mass., for example, has no difficulty with nearby turbines. Perhaps most telling is that the U.S. Air Force is the
largest nonutility purchaser of "green power"in the U.S., and several active military installations have working wind turbines that
provide electrical power. These include F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and the U.S. Navy installation at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. Since radar and wind farms coexist at these locations, AWEA is confident that acceptable solutions can be found in nearly every
case. The key is to continue the case-by-case review of projects and consultation that has led to these mutually beneficial solutions.
Clearly, the wind energy industry does not want to be part of a problem, but rather wants to be perceived as a solution to energy
independence. We look forward to working with the U.S. government to address this issue so that the wind industry can work for the
benefit of the environment and energy security.
73

9 Generic Culpepper Alternative Energy Disads

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

9 Generic Culpepper Alternative Energy Disads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alternative Energy DAs

Alternative Energy Disads (Solar and Wind)

Space Mil 1NC Shell

Space Mil 1NC Shell

C. Internal Link and Impact

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

Solar Space Key To Space Mil

US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war.

Ext – DOD Wants Space Mil

Ext – Other Nations Will Follow

Other nations will follow suit if the US militarizes

US/Russian nuclear war causes extinction – its categorically different than

China Scenario Brink

Non U – Space Mil

Non U – Space Mil

Non U – Space Mil

Non U – Solar Space

AFF – Solar Power Key To Econ

Birds Of Prey 1NC

B. Wind Farms Put Birds Of Prey On The Edge Of Extinction

Birds Of Prey 1NC

D. Human Survival Depends On Stable Ecosystems

Birds Of Prey Key

Birds Of Prey Key

Birds Of Prey Key

Birds Of Prey Key

Birds Of Prey Key

Turbines Kill Birds

Wind Power Kills a Ton Of Birds

Wind Power Kills Birds

Turbines Kill Birds

Wind Power Has Killed Thousands Of Birds In CA

Turbines Kill Birds

Turbines Kill Birds

Turbines Kill Birds

8.1 Birds Die Per Megawatt Per Year At Altamont Pass

Turbines Kill Birds

Endangered Predatory Birds Collide With Wind Turbines

Ext – Faulty Surveys

Ext – Faulty Surveys

Global Economies Are Dependent On Stable Ecosystems – Global Economy

Current Demands For Ecosystem Services Are Growing Rapidly – Ecosystems

B. LINK – PLAN’S RAPID INFLUX OF WIND TURBINES WOULD KILL MILITARY

WIND TOWER RADAR INTERFERENCE CAN JEOPARDIZE PLANE TRACKING

WIND POWER KILLS MILITARY READINESS AND DISRUPTS TOP-SECRET

WIND POWER DISRUPTS RADAR AND KILLS MILITARY READINESS

WIND TURBINES HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RADAR OPERATING

ARMY IS CRITICAL TO OUR FORWARD DETERRENT POSTURE. US WITHDRAWAL

SILENT EARTHQUAKE DETECTION IS KEY – ONLY WAY TO PREDICT THE MEGA-

THESE MEGA-EARTHQUAKES RISK EXTINCTION

Wind -> Earthquakes

WIND FARMS SERIOUSLY HARM SEISMOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT AND MAKE IT

Earthquake Detection Key

SENSITIVE SEISMIC EQUIPMENT IS KEY FOR MONITORING SILENT

Readiness = Iraq Withdrawal

SECURITY BREACHES MAKE MILITARY BASES VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST

Marine Ecosystems Module

Marine Ecosystems Module

Climate Change Module

Climate Change Module