18 Generic Clark Coal

Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark

Index
Index........................................................................................................................................................................1
Coal UQ and LX (For all 3 DAs)..........................................................................................................................7
Coal Prices High Now............................................................................................................................................8
Coal Prices High Now............................................................................................................................................9
Coal Prices High Now..........................................................................................................................................10
Coal Demand High Now......................................................................................................................................11
Coal Demand High Now......................................................................................................................................12
US Coal Demand High Now................................................................................................................................13
US Coal Demand High.........................................................................................................................................14
Renewables Links – Coal....................................................................................................................................15
Renewables Links – Coal....................................................................................................................................16
Renewables Links – Clean Coal.........................................................................................................................17
Cap and Trade Links – Clean Coal....................................................................................................................18
Credit Trading Link – Coal.................................................................................................................................19
RPS Links – Coal.................................................................................................................................................20
RPS Links – Coal.................................................................................................................................................21
RPS Links – Coal.................................................................................................................................................22
RPS Links – Clean Coal......................................................................................................................................23
PTC Links – Coal.................................................................................................................................................24
Wind Links – Coal...............................................................................................................................................25
Wind Links - Coal................................................................................................................................................26
Wind Links – Coal...............................................................................................................................................27
Wind Links – Clean Coal....................................................................................................................................28
Solar Links – Coal................................................................................................................................................29
Solar Links – Coal................................................................................................................................................30
Solar Links – Coal................................................................................................................................................31
Solar Links – Coal................................................................................................................................................32
Solar Links – Clean Coal.....................................................................................................................................33
Nuclear Power Links – Coal...............................................................................................................................34
Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum 1
Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Nuclear Power Links – Railroads.......................................................................................................................38
AFF – Coal UQ and LX (For all 3 DAs).............................................................................................................39
AFF – Coal Prices Low Now...............................................................................................................................40
AFF – Coal Demand Decreasing Now................................................................................................................41
AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Coal.................................................................................................42
AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal......................................................................................43
AFF – Wind Won’t Trade Off with Coal...........................................................................................................44
AFF – Solar Won’t Trade Off with Coal............................................................................................................45
AFF – RPS Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal..................................................................................................46
AFF – Cap and Trade/Carbon Tax Key to Clean Coal.....................................................................................47
Railroads DA........................................................................................................................................................48
Railroads 1NC......................................................................................................................................................49
Railroads 1NC......................................................................................................................................................50
Railroads 1NC......................................................................................................................................................51
Railroads Profitable Now – Coal........................................................................................................................52
Railroads Profitable Now....................................................................................................................................53
AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now.........................................................................................................56
Coal Key to Railroad Profits...............................................................................................................................57
Coal Key to Railroad Profits...............................................................................................................................58
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure..................................................................................................59
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure..................................................................................................60
Profits Key to Railroad Infrastructure..............................................................................................................61
AT: Railroad Profits Resilient.............................................................................................................................62
Infrastructure Key to Solve Derailment............................................................................................................63
Derailment Impact – Nuclear Terrorism...........................................................................................................64
Derailment Impact – Mobile Chernobyl/Dirty Bombs.....................................................................................65
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse..........................................................................................................66
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse..........................................................................................................67
AT: Nuclear Shipments Low...............................................................................................................................68
Derailment Impact – Toxic Chemicals/Environment.......................................................................................69
Turns the Case – Infrastructure Decreases Emissions.....................................................................................70
Turns the Case – Railroads Decrease GHGs.....................................................................................................71
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Key to Readiness.................................................................................................................................72
Railroads Key to the Economy...........................................................................................................................73
Railroads Key to Agriculture..............................................................................................................................77
Railroads Key to Low Food Prices.....................................................................................................................78
Food Prices Impacts – Starvation.......................................................................................................................79
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan..........................................................................................................................80
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan..........................................................................................................................81
Food Prices Impacts – Economy.........................................................................................................................82
AFF AT: Railroads DA........................................................................................................................................83
AFF – Railroads Failing Now.............................................................................................................................84
AFF – Exports Turn.............................................................................................................................................85
AFF AT: Demand Key to Infrastructure............................................................................................................86
AFF AT: Derailment Impact...............................................................................................................................87
AFF AT: Derailment Impact...............................................................................................................................88
Australia DA.........................................................................................................................................................89
Australia 1NC.......................................................................................................................................................90
Australia 1NC.......................................................................................................................................................91
US/Australia Relations High Now......................................................................................................................92
US/Australia Relations High Now......................................................................................................................93
Australia Economy High Now............................................................................................................................94
Australia Economy High Now............................................................................................................................95
Australian Coal Exports High (Asia).................................................................................................................96
US/Australia Competition for Market Share....................................................................................................97
US/Australia Competition for Market Share....................................................................................................98
AT: US Not a Coal Exporter...............................................................................................................................99
AT: Coal Not a World Market..........................................................................................................................100
AT: Coal Not a World Market..........................................................................................................................101
High Coal Prices Good for Australia...............................................................................................................102
Coal Key to Australia’s Economy.....................................................................................................................103
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Economy Key to Relations................................................................................................................................106
AT: Relations Resilient......................................................................................................................................107
AT: Relations Resilient......................................................................................................................................108
Relations Key – Afghanistan Module...............................................................................................................109
Relations Key – Iraq Module............................................................................................................................110
Relations Key – Iraq Module............................................................................................................................111
Relations Key – Deterrence...............................................................................................................................112
Relations Key – Heg...........................................................................................................................................113
Relations Key – Prolif Module..........................................................................................................................114
Relations Key – Prolif Module..........................................................................................................................115
Relations Key – Prolif........................................................................................................................................116
Relations Key – Asian War Module..................................................................................................................117
Relations Key – Terrorism.................................................................................................................................118
Relations Key – Regional Security Module.....................................................................................................119
Relations Key – Regional Security Module.....................................................................................................120
Relations Key – Regional Security...................................................................................................................121
Relations Key – Regional Security...................................................................................................................122
Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts........................................................................................................................123
Relations Key – Failed States............................................................................................................................128
Relations Key – Laundry List...........................................................................................................................129
AT: Relations Bad..............................................................................................................................................130
AFF AT: Australia DA.......................................................................................................................................131
AFF – Australian Economy Low Now..............................................................................................................132
AFF – Australian Economy Low Now..............................................................................................................133
AFF – Relations Resilient..................................................................................................................................134
AFF – Relations Resilient..................................................................................................................................135
AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Regional Security.........................................................................136
AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Security.........................................................................................137
AFF – AT: Relations Solve Taiwan War...........................................................................................................138
Clean Coal DA....................................................................................................................................................139
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Clean Coal 1NC..................................................................................................................................................140
Clean Coal 1NC..................................................................................................................................................141
Clean Coal Coming Now...................................................................................................................................142
AT: Clean Coal not Feasible..............................................................................................................................146
AT: Clean Coal a Long Way Off.......................................................................................................................147
AT: Clean Coal Construction Costs Kill Transition.......................................................................................148
Clean Coal Solves Climate Change .................................................................................................................149
Clean Coal Solves Climate Change..................................................................................................................150
AT: No Room for Carbon Storage....................................................................................................................153
AT: Clean Coal Technology won’t Spill Over..................................................................................................154
AT: Clean Coal Technology Won’t Spill Over.................................................................................................155
Clean Coal Solves Oil Depletion.......................................................................................................................156
Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence............................................................................................................157
Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence............................................................................................................158
Energy Dependence Impact..............................................................................................................................159
Clean Coal Solves Competitiveness..................................................................................................................160
Coal Key to the Economy..................................................................................................................................161
Coal Key to the Economy..................................................................................................................................162
Clean Coal Solves Pollution..............................................................................................................................163
Clean Coal Solves Acid Rain.............................................................................................................................164
AT: Clean Coal Doesn’t Solve Sulphur............................................................................................................165
Clean Coal Solves Hydrogen.............................................................................................................................166
AT: Coal Will Run Out......................................................................................................................................167
AT: Coal Will Run Out......................................................................................................................................168
CP – Clean Coal Incentives Solve.....................................................................................................................169
AFF AT: Clean Coal DA....................................................................................................................................170
AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now................................................................................................................171
AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now................................................................................................................172
AFF – Clean Coal Impossible...........................................................................................................................173
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Clean Coal Impossible...........................................................................................................................174
AFF – Clean Coal Far Away.............................................................................................................................175
AFF – Clean Coal Far Away.............................................................................................................................176
AFF AT: Clean Coal Solves Warming..............................................................................................................177
AFF – Clean Coal Kills the Economy...............................................................................................................178
AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution.................................................................................................................179
AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution.................................................................................................................180
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal UQ and LX (For all 3 DAs)
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Prices High Now
Despite recent shocks, prices remain high
Alex Wilson, Staff Writer, Dow Jones, 7-3-08, Posted on the Australian Business,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23963477-5005200,00.html, Junaid
Market commentators also said prices in Asia were set to stay high with all the indicators pointing to ongoing tightness in the
market. The Newcastle spot coal price fell sharply today, following on from a 20 per cent drop in spot thermal coal prices in
Europe overnight, sparking heavy selling in Australian coal stocks. However the price drop is only a partial retracement of
gains seen in recent weeks when the spot coal price surged ahead of the recently agreed contract prices for Asian buyers of
$US125 a metric tonne, and appears to be a temporary reversal. Brendan Harris, mining analyst at Macquarie, said the coal
market remains tight with prices set to stay high and the pullback overnight would not be prompting him to downgrade
earnings for the Australian miners he covers.
Coal Prices soaring- demand

Tom Fletcher, Staff Writer, BC Local News, 7-14-08, http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/25412649.html, Junaid
B.C.'s coal industry came off a weak 2007 with prices more than doubling so far this year for all types of coal, and that trend is
expected to continue. The price of metallurgical coal, used in steel production, is forecast to rise from an average $85 per tonne
in 2007 to $198 this year, according to BC Stats. For the highest-grade metallurgical coal, B.C. producers have signed some
contracts for more than $300 per tonne. Despite coal's high concentration of carbon and particulate emissions, demand from
steel-producing countries Japan, South Korea, Brazil, China and India has driven up prices. B.C. coal also benefited from
supply problems including flooded mines in Australia, safety-related mine closures in Russia and heavy snowfall in Chinese
coal production areas.
Despite drops, prices are high

Bloomberg, 7-14-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aR42fKuwDfXA&refer=australia, Junaid
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Thermal coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, fell for the first time in 12
weeks, dropping 3.5 percent from a record. The weekly index for power-station coal prices at the New South Wales port
declined $6.79 to $188 a metric ton in the period ended July 11, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The index last
week rose to a sixth consecutive record, reaching $194.79 a ton. ``The market is signaling the upward momentum is probably
easing from here,'' Mark Pervan, senior commodity analyst at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., said today in
Melbourne. ``When you get well over historical highs, the market is trying to find a ceiling price, and we may have found that
last week.''
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Asian countries’ demand maintains high coal prices
Seeking Alpha, Stock Market Analysis site, July 03, 2008, “Rising Asian Demand Keeps Coal Prices Inflated, Energy
Stocks: Coal” http://seekingalpha.com/article/83756-rising-asian-demand-keeps-coal-prices-inflated [Bapodra]
In May, China reverted to being a net coal importer, with imports exceeding exports by 250,000 metric tonnes, as local output
failed to keep pace with demand. Between January fiscal ‘08 and May fiscal ‘08, China’s coal exports fell 4.1 per cent on year,
to 18.5 million tonnes.
Vietnam said today it will reduce its coal exports by 10 million tonnes or 31 per cent this year to meet growing domestic
demand. Currently a major coal exporter in the region, Vietnam has said it plans to progressively reduce its exports until 2015
when it plans to halt them altogether, as it redirects coal to domestic electricity generation to power its booming economy.
It is not surprising to see volatility in the coal market, but analysts believe the fundamentals will support prices at very strong
levels into 2009. Yes, spot coal prices could ease in coming months, but infrastructure constraints in Australia (Australia is the
world’s largest supplier of sea-borne coal) and rising demand in Asia are likely to keep a high floor on prices.
Prices will rise due to soaring demand

Reuters, 3-3-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKSYD20866820080303, Junaid
SYDNEY, March 4 (Reuters) - Asian demand for thermal coal is expected to rise 6.3 percent this year, underpinned by soaring
power demand from China and India, an Australian government report said on Tuesday, adding prices were likely to keep
rising. The Australian Bureau for Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) said demand for imported coal in Asia would
rise by 23 million tonnes this year to 390.9 million tonnes, upgraded from a December forecast for 361.4 million tonnes.
"Several countries, including India, China, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, have advanced plans to increase coal-fired
electricity generation capacity to meet growing power demand," ABARE said in its quarterly report.
Cost of coal has been shooting up

SABC News, 7-18-08, http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172,173443,00.html, Junaid
Eskom has reported a significant decline in its profit before tax for the year ending in March, mainly because of the price of
coal and diesel. Profits fell from R6.5 billion last year to R3.2 billion. The utility says the costs of diesel and coal have
increased by 40% during the period under review. However, revenue rose to R44.4bn from R40bn the previous year. Despite
the approval of a 27% electricity hike that Eskom received, the company says its problems are far from over. Coal costs
increased by R5 billion for the period. Coal is used to generate almost 80% of Eskom's electricity. The utility is currently
sitting on R7.5 billion rand in unrecoverable expenditure. And due to electricity supply constraints, some power stations are
running above capacity, pushing-up the demand for additional coal. Eskom's CEO Jacob Maroga says the company is currently
using 21% of short-term coal contracts compared to 2% in 2001.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal costs have been consistently rising
Blooomberg, 7-7-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aRcgAZrZVGcI&ref
er=australia, Junaid
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Thermal coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, rose 13 percent to a record for a
sixth week amid reduced supplies of the fuel. The weekly index for power-station coal prices at the port in New South Wales
state gained $22.69 to $194.79 a metric ton in the week ended July 4, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The volume
shipped in the week ended 7 a.m. local time today fell 17 percent to 1.7 million metric tons from 2.06 million tons a week
earlier, Newcastle Port Corp. said today on its Web site. Australian producers, the world's largest exporters of the fuel, are
switching output to semi-soft coal from thermal coal to take advantage of higher prices, reducing supply of power station coal,
Mark Pervan, a senior commodity strategist with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Melbourne, said today by
phone. ``That is tightening the thermal coal market; you are basically taking thermal coal supplies out of the market,'' Pervan
said. ``That is an additional squeeze on the market so it is no surprise we are seeing these higher prices.'' The weekly
globalCOAL index is up 46 percent since the start of May. The monthly index gained 18 percent to $163.68 a ton in June, from
$138.31 the previous month.
Demand is pushing prices

Blooomberg, 7-7-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aRcgAZrZVGcI&ref
Thermal coal prices will remain at record levels into next year as power stations demand more of the fuel and railroad and port
bottlenecks in Australia and South Africa limit supply, Preston Chiaro, the head of Rio Tinto Group's energy unit, said June 6.
``We have seen the bulk of the gains; we are now at a point where it is going to struggle to push much higher,'' ANZ's Pervan
said of the current Newcastle spot price. `Ì think $194 a ton is getting pretty close to the upper limits.''
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Demand High Now
High price of oil driving demand for coal
Mineweb, “Atlantic Coal releases final results,” Company Releases, 7/17/2008,
Anthracite coal, washed and sized into eight products, is sold into the domestic heating and industrial markets. Domestic
heating market demand remains robust and commands the highest prices. Coal is sold to dealers for final delivery to
households utilizing coal as a primary or secondary heating fuel. The north eastern states of the US consume
approximately 85% of total USA fuel oil used for heat. As the price of fuel oil has escalated unabated, demand for
anthracite coal as a primary fuel for heating has surged. This demand is further bolstered by the substantial increase in
shipments of hand fired coal stoves into the market. The weighted average selling price for this segment of the market was
$130 per tonne. It remains an attractive and dynamic segment of the market. Industrial market consumption is
concentrated on steel producers using anthracite as a carbon additive in their melting shop operations. Steel
production continues at high levels with concomitant demand for coal. The high quality of Mammoth seam anthracite
mined by SCG creates a superior high fixed carbon product for the steel market. These very characteristics also make our coal
desirable for use in ore reduction processes with potential future demand by this segment. Industrial markets are price
competitive with the weighted average selling price.
Demand for coal is coming back

Bob Reynolds, Staff Writer, WNEP News Station, 7-9-08,
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=8649997&nav=menu158_1, Junaid
Coal is making a big comeback in some areas. That means more jobs and more demand for certain products that bring with
them lower fuel costs. Pete Onuskanich of Pottsville showed off his new coal-fired furnace in his Pottsville home. The high
cost of home heating oil pushed Onuskanich to invest $5,000 for the furnace and the installation. Having a coal unit takes a
little more effort, loading the coal and taking out the ashes. "Go to coal. It's a lot cheaper, maybe a little bit of work but if
you're that lazy there's nothing I can do about it," Onuskanich said.
Coal Demand boom likely to last

Reuters, 6-26-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626m, Junaid
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand
and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of
Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-
bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of
expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic
growth that is driving persistent coal demand.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Demand High Now
Coal Demand has reached record levels
AP, Associated Press, 7-27-08, Posted on CNN,
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/fe0a5d47eda58198fd91b624f9c62b79.htm, Junaid
NEW YORK (Associated Press) - International demand is leading coal prices to near-record levels. Weather-related disruptions
and other global supply problems have shined a spotlight on U.S. miners. Calyon Securities analyst Gordon Howald says
despite their meteoric rise, coal shares have room to grow. He recommends taking advantage of pull-backs to snap up what he
calls strong players like Arch Coal Inc. and Foundation Coal Holdings. He raised his rating on the two to "add" from "neutral."
Howald raised his target on Peabody Energy Corp. to $88 from $66. He predicts prices for coal, like other commodities, will
climb through next year. The price of coal used in steel production is booming and steam coal, used in boilers to produce
electricity, could gain even more as utilities renew annual contracts with customers. Demand could also rise if the summer is
unusually warm, he says.
Demand is sky high

Bloomberg, 10-30-07, Posted on Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/29/bloomberg/sxcoal.php, Junaid
Energy coal prices at the port of Newcastle, Australia, the world's biggest export harbor for the fuel, rose 1.3 percent to a record
on expectations of supply shortages in Asia and a disruption to deliveries from a Queensland State mine. Coal for immediate
delivery at Newcastle rose 96 cents to $76.95 a metric ton in the week ended last Friday, according to the globalCOAL NEWC
Index. The previous all-time high was $76.16 reached two weeks ago. Supply has struggled to meet demand this year because
of bottlenecks in producer countries like Australia and South Africa, and as China became a net importer of coal for the first
time. Anglo American, the world's second-biggest mining company, last week declared force majeure on shipments from the
Dawson mine in Queensland. "It's the expectations that demand continues to outpace supply so the market is in deficit; it's
about people's perceptions of what is around the corner," Rory Simington, a senior coal analyst at AME Mineral Economics in
Sydney, said of the record price. "We're coming into a period of higher demand, winter is approaching, and people are
wondering where the additional supply is going to come from."
High demand in the future- Asian imports

EIA, Energy Information Administration, Jan 2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html, Junaid
Australia is one of the few countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that
is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied
natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both
coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and
LNG).
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
US Coal Demand High Now
US coal demand high
WSJ, Wall Street Journal, June 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426607541798571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj,
Junaid
U.S. coal producers have been largely unable to meet growing demand because of a lengthy permitting process, lack of capital
investment and a shortage of skilled miners, which will keep supplies tight and prices high. The underlying industrywide issues
are compounded by severe floods in the Midwest, which have stranded barges full of coal and submerged railcars used to haul
coal. It isn't clear what impact those interruptions will have on supplies and prices. Paul Forward, a coal analyst with Stifel,
Nicolaus & Co., expects demand for coal in the U.S. to outstrip supply this year by 15 million tons, in large part because of the
increase in exports, which shot up 49% through April compared with last year. Constraints to production also played a role in
the growing shortfall, he said.
Coal is in high demand in the US- low cost alternative

Richard Heinberg, Staff Writer, Global Public Media, 5-28-08,
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states, Junaid
The sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and perhaps also natural gas)
consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel
in the best case, and America is being forced to use ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US
coal while meeting EIA forecasts for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly 80 percent
more coal then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal are
implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount of energy for society’s use,
since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to 40 percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic
liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues,
this would stimulate demand even further. Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a
tripling, of US coal demand and production by 2030—which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current
mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time.
US coal consumption is high and growing

Association of American Railroads, 10/07,
http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx
U.S. coal production and consumption will almost certainly continue to grow. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2007,
released in January 2007, the EIA projects 1.5 percent average annual growth in U.S coal production through 2025, due
mainly to increasing coal use for electricity generation. Assuming no major changes in emissions legislation, Western
coal production is forecast to increase far more quickly than interior production; Appalachian production is forecast to fall
slightly.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
US Coal Demand High
Coal remains in high demand
Kirby Lee Davis, Staff Writer, Journal Record, 3-12-08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20080312/ai_n24936262, Junaid
"The cost of electricity is driven by a large part on the percent of coal used to generate it," said Craft, defending his industry's
performance and interests while linking future gross domestic product growth to a continued abundance of inexpensive
electricity. "Coal remains the low-cost alternative." Craft said electrical power generation by coal-fueled plants rose 50 percent
last year to 3.9 billion kilowatts per hour. Federal government projections estimate that will grow to 4.9 billion kilowatts by
2030, with improved sulfur removal technologies allowing the coal-fired market share to hit 57 percent. Coal usage is projected
to rise 48 percent over that period, he said, comprising the majority of power generation. Renewable sources would increase 60
percent, he said, while nuclear power generation would climb 19 percent and petroleum sources 9 percent.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Renewables Links – Coal
Alternative Energy will replace coal – tops experts agree <Note: already in the
Australia 1NC>
Ethan Goffman, politics correspondent, 6/17/08 (“Renewable Energy Likely to Overtake Oil And Coal Sooner than You Think”
Gather, <http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977375141&nav=Namespace> )
Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute panel
(Tipping Point). Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and other
renewable energies, such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains that we are at
an amazing moment in the history of energy, a transformational moment, driven by historic high energy costs, concern about
climate change, and the worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are likely to replace oil
and gas sooner rather than later. Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the scope and import of this
expansion are severely under-reported, according to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric Martinot. Investment in new
renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007 and continues to exceed expectations. Government policy has been a key driver,
Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable energy. If current policies supporting renewable energy are simply maintained,
he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable. Venture capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment,
explains that the implications of current growth are far bigger than people think. Conventional energy use is growing only
incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth of renewable energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed. Conventional
thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually unchallenged, is all wrong, according to Liebreich. This is because the big curve
upward of renewable energy will inevitably beat the little curve of conventional energy.
Alternative Energy shafts coal – World Energy Council Agrees

Ingvar B. Fridleifsson, United Nations University—Geothermal Training Programm, 12/03 “Status of geothermal energy amongst
the world's energy sources” Geothermics Volume 32, Issues 4-6, Science Direct, )
The World Energy Council (WEC) has presented several scenarios for meeting the future energy requirements, with varying
emphases on economic growth rates, technological progress, environmental protection and international equity. All the scenarios
provide for substantial social and economic development, particularly in the developing countries. They provide for improved energy
efficiencies and environmental compatibility. During 1990–2050, the primary energy consumption is expected to increase by some
50% according to the most environmentally conscious scenario, and by some 275% according to the highest growth rate scenario. In
the environmental scenario, the carbon emissions are expected to decrease slightly from 1990 levels. The high growth rate scenario is
expected to lead to a doubling of the carbon emissions ([Nakicenovic et al., 1998]). The scarcity of energy resources forecasted in the
1970s did not occur. With technological and economic development, estimates of the ultimately available energy resource base
continue to increase. Economic development over the next century will apparently not be constrained by geological resources.
Environmental concerns, financing, and technological constraints appear more likely to limit future development. In all WEC
scenarios, the peak of the fossil fuel era has already passed. Oil and gas are expected to continue to be important sources of energy
in all cases, but the role of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy varies widely in these scenarios as does the level to
which these energy sources replace coal. In all the scenarios, the renewables are expected to become very significant
contributors to the world primary energy consumption, providing 20–40% of the primary energy in 2050 and 30–80% in 2100.
They are expected to cover a large part of the increase in energy consumption and to replace coal.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Renewables Links – Coal
Renewable energy replaces coal within a few years
Moreland Energy Foundation – No Date (“Renewable energy can replace coal!” <
http://www.mefl.com.au/documents/MW_renewable_baseload.pdf.>
The short answer is yes. There are many sources of renewable energy which can already provide strong and steady electricity to
supply our baseload needs as well as our peak demand. In order to make this happen, we must start scaling up our installation of
renewable energy, develop a broad range of renewable energy technologies, and combine investment in renewable energy with strong
programs to save energy. By doing these three things on a large-scale, within a few years we could start turning off the most
polluting coal-fired power stations and replacing them either with megawatts of power produced by renewable energy, or ‘nega-
watts’ of power saved by cutting energy waste.
Coal will be relied upon until we develop large-scale alternative energy

sources
Eric McLamb is the president of Ecology Communications and went to the University of North Carolina at Capitol Hill, “Fossils
Fuels vs. Renewable Energy Resources: Energy's Future Today” Ecology: Global Network, No Date
http://www.ecology.com/features/fossilvsrenewable/fossilvsrenewable.html
The oil, coal and natural gas companies know these are serious problems. But until our renewable energy sources become
more viable as major energy providers, the only the alternative for our global population is for these companies to
continue tapping into the fossil fuel reserves to meet our energy needs. And, you can pretty much count on these companies
being there providing energy from renewable sources when the fossil fuels are depleted. Many oil companies, for example, are
involved in the development of more reliable renewable energy technologies. For example, British Petroleum Company, today
known as BP, has become one of the world's leading providers of solar energy through its BP Solar division, a business that
they are planning on eclipsing their oil production business in the near future.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Renewables Links – Clean Coal
Renewable energy tradesoff with clean coal – its more cost effective, DOE studies prove
David Sassoon, starter of Solve Climate, 2/1/08 (“DOE Report: Renewables Currently Cheaper Than "Clean" Coal” Solve Climate
– Blog <http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080131/doe-report-renewables-currently-cheaper-clean-coal> Rab)
Renewable energy is currently cheaper than clean coal. The DOE proves it in three easy steps. Step 1 (page 5) The overall
goal of the Carbon Sequestration Program is to develop, by 2012, fossil fuel conversion systems that achieve 90 percent CO2
capture with 99 percent storage permanence at less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of energy services. Step 2 (page 9)
It is believed that a 10 percent cost of electricity (COE) increase would significantly reduce impact to the economy. This level
will also enable fossil fuel systems with CO2 capture and sequestration to compete with other power generation options to
reduce the GHG intensity of energy supply, including wind, biomass, and nuclear power. Presumably, then, DOE believes if you
increase the cost of electricity from coal more than 10%, it can no longer compete with alternatives. (Okay, so they omitted solar
and included nuclear, but hang on.) Step 3 (page 17-18) Preliminary analysis…indicates…that CO2 capture….could raise the cost
of electricity from a new supercritical PC power plant by 65%, from 5.0 cents/kWh to 8.25 cents/kWh. Analysis….show that CO2
capture and compression raises…..the cost of electricity from a newly built IGCC power plant by 30%, from an average of 7.8
cents/kWh to 10.2 cents/kWh. So they've got until 2012, according to their plan, the bring the cost of clean coal technology
down. Way down. Let's see. They pulled the plug on FutureGen a couple of days ago because of ballooning costs. The Bush
administration, in a major policy reversal, canceled its support for a planned $1.8 billion coal-gasification plant that was
supposed to herald a new era of emissions-free power but instead has been plagued by huge cost overruns. Clean energy is moving
in the opposite direction.
Renewables tradeoff with Clean Coal

Northern Territory News, 11/7/07 “ALP 'ignores' clean coal,” p. Lexis
RESOURCES Minister Ian Macfarlane says Labor has ignored clean coal in its energy strategy to gain Greens preferences.
Visiting the coal export region of Hay Point in central Queensland yesterday, Mr Macfarlane said it was important to invest in
renewable energy, but just as important to develop low emission fossil fuels such as clean coal. ''By including only renewables
in its energy target, Labor has placed clean coal technology at a huge competitive disadvantage at a critical stage in its
development,'' Mr Macfarlane said. ''Labor is picking winners to win Green preferences, and has decided against supporting
efforts to clean up our number one energy source, coal.''
Other Renewables tradeoff with clean coal

The Courier Mail, 7/25/05, “Generation glut a concern,” p. Lexis
INCREASING demand for electricity would support a swarm of expensive plans for providing power, industry watchers say.
But the financial feasibility of projects will prove critical and some say government renewable energy targets will impact on
any potential glut of proposals. Numerous competing proposals for generating or supplying power have hit the market, ranging
from clean coal technology to geothermal energy to a gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Cap and Trade Links – Clean Coal
Cap and trade will stop clean coal technology in its tracks
Lawrence Kudlow, former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company,
5/29/2008, Coal-Cap Disaster, Creators Syndicate, http://www.creators.com/opinion/lawrence-kudlow/coal-cap-disaster.html
Let that idea sink in. By pulling the plug on half of our current electricity production, cap-and-trade will risk a massive
undermining of the American economy, as well as our future economic and national security.
The coal story is so important simply because the United States has massively undeveloped coal resources. With 27 percent of
the world's coal reserves estimated at 270 billion tons, the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And yet cap-and-trade
would destroy this critical sector. New coal technologies being developed right now wouldn't even be allowed to flourish under
cap-and-trade. Synthetic-fuel-developed coal, through the Fisher-Tropsch technology, is a proven gas-to-liquid process that
sequesters coal carbon. It could power the American economy for generations. Rentech Corp. is already using this process to
create an ultra-low carbon and sulfur liquid that can be easily adapted to all our transportation needs. According to the ESS
Environmental company, other chemical-based technologies that produce virtually no carbon emissions also could be used. But
the great risk is that cap-and-trade will stop these technologies dead in the water, right in their tracks. That would be a tragedy.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Credit Trading Link – Coal
Credit trading sends a signal mandatory reductions are coming – this
decimates coal
Marlo Lewis, Sr. Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 27, 2004, Et Tu, Edison?,
http://cei.org/gencon/019,03981.cfm
Coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel (CO2 emissions per unit of energy obtained from coal are nearly 80 percent higher than
those from natural gas and about 35 percent higher than those from gasoline).[4] Consequently, Kyoto-type policies can easily
decimate coal as a fuel source for electric power generation. For example, according to EIA’s analysis, the McCain-Lieberman
bill would reduce U.S. coal-fired electric generation in 2025 by 80 percent—from 2,803 billion kilowatt hours to 560 billion
kilowatt hours.[5] A transferable credit program will send a political signal that mandatory reductions are in the offing and,
hence, that coal’s days are numbered. As environmental lawyer William Pedersen observes, the Administration’s plan to
develop “company-by-company greenhouse emissions accounts” makes little sense “except as a step towards legally binding
controls.” Indeed, why would firms go to the trouble and expense of earning offsets applicable to a future regulatory program
“unless they believed such a program was coming?”[6] DOE cannot issue or certify early credits without ratifying the opinion,
tirelessly asserted by green groups, that some form of carbon regulation is “inevitable.” Anticipating such constraints, many
companies will make plans to switch from coal to natural gas. That, in turn, will put additional pressure on already tight natural
gas supplies.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
RPS Links – Coal
RPS dramatically reduces coal demand.
EIA, 09-07, EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/eeim/execsummary.html
The RPS causes a dramatic shift away from coal and natural gas to renewable fuels, particularly biomass and wind.
Coal-fired electricity generation in the Policy Case is 938 billion kilowatthours (28 percent) lower in 2030 than in the
Reference Case. Natural-gas-fired generation is 99 billion kilowatthours (11 percent) lower in 2030. Generation from nuclear
power is 80 billion kilowatthours (9 percent) lower in 2030.
RPS decreases coal prices

EIA, 06-07, EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html
The shift away from coal to renewable fuels, together with the costs of retail electricity sellers holding RPS credits, affects
electricity prices. In 2030, EIA projects the national average electricity price with the RPS to be 2 percent higher than in the
reference case, i.e., 8.2 cents per kilowatthour with the RPS compared to 8.1 cents per kilowatthour in the reference case. By
2030, prices for natural gas and coal, two key fuels for the electric power sector, are lower with the RPS than in the reference
case.
RPS reduces coal demand and prices

Renewable Energy World, 06-17-07, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ rea/news/infocus/story?id=48961
The increased use of renewable sources in the RPS case leads to lower coal generation. Nuclear and natural gas generation are
also lowered to a lesser degree.
Relative to the reference case, retail electricity prices rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS
case. Reduced demand for coal and natural gas in the RPS case results in slightly lower prices for these fuels by 2030 when
compared to reference case projections.
RPS trades off with coal – proven several states

Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director, and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 (“Renewing America
The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES
Report No. 01-07 Pg 11 < http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper
_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf> )
• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.

In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS would
lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like Michigan,
New York, Virginia, and Texas.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
RPS Links – Coal
RPS devastates the coal industry
Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director, and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 (“Renewing America
The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES
Report No. 01-07 Pg 44 < http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper? >
Some studies have also begun to document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. In
Pennsylvania, for example, where more than 90 percent of electricity comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by
Black & Veatch concluded an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel consumption, lowering the
price of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil
fuel prices would lead to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel expenditures for the state.
Projected demands will prioritize coal usage now; RPS would displace the coal industry
Alan Nogee et al , Clean Energy Program Director with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 4/23/07 (Jeff Deyette, Energy
Analyst with UCS, and Steve Clemmer, Research Director for UCS’ Clean Energy Program, “The Projected Impacts of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard” The Electricity Journal Volume 20, Issue 4, Science Direct, >
Under the business as usual scenario (AEO 2004), the United States increases its dependence on coal and natural gas in order to
meet a projected 30 percent increase in demand for electricity from 2005 to 2020 (Figure 2). Non-hydro renewable energy use
nearly doubles between 2005 and 2020, mostly as a result of existing state RPS policies and the increasing ability of wind power to be
cost competitive with conventional energy sources. However, the total contribution from non-hydro renewable energy increases from
2.4 percent to just 3.5 percent during that same period.24
Renewable energy diversifies the energy portfolio by meeting a much larger portion of U.S. electricity demand under a 20
percent national RPS (UCS assumptions). By 2020, non-hydro renewable energy accounts for 15.5 percent of total electric power
generation (Figure 3).25 In the earlier years of the forecast, the increased renewable energy generation displaces more natural gas.
In the latter years, as coal generation begins to compete with more expensive natural gas, renewable energy generation
displaces more coal. However, new growth in both coal and natural gas are still needed under the RPS to meet the projected
increase in energy demand by consumers. By 2020, nearly two-thirds of the increase in coal generation projected under business
as usual is displaced as a result of the new renewable energy generation.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
RPS Links – Coal
Tradable RPS decreases coal generation
Energy Information Administration 6/06 (“Energy Market Impacts of a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard” Department of
Energy, < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/emice/pdf/sroiaf2006(02).pdf> )
This report responds to a request from Senator Norm Coleman that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyze a proposed
clean energy resources policy. The proposal, a copy of which is provided in Appendix B, requires retail electric suppliers to
account for an increasing fraction of incremental sales growth with clean energy resources, including nonhydro renewable
resources, new hydroelectric or nuclear resources, fuel cells, or an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant that sequesters its
carbon emissions. Electric suppliers may also comply by purchasing tradable clean energy generation credits from other
generators or by purchasing credits from the Federal government at a clean energy credit price of 2 cents per kilowatthour.
Irrespective of the incremental target over the 3-year baseline sales period, suppliers are not required to hold credits in excess of 10
percent of their total prior-year sales in any year. Electric suppliers with less than 500,000 megawatthours of sales are exempt from the
requirements. This analysis is based on the reference case from the Annual Energy Outlook 2006.
The key findings include:
• In aggregate, through 2019, the proposal does not induce any significant carbon-free generation above reference case levels because
enough qualifying resources are built in the reference case to meet the Clean Energy Portfolio Standard (CEPS) targets. Reference
case growth in renewable and nuclear generation is large enough to comply with the targets in those years. Sixty percent of the
required clean energy generation in 2030 is achieved in the reference case.
• In the last 10 years of the projections, additional nuclear and renewable generation is stimulated, and the clean energy target levels
are achieved without the purchase of government-issued clean energy credits.
• In 2020 CEPS credits are projected to begin trading at just below 1 cent (2004 dollars) per kilowatthour. Over the next few years, the
credit price hovers just above 1 cent per kilowatthour before declining to between 0.3 and 0.5 cents per kilowatthour in the last 5 years
of the projections as competing fossil fuel prices rise.
• Almost 43 percent of the qualifying generation in 2030 is from new nuclear facilities (210 billion kilowatthours out of a requirement
of 489 billion kilowatthours). Biomass (118 billion kilowatthours) and wind (90 billion kilowatthours) also provide substantial
compliance generation. Other compliance generation comes from geothermal (42 billion kilowatthours), landfill gas (33 billion
kilowatthours), and solar (6 billion kilowatthours).
• The increase in carbon-free generation leads to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2030, coal generation is reduced by
over 5 percent, and natural gas generation is reduced by 2 percent from their respective reference case levels.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
RPS Links – Clean Coal
RPS Excludes the usage of clean coal which discourages its development and use
R. Bruce Josten, Executive vice president of government affairs in the chamber of commerce, 6/15/07, letter to Reps. John D
Dingell and Rick Boucher,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)
II. Portfolio Inclusions and Exclusions: Which energy sources should be included in an RPS; should there be a tiered” system
for eligibility, and should there be adistinction between new and existing sources; should there be credits for useful thermal
energy from eligible resources; and should energy efficiency be considered, and, if so, how. One of the major drawbacks to
current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.” Clean,
safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been excluded
from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and
losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does
not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage
energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while
others benefit.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
PTC Links – Coal
Unique Link – Coal plants are set to grow, permanent tax credits substantially weaken the coal industry
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Ways & Means, 5/07 (“Analysis of Alternative Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit
for Wind Generator” Energy Information Administration < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/> )
In the reference case, coal-fired plants are expected to grow as the primary source of electricity, increasing from 50 percent of
total supply in 2005 to 57 percent in 2030. Both nuclear and natural gas plants provided 19 percent of total generation in 2005, but
their 2030 shares of generation are projected to fall to 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively. While both technologies show a gradual
growth in capacity over the forecast horizon, their shares decline because this growth is smaller than the corresponding increase in
total electricity generation. In the reference case, wind generation is expected to more than triple over this 25-year period, although the
share of total generation remains below 1 percent through 2030. Compared to the reference case, a five-year extension of the full
PTC for wind facilities increases their generation in 2030 by almost 40 percent. The 1.5 cent tax credit has a nearly identical
effect. In these cases, the share of total generation from wind is approximately 1.2 percent by 2030. A five-year extension with a
reduced PTC of 1 cent per kilowatthour is not expected to result in additional wind power than what is projected under business-as-
usual conditions
A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference case, a
permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would more than triple 2030 generation from wind plants. With a
similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour, wind generation in 2030 would still more than double
relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0 cent per kilowatthour would increase wind generation
by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit amount extension case, wind generation at the end of
the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation projected to come from wind facilities in 2030 with a
permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour PTC to 3 percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour
credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged. Therefore, the additional generation from wind
displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of
generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from
dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual
forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a
similar effect on coal generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the
additional wind generation is at the expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels
that are above reference case levels result in a dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent
extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity
generated from coal. Even in this case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Wind Links – Coal
Wind Power would tradeoff with coal if backed by government incentives
MSNBC 8/23/01 (“Replace dirty coal with the wind, engineers say” < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071926> )
Wind power is now cheaper than coal and could become a leading source of electricity with the right political support and
investment, researchers said Thursday. The Stanford engineers calculated that building some 225,000 wind turbines across the
country would be expensive — at an initial cost of $338 billion — but that the payback would include a huge drop in emissions tied to
global warming. “There is no reason not to invest in wind at this point,” said Mark Jacobson, a Sanford University professor of
environmental engineering. “Wind is so obviously cheaper if we look at total costs.” Writing in the journal Science, Jacobson and
Stanford colleague Gilbert Masters calculated that wind-generated energy costs 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Coal power is priced
around there as well, but if you factor in the indirect health and environmental costs the price is more like 5.5 to 8.3 cents per kilowatt
hour, the engineers calculated. The researchers also noted that coal dust kills 2,000 U.S. mine workers annually and has cost taxpayers
about $35 billion in monetary and medical benefits to former miners since 1973. Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the National
Mining Association, acknowledged that coal mining has an environmental impact, but said “we are all working toward a goal of
reducing emissions and have made tremendous strides in reducing emissions in the past 30 years since the Clean Air Act.” Critics of
wind power argue that the turbines — which look like giant propellers — have been linked to the accidental deaths of migratory birds
that get caught inside the propeller blades, and that the turbines take up a tremendous amount of space. But Jacobson said these
problems could be avoided by selecting sites out of migration paths and by paying farmers to put them on their land. “Wind has trivial
health and environmental problems associated with it in comparison with coal,” Jacobson said. Although wind power is the fastest
growing source of energy in the world, the United States has been slow to use it because coal is so cheap and wind has received
no government incentives, Jacobson said. Wind power provides the United States with less than 1 percent of its energy, compared to
52 percent from coal, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Analysts say the U.S. market will see 1,500 megawatts of new
wind power installed by the end of the year. For America to catch up with major wind power nations such as Germany, Spain and
Denmark, political backing by the Bush administration and Congress is essential, Jacobson said. In order to build more wind
farms in the United States, lawmakers must be willing to offer the same investment opportunities and tax incentives given to
the more established coal, gas and oil industries, he added. The energy bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this
month focuses heavily on boosting domestic oil, coal and natural gas production, doing far less to promote wind power as an energy
source. The Senate, still working on its version of the energy legislation, is virtually certain to focus on conservation and energy
efficiency. The authors added that a massive campaign to build turbines, while costly, would have an additional payback: a sharp drop
in carbon dioxide emissions, one of the gases that many scientists fear are warming Earth by trapping heat via a greenhouse effect. If
around 225,000 turbines were built, Jacobson noted, it would cost an initial $338 billion with a minimum of $4 billion annually for
maintenance. But doing so would eliminate almost two-thirds of coal-generated electricity and thereby reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to below 1990 levels, the authors estimated.
A boost in wind power would decrease coal usage and deter the development of new coal technology
Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, 5/13/08 (“Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says” Washington Post,
Lexis, )
The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation
needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption. But in a
report drawn up by its national laboratories, the department said that meeting the target would require more improvements in
turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines, an expansion of the wind industry and a fivefold increase in the pace of
wind-turbine installation. The report said a boost in wind capacity to 20 percent of electricity generation "could potentially defer
the need to build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated carbon emissions." The department said that
expanding the use of wind to generate power could avert a need for more than 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating
capacity; its current projections say that new coal-fired plants capable of producing about 140 gigawatts of power could be built by
2030 to meet rising demand.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Wind Links - Coal
Wind Power reduces the need for coal
Climate Protection Agency 2/27/06 (“Replace Coal with Wind” <
http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2006/02/replace_coal_wi.html> )
Can wind power replace coal in the US for generating electricity? The answer is YES, and it can be done more cost-effectively
than using nuclear. The US generates about half of its electricity using coal-fired power plants. Combustion of coal accounts for 37%
of US greenhouse gas emissions overall, and 81% of emissions in the electricity sector. These coal plants will have to be shut down
or replaced with other non-emitting electric power generation technologies. Efficiency improvements can take us a long way
toward reducing the need for these coal plants. However, the power produced by these plants provides so-called "baseload" power,
which will need to be generated by other sources.
Farmers would shift to wind

New York Times 10/20/07 (“Fight Against Coal Plants Draws Diverse Partners” Lexis)
For many farmers and ranchers, their aversion to coal is more pragmatic than philosophical. Their crops and livestock have been
plagued by severe droughts and storms lately, and some wonder whether those are linked to global warming. Whether that proves to
be the case, the strain on their finances has made them more interested in renewable-energy projects, like wind turbines, on their
land. Janyce and Leonard Harms, who grow wheat and millet in Hereford, Colo., near the Wyoming and Nebraska borders, last year
agreed to allow eight towering wind turbines on their land. The turbines are part of the new 274-turbine Cedar Creek wind farm owned
by BP, the huge energy company, and Babcock & Brown. The project is expected to churn out electricity for some 90,000 homes,
mostly near Denver. The Harmses, though a bit skeptical about coal plants, have not become involved in any battles. But they typify
the fascination with wind energy that is sweeping rural America. They have received about $5,000 from the wind farm’s owners
for leasing their land, and once the wind farm is fully operational by year’s end, they will receive at least $3,500 a year per turbine.
“We’re not environmentalists by any means,” Ms. Harms said as she gazed through her sliding glass door at the huge turbines
spinning in the distance. “I see this as supplemental income. We’re getting older and we’d like to retire. This is a great deal, and the
fact that it’s clean energy makes it even better.”
Wind would replace coal due to carbon dioxide emissions

David Keith, Adjunct Professor Department of EPP at Carnegie Mellon, 11/11/04 (“Wind Power and Climate Change” <
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/index.html>)
The primary reason for building large amounts of wind-power is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate
changes such as global warming by replacing coal-fired power plants (and other carbon dioxide emitting power sources) with wind
power. Suppose one builds a single wind-turbine and uses its power to replace electricity from a conventional coal-fired power
plant. By reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the wind turbine will have a tiny (unmeasule) effect in reducing global climate
change. The wind-turbine will also cause a tiny and likewise unmeasule amount of climate change by altering wind patterns. The
question is what is the ratio of these two climatic changes? What is the ratio of climatic cost to benefit? This question matters for any
amount of wind-power if it is build with the intention of reducing climate change.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Wind Links – Coal
Wind Power supplants coal usage – its cheaper and at a lower risk to investors than other alternatives
Climate Protection Campaign 3/2/06 (“Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal” Blog
<http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2006/03/cost_of_wind_vs.html>)
One of our commenters, David Bradish, has asked how wind is more cost effective than nuclear to replace coal. The short answer
is: It is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and it is a lower risk to investors, which means that the cost of financing for wind
is lower on private capital markets. To make this case I use figures from two sources: "The Projected Costs of Generating
Electricity" produced by the International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency, and "The Future of Nuclear Power" produced by
MIT. First, and most important, the cost of capital. Unlike in previous decades, much of the regulatory risk shield for utilities has
been taken down by deregulation. Now new power plant projects must compete for capital on private capital markets, i.e., investors.
Investors attach a cost to the money invested in terms of a return on capital. This is often expressed as a "discount rate" in financial
calculations. Higher risk projects are expected to have a higher return, and thus the cost of the capital is assessed at a higher discount
rate.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Wind Links – Clean Coal
Promoting wind energy trades off with coal growth
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Ways&Means—US House of representative, 4/4/07, “Analysis of Alternative
Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit for Wind Generator,” from the Energy Information Administration – Official
energy statistics from the US government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/index.html
A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference
case, a permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would more than triple 2030 generation from wind
plants. With a similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour, wind generation in 2030 would still
more than double relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0 cent per kilowatthour would
increase wind generation by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit amount extension case,
wind generation at the end of the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation projected to come
from wind facilities in 2030 with a permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour PTC to 3
percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged.
Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year
extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal
expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in
500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference
case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect on coal generation. In the
permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the additional wind generation is at the expense
of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels that are above reference case levels result in a
dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of
additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity generated from coal. Even in this
case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Solar Links – Coal
A transition to solar power displaces coal plants
Ken Zweibel et al, president of PrimeStar Solar, 12/07 (James Mason, director of the Solar Energy Campaign, and Vasilis
Fthenakis, professor in at Columbia University’s Center for Life Cycle Analysis, “A Solar Grand Plan” Scientific American, <
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan> )
The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That
investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The
infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they
consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension
in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by
plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels,
putting a major brake on global warming.
Solar Power reduces reliance on coal and fossil fuels

David R. Mills and Robert G. Morgan, Principal Research Fellows of Solar Energy Group in the Department of Applied Physics
of the University of Sydney, 7/3/08 (“A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can replace coal, gas and oil” Renewable Energy
World < http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reworld/story?id=52693>)
Although it is often said that ‘solar cannot produce baseload electricity,’ STE is probably the only currently available technology
that can be considered for a globally dominant role in the electricity sector over the next 40 years.
Humankind evolved to be most active when the sun was up, and this is why human activity and energy usage correlate
significantly with the energy delivery from direct solar systems. Additional seasonal correlations detected result from the influence
of the US national building air-conditioning load, which is greater toward summer months when the sun delivers more direct solar
energy to the earth’s surface. We have up to now largely neglected these advantageous correlations when designing power systems
technology. Such hourly and seasonal natural correlations with energy output from a solar system are substantially enhanced
using storage. An immediate advantage is that load-following solar plant does not need expensive peaking plant back-up and it
is clear that natural correlations can be used to economic advantage in solar power system design. The relevance of baseload
generation as a technical strategy needs to be carefully re-examined. Human activity does not correlate well with baseload coal or
nuclear output and it should be recognized that baseload is what coal and nuclear technologies produce, not what is required by
society and the environment. Solar power with storage can take up as much of the grid generation load or vehicle energy load as is
desired, and can host other clean energy options by treating them as a negative grid load. A mixture of storage and non-storage
renewable options thus appears to be fully self-consistent as an alternative to the present generation mix, with the main co-contributors
to STE probably being hydro and wind. Not only is STE an energy option of great significance, but with only 16 hours of storage it
has sufficient diurnal and seasonal natural correlation with electricity load to supply the great majority of the US national grid (and by
logical extension, those of China and India) over the year, with the hourly solar radiation data including typical cloudy weather
patterns. Furthermore, STE can supply much of an electrified transportation market without destroying these natural correlations. An
almost complete elimination of both fossil-fuelled generation and oil usage for transportation in the US appears to be technically
feasible and will cost less than continuing to import oil.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Solar power reduces natural gas, which reduces coal usage
Gar Lipow, guest contributor, 6/30/08 (“Power from rooftops could replace coal” Grist < http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/29/132129/715>)
Enough sunlight strikes unshaded U.S. rooftops to replace all the coal and some of the natural gas we use to make electricity.
Backup via ground source heat pumps, and smart grid technology would allow this variable energy source to displace base-load
coal with today's technology. Whether this is the most cost effective way to displace coal is another question. Also rooftop solar is a
silver BB rather than a silver bullet: Even after massive efficiency improvements we will need to get many times the power from non-
rooftop sources than from rooftops. According to a 2003 study by the Energy Foundation (PDF), solar PV that converts 15 percent of
sunlight to electricity could produce 710,000 Megawatts on rooftops that will be available in 2050. Doug Wood thinks that with
concentrating PV using advanced aerospace quality cells we could convert solar at 30 percent rather than 15 percent efficiency.
Scaling back to rooftops available today (using 2003 numbers from the same study and extrapolating forward) we could produce
around 1.05 billion megawatts today. We normally assume 22 percent capacity factor (PDF) for PV. So that would give us about 2.3
billion megawatt hours, or around 56 percent of today's electrical production -- more than coal provides. Further, waste heat from this
process could provide much of our heating and cooling needs as well. The EF study I cited suggests that about 65 percent of
commercial roof space is unshaded compared to about 22 percent of residential roof space. Since some commercial scale chillers run
on low to medium temp heat today, with enough storage solar CHP could provide close to 100 percent of commercial heating and
cooling. But that much storage takes a lot of capital for a small incremental gain. So more realistically, we would put 16 to 24 hours of
low temp Phase Change Material storage and use ground source heat pumps to provide the other 15 percent of low temp needs. As a
side effect, the overnight storage would let us run those heat pumps when the electricity was cheapest -- which will prove more
important than it might appear at first glance. The comparatively low mount of residential roof space available means you will only
have 200 to 300 square feet of unshaded roof space available per home on average. I don't know if this means some houses provide a
lot of available solar space, and others with none or if this is distributed more or less evenly per home. Even in the latter case, you will
have a certain number of unshaded south walls, and a certain amount of yard space that could be devoted to solar generation. To be
conservative, let's say that 40 percent of residential space heat and hot water could be provided as a side effect of concentrating PV
electricity generation. Again, let's add PCM storage and the other 60 percent with ground source heat pumps. This is for existing
buildings. New buildings could be designed to use 70 percent to 80 percent less energy through a combination of better insulation and
sealing, passive solar, more efficient air exchange, and more efficient lighting and appliances. New buildings could also optimize the
amount of solar oriented unshaded roof space. Now, since we are talking concentrating PV, we would have almost no control of when
it would be generated -- mostly during the five peak hours of sunlight except when it was cloudy. However, we are assuming all space
heating and cooling other than solar is switched to ground source heat pumps with PCM thermal storage. So when solar electricity was
produced at a time it was not needed, it could run heat pumps to generate heat or cold in storage for climate control systems to draw
on later. Sixty percent of 2005 residential heating and cooling was about 5.7 quad. Fifteen percent of 2005 commercial heating and
cooling was about .6 quad. Without climate control efficiency improvements a climate control storage would let a smart grid absorb
around 85 percent of solar electricity. If insulation and other improvements reduced climate control in existing buildings about 40
percent, climate control needs could still absorb about half. If we reduce climate control demand further, industry could add PCM and
heat pumps to absorb pretty much as much of this as needed. Industry consumes about 33 quads. About 70 percent of this is used by
boilers, and about 35 percent of boiler energy is used to produce process heat below 700 degrees Fahrenheit. That is 8 quads, or more
than the total solar energy that would be produced. Because lower temperature heat is cheaper to store than high temperature, the high-
end of this would be a last resort; climate control would be the cheapest form of energy to store, followed by hot water at or below the
boiling point, followed by hot water at not too much above the boiling point. Between residential, commercial, and industrial hot
water I suspect we could place most of what space heating did not require without ever needing storage above the boiling point or
below the freezing point of water. What is the bottom line on coal displacement? It would save slightly more electricity than we
currently produce via coal, plus around as much again in displace climate control, hot water and low temp water heat. A small
amount of this could displace coal use directly. But the majority would displace natural gas currently used for electricity
production, climate control, hot water, and process heat. That natural gas in turn could be used to replace coal for base load,
as a first step towards phasing out all fossil fuels, with a bit left over to contribute to phasing out oil. In other words total non-solar
electricity generation would go down, even with increased demand to run heat pumps, while natural gas currently used to heat
buildings would be available for electricity generation. We could completely replace coal based electricity generation with natural gas,
and have some natural gas left over.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Solar Power replaces coal – cost
David Roberts, staff writer, 1/22/07 (“Vinod Khosla's forecast for 2007: Trends and outlook” Gristmill,
< http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/22/13054/5411> )
On the technology side, we will see a horse race between clean coal, solar thermal (not photovoltaic), and wind for central utility-
grade power generation. I would personally handicap this in favor of solar thermal power because it can be stored easily as heat and
is half the cost of solar photovoltaic and is dispatchable by the utility when it is needed, unlike wind power which must be used
when the wind blows. Heat is much cheaper to store than electricity and that gives solar thermal technologies (often called CSP
for concentrated solar power) a big leg up over wind and photovoltaic. Contrary to popular belief, I suspect we will find that clean
coal plants (often called IGCC plants with carbon capture and sequestration) will prove to be too unreliable and the cost of
gasification of coal (the G in IGCC), the separation of carbon dioxide from the waste gases, and compression too high. Liquefaction,
handling, and eventually underground storage in large reservoirs will be so expensive that it is likely that solar thermal
technologies will win the cost race. The financial risk of building a fifty year lifetime coal plant will become much more visible in
2007, and utilities that are doing it will see their stock suffer as investors recognize this risk fully! You have got to be crazy to build a
fifty year asset with the escalating risk of environmental regulations and the certainty of carbon pricing at some point which will triple
the effective price of coal. It will be much like all the gas plants built in the last decade that are already uneconomic. Besides, all the
renewable portfolio standards (RPS) will make it where you can't produce coal-based electricity and sell it. Already California has a
law requiring 33% of the power be renewable by 2020! The eastern states have their own renewable goals. The RPS standards are
spreading like wildfire.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Solar Power replaces dependency on coal
Sarah Lozanova, staff writer, 3/27/08 (“Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?” Clean Technica <
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-replace-coal-gas-and-oil/> )
One of the most common arguments against large-scale use of renewable energy is that it cannot produce a steady, reliable
stream of energy, day and night. Ausra Inc. does not agree. They believe that solar thermal technology can supply over 90% of
grid power, while reducing carbon emissions. “The U.S. could nearly eliminate our dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity
and transportation, drastically slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy,” said David Mills, chief
scientific officer and founder of Ausra. You may be wondering, how will we have electricity at night or during cloudy weather? Will
we use large banks of batteries or burn candles? The ability to utilize solar thermal technology after the sun sets is made possible by a
storage system that is up to 93% efficient, according to Ausra’s executive vice president John O’Donnell. High efficiency is achieved
because solar thermal plants do not need to convert energy to another form in order to store it and do not rely on battery technology.
Flat moving recflectors or paolic mirrors focus solar energy to generate heat. This heat generates steam that turns turbines, thus
generating an electric current. If you want to generate electricity-at, say, 3 am-heat from the sun can be stored for later use. This gives
solar thermal technology the ability to not just produce peak power, but also generate base load electricity. Peak Power: The First
Wave of Solar Thermal Plants The maximum amount of electricity demand on the power grid occurs during weekday afternoons and
evenings in the summer months in most regions of the United States. This is largely caused by air conditioning loads, which gobble up
electricity. Because the electric grid needs to be able to handle these peak loads, capacity is built to specifically handle these loads.
Natural gas and oil typically comes to the rescue to produce this electricity. Although these plants are expensive to operate, they are
cheaper to construct than most of the alternatives. They are fast to start, producing power in 30 minutes or less. Additional power
plants are constructed just to generate electricity for the times when it is needed most. This causes peak electricity to be more
expensive. A kilowatt hour of electricity at 3 pm and 3 am does not come with the same price tag to the utility company. “Adding solar
plants that reliably generate until 10 pm displaces the highest cost alternative power,” said John O’Donnell. “That is the first wave of
solar thermal plants. The daily and seasonal variation in grid load in the United States matches solar availability.” Base Load:
Replacing Coal Power Base load is the minimum amount of electricity demand placed on the power grid over a 24 hour period. Coal
and nuclear plants commonly supply this energy. These plants can take hours or even days to heat up to operating temperatures and are
run more continuously than peak power plants. Due largely to the lower cost of fuel, these plants can produce electricity at a
lower cost. If a carbon tax is implemented in the future, this will increase the cost of electricity generated from coal.
Generating electricity around the clock with solar thermal technology relies on storage systems that run turbines long after the
sun sets. “Ausra has a very active energy storage R & D group and we will be prototyping a couple of systems this year here in the
US,” said John O’Donnell. Solar Energy Storage This is not a new technology, having been used for plastic manufacturing and
petroleum production for a long time. Solar thermal plants have a cost advantage compared to photovoltaic technology because
energy can be stored as heat without being converted to another form or relying on batteries.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Solar Links – Clean Coal
Solar power trades off with clean coal development – its cheaper
Matt Peacock, writer for ABC, 10/2/07 (“Solar takes off with US power supply deal” Australian Broadcast Corporation <
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm> Rab)
Dr Diesendorf says the huge US investment into solar will soon make talk of clean coal and nuclear as solutions to climate
change redundant. "Basically, the solar thermal technology will be on the ground, certainly in the United States and many other
countries long before so-called clean coal and nuclear power," he said. Mr Khosla says solar power is developing rapidly and will
be cheaper than either nuclear power or 'clean' coal. "We think we can move much faster than nuclear and on an unsubsidised basis,
we will be cheaper than nuclear power, and we should be cheaper than IGCC [integrated gasification combined cycle] coal-based
power generation," he said. Dr Mills says big solar plants will be able to replace nuclear and fossil fuel-fired plants in the US. "In
five years time, we'll have very large plants and I would say gigawatt-style plants already commissioned, able to run 24 hours a
day and completely replace the function of nuclear and coal plants," he said.
Solar power replaces clean coal

Dr. Mark Diesendorf, senior lecturer of Enviromental Studies at the University of South Wales, 1/10/07 (“Aust technology to
revolutionise clean electricity” Australian Broadcast Corporation – The 7:30 Report <
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2047734.htm> Rab)
DR MARK DIESENDORF, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, NSW: It's important to get a large scale for the development to
bring down costs, and the United States offers a magnificent opportunity for large-scale solar development.
MATT PEACOCK: Solar power is not new in the United States. This giant photovoltaic plant in the Mojave Desert was built during
the oil shock of the 1980s. And more recent concern over global warming has led to other investment into solar thermal plants like this
one in Nevada. The low cost of Ausra's new design, though, is now attracting the big money.
VINOH KHOSLA: What's very exciting is major utilities in the US are now starting to believe our story after doing their own
independent due diligence. They actually believe this is competitive power generation. More importantly it's reliable power
generation. We can ship them power when the sun isn't shining, which is what most utilities need.
MATT PEACOCK: The coal and nuclear industries have long asserted that base load power can't be supplied by renewable energy, a
mantra repeated by our politicians.
MALCOLM TURNBULL, MINISTER, ENVIRONMENT & WATER RESOURCES : You cannot run a modern economy on wind
farms and solar powers. It's a pity that you can't, but you can't.
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: Solar is a nice, easy soft answer. There's this vague idea in the community that solar doesn't
cost anything and it can solve the problem. It can't. It can't replace base load power generation by power stations.
MATT PEACOCK: But base load power supply is just what Ausra is now being contracted to supply for the insatiable US market. It
says that within two years it'll be able to economically store its hot water for more than 16 hours.
DAVID MILLS: The interesting thing is that there's a correlation between human activity [and energy use]. We get up in the morning
everyday, we start using energy, we go to sleep at night. And the presence of the sun, that's natural. And that correlation means that we
can get away with a lot less storage than we might have thought.
DR MARK DIESENDORF: Well, there's been a lot of nonsense talked about, in Australia and elsewhere, about renewable energy
allegedly not being able to provide base load power. Not being able to substitute for coal. That's never been true. It's even
untrue with regard to wind power and now with solar thermal power, it's certainly untrue.
MATT PEACOCK: the huge US investment into solar will soon make talk of clean coal and nuclear as a solution to climate change
redundant, according to Mark Diesendorf at the University of New South Wales.
DR MARK DIESENDORF: Basically, the solar thermal technology will be on the ground, certainly in the United States and many
other countries long before so-called clean coal and nuclear power.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Nuclear Power Links – Coal
Nuclear power will trade off with coal
Miguel Llanos, MSNBC, 7/7/05, Hot Idea: Fight Warming with Nuclear Power, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/
Mainstream environmentalists "treat nuclear as if it is a trade-off against conservation" — use less energy and nuclear won't be
needed, he said. "But it's really a trade-off against burning coal," Brand said. By ramping up nuclear, he said, nations can phase
out coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel and causes hundreds of premature deaths each year in the United States alone.
Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal

Australian Labor Party, 10/31/07, Labor Committed to Coal- Howard Committed to Nuclear,
http://www.alp.org.au/media/1007/mseng310.php
The biggest threat to the coal industry is the Howard Government’s plans for twenty five nuclear reactors across Australia.
In contrast with its reluctance to support the future of the coal industry the Howard Government has been eager to push for the
construction of twenty five nuclear reactors across the country. These reactors would potentially replace existing and future
coal fired power stations.
Nuclear Power replaces coal –perceived as being more efficient

EIA 3/5/03 (“Nuclear Power: 12 percent of America’s Generating Capacity, 20 percent of the Electricity” Energy Information
Agency, < http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html> )
A number of notes should be made on this chart. The first of these is that the data gather all steam-based fossil fuel energy
together. Fuel costs are lower for steam-based power for coal than for oil or gas. Thus, coal-based power has only a slightly higher
U.S. average production cost than does nuclear. The costs are so close that, while nuclear costs average lower than coal, there is
a good deal of overlap when regions of the country or individual reactors are considered. Nuclear power does, however, have an
advantage in day-to-day operations in its low marginal costs. Day-to-day marginal costs are primarily fuel costs. A disproportionate
part of nuclear power operating costs come from operations and maintenance costs that do not vary much with output. Because
nuclear power’s marginal costs are lower than coal’s marginal costs, nuclear power plants tend to use their full output capacity
before coal plants. This gives nuclear power an advantage in base load operations and results in a higher capacity factor.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Nuclear Power shafts coal – it’s the best cost alternative
EIA 9/25/03 (“Nuclear Power and the Environment” Energy Information Agency, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/
page/nuclearenvissues.html > )
Views on the suitability of nuclear power for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, acid gases, particulates, and metals are highly
charged. There is no question that producing an increased share of electric power using nuclear fuels in lieu of fossil fuels will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Substantial replacement of fossil fuels would result in substantial declines in acid gas emissions and
if coal is replaced, particulate and solid waste production. Such changes would increase the volume of nuclear spent fuels that
must be disposed. Many of the same reductions in emissions might also be obtained by switching electricity production from coal to
natural gas or to lower sulfur coal. Emission control technologies are also an alternative. Because natural gas-based power production
produces many of the same emissions as coal-based power production, a greater volume of replaced generation capacity would be
required replacing coal-based power using natural gas than would be required using nuclear power. Because natural gas-based power
involves different proportions of particular emission than coal-based power, reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate production would be more substantial than reductions in carbon emissions, though carbon emissions would also decline.
Sulfur dioxide emissions across the board could be reduced substantially by choosing lower sulfur versions of a specific fuel.
Emissions control devices and improved operating procedures are available that can reduce the output and disposal of specific
emissions from a fuel. These conclusions regarding fossil fuels and emissions abstract from the very substantial issue of the
availability of specific fossil fuels and on the impact of increased consumption on their prices. The suitability of nuclear power as an
alternative method of reducing power emissions thus turns on three issues: 1) What level of emissions reductions is desired, 2) What
are the costs of obtaining the emissions reductions by using nuclear power when compared to other methods, 3) Do any costs involved
in switching to nuclear power (such as spent fuel disposal) offset any environmental gains from the displaced emissions. Within this
context, if nuclear power is substantially more expensive than the alternative fossil fuel-based power then the alternative methods of
emissions reductions will be more attractive than nuclear power. If nuclear power were to prove to be less expensive to build and
operate than fossil fuel-based power, any environmental arguments for nuclear power would not be a diminished factor in
economic decisions. Emissions reduction arguments in favor of nuclear power carry their greatest weight when nuclear power
approached the cost of alternative fossil fuels and when nuclear power presented the least cost alternative for obtaining the
emissions control gains. Emissions from fossil fuels vary by fuel. Environmental reasons for replacing coal-fired power with
nuclear power can cover the entire stack gas, particulate, and solid waste spectrum. Replacing natural gas-fired power
generation with nuclear for environmental reasons depends more substantially on greenhouse gas emissions targets. All of these
evaluations would be made within the context of non-economic values placed on nuclear power and its “emissions”.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Increases in Nuclear power shafts coal usage – IAEA agrees
Kari Livingston, writer for the Associated Content, 10/24/07 (“Nuclear Power Making Inroads against Coal, Oil” Associated
Content < http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/425825/nuclear_power_making_inroads_against.html?page=2&cat=15> )
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 435 operating nuclear reactors world wide, providing
hope that nuclear power will eventually replace coal and oil based energy systems. With 103 nuclear reactors, the United States has
the most reactors. France follows the US with 59 reactors, Japan's 55 reactors and the Russian Federation's 31 reactors rounding out
the top. In addition to the currently operating nuclear reactors, there are 29 under construction internationally. Currently, there are
nuclear expansion programs in Ukraine, Bulgaria, Finland and France. The IAEA reports that the average growth of nuclear power is
expected to jump 2.5 per cent, or 679 gigawatts, by 2030. Seventy-eight per cent of electricity in France, who plans to begin
construction on a new plant later this year, is provided by nuclear reactors, but only two per cent of China's electric power is supplied
through nuclear reactors. The report did point out that China's energy needs are rapidly expanding and that the country is exploring all
energy sources,including nuclear power. There are four nuclear reactors under construction in China, but because of the country's
massive population growth, that will still only provide four per cent of China's electric power. Other countries planning significant
growth include Japan and South Korea, which already gets 39 per cent of its power from nuclear. Most of the current nuclear power
construction is in Asia. India gets only 3 per cent of its power from nuclear reactors, but 25 per cent of the current nuclear construction
is in the country. India has set a goal of 10 per cent of electricity from nuclear by 2022 and 26 percent by 2052. The United States gets
19 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, and most of its development plans have centered around increasing capacity at pre-existing
nuclear facilities, but there are four Early Site Permit applications under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The United
Kingdom also uses a significant amount of nuclear power, but many of the country's 19 nuclear reactors are aging facilities with
uncertain futures. However, the government has issued a White Paper reinforcing its position that the advantages greatly
outweigh the disadvantages of nuclear power. Nuclear power use has remained largely stable since jumping from one per cent in
1960 to 16 per cent in 1986. While the global use of electricity continues to rise, only 15 per cent of total electricity is generated
through nuclear reactors.
Nuclear Power replaces coal usage

Mamdouh G. Salameh, Corresponding Author Oil Market Consultancy Service, 6/03 (“Can renewable and unconventional energy
sources bridge the global energy gap in the 21st century?” Applied Energy Volume 75, Issues 1-2, Science Direct, )
Though not strictly renewable, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy-sources. It has the ability to generate enormous energy
from a small volume of fuel. One metric ton of nuclear fuel is estimated to produce the energy equivalent of 2–3 million tons of fossil
fuels [22]. Nuclear power produces no atmospheric pollution. Nevertheless, the public perception of nuclear power is still negative.
Hanging over it is the question of radioactive waste and how to dispose of it safely. In 2000, nuclear power contributed 7% to world
energy supplies [23]. After peaking around 2010, production of nuclear power is projected to decline to 5% of the global primary
energy mix by 2020. Nuclear power must, however, expand before 2020 to help supply the increasing world demand for
electricity. Modular, fail-safe, economically competitive nuclear power plants with zero emissions, can be built to replace coal-
fired power plants. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to generate a new fuel and reduce waste [24. Edwards JD. Twenty-first
century energy: transition from fossil fuels to renewable, non-polluting energy sources. Summit on US Energy Policy, Washington
(DC) 23 April 2001. p. 4.24].
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Nuclear power replaces coal – it’s economically more competitive
Michael Totty, Staff Writer, 6/30/08 (“The Case For and Against Nuclear Power” Wall Street Journal – Energy, <
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html> )
So, what's the case against nuclear power? It boils down to two things: economics and safety. Neither holds up to scrutiny. First,
economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when
compared with other sources of power. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that
no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new
plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are
unusually high. As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders
become more comfortable. Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent
subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that
regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a
while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is
more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going. It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is
raising the cost of new plants. But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the
demand, lowering the price. Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of
"cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those costs,
and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain. That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to
greenhouse gases, through either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which
would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies
whose pollution exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more
expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price"
of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor
concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants. Even without a carbon tax, rising natural-gas prices are beginning to make
nuclear power more competitive. That's true even in some deregulated markets, such as Texas. NRG Energy Inc., based in Princeton,
N.J., has filed an application to build a reactor adjacent to an existing plant in Texas. Though it's too early to know how much the plant
will eventually cost -- or even if it ultimately will get built -- high natural-gas prices alone are enough to justify construction,
according to NRG.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Nuclear Power Links – Railroads
Nuclear power causes shift away from coal – key to railroad industry
Richard Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard, “Rebuilding U.S. Rail System Is Top Priority,”
9/6/2002, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2934rail_infra.html
Over the last 30 years, the railroads have become radically dependent on transporting coal. Many of the new
improvements that rail companies have made, and the new locomotives they have bought, have been on the lines that
come from Powder Basin, Wyoming, bringing low-sulfur coal to the East Coast. This raises a real question about
American energy policy. While coal is a legitimate source for power generation, its use ultimately should be declining,
were the United States serious about developing nuclear power, using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (and eventually
developing the higher energy-flux density fusion power). But instead, coal's use is dramatically increasing: In 1970, of all
the goods originated by the rail industry, coal constituted 405 million tons, or 27% of the total; but by 2000, coal constituted
758 tons, or 44% of the total.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Coal UQ and LX (For all 3 DAs)
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Coal Prices Low Now
Coal prices will fall – Chinese exports
Bloomberg, 2-29-08, Posted on the China Post, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/print/144941.htm, Junaid
SINGAPORE -- Taiwan Power Co., Asia biggest thermal coal buyer, said the cost of the fuel will fall after China resumes
exports in April, easing pressure on buyers to settle term negotiations at double last year's prices. The resumption of Chinese
exports after a two-month ban and easing rainfall in Indonesia will boost supplies, Albert Jen, head of the company's thermal
coal unit, said at the McCloskey Group conference in Singapore Wednesday. Taiwan Power is waiting for Japanese utilities to
conclude price talks with Australian sellers before carrying out discussions with its suppliers, he said. Coal prices climbed after
heavy rains in Australia, snowstorms in China and power shortages in South Africa reduced output. Benchmark prices at
Newcastle, the world's biggest export harbor for thermal coal in Australia, dropped US$4.71 to US$134.45 a metric ton in the
week ended Feb. 22 after four weeks of records, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Coal Demand Decreasing Now
Coal demand decreasing now – construction costs and policy uncertainty
John Laumer is an independent energy consultant and news reporter, “Along The Green Horizon: Big US Electricity Price
Increase,” Tree Hugger Business and Politics, 9/20/07 http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/get_ready_for_a.php
"But a combination of rising construction costs for coal-fired power-plants and uncertainty over whether Congress will regulate
emissions of carbon dioxide - a byproduct of burning coal and one of the main gases behind global warming - has put plans for
many new plants on hold." "Rising construction costs and uncertainty over global warming laws may lead to higher power
prices for everyone, experts say. With the nation's demand for power expected to surge 50 percent over the next 30 years, the
result may be higher electricity costs for everyone." "An estimated one-third of planned new coal plants have either been
delayed or are "at the edge of cancellation," said Dean Oskvig, head of the energy business at Black&Veatch, an engineering
firm that builds power plants. Oskvig said cost is the main concern. The global commodities boom has caused the price of
steel, concrete and lumber to soar. Plus, a spike in demand for energy of all kinds has led to a construction frenzy throughout
the sector, driving up the cost of skilled labor. This has doubled the price of building a new coal-fired power plant, said Judah
Rose, an industry expert at ICF Consulting, who testified before the North Carolina Utilities Commission." "Black & Veatch's
Oskvig said carbon capture and sequestration can raise the price of a power plant by 40 to 80 percent -- yet another factor that
will drive power prices higher. "We've been used to really cheap energy to drive our society," he said. "But the days of the
energy bargain in this world are over.""
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Coal
Renewable energy will not replace the coal industry
Toronto Star 11/22/07 (“Renewables no match for coal and nuclear” LETTER; Pg. AA07. Lexis)
If one does the math, one will see quickly that renewable sources, such as wind and solar, simply cannot be scaled up to replace
coal or nuclear power plants. For example, 2,000 wind turbines would have to be built for every nuclear reactor, 8,000 turbines
for a power plant of four reactors. Each one is a million dollars, so that's $8 billion for turbines. Solar is unable to be scaled up,
too. The planned farm in Sarnia is 1,000 acres of land and $300 million for output of a mere 40 megawatts. To replace a full nuclear
plant would require 48,000 acres and cost $160 billion.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal
Despite advances in alternative energies dependence on coal will not
decrease – alternative energy and clean coal both will be used – empirically
proven
Richard R. Hall and , John Kirkham, natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP. 6/4/07, “coal: like it or not, it’s here to
stay,” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sources were going
to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions, the use of coal for
generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected to
increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and
coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the United
States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute half of
the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with electrical
generation. The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with the
environmental impacts and risks of climate change. Despite the environmental concerns and promising advances in the
development of alternative energy sources, coal will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation
for decades to come. Attempts to abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent and
jeopardize the availability, reliability and security of a country’s overall energy supply. To ensure future energy needs are
affordable, support for the development of new energy technologies should include research and development for clean coal
technologies as well as improving competitiveness of alternative energy sources.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Wind Won’t Trade Off with Coal
Best case estimates indicate that wind power would not generate enough electricity to replace coal,
additionally coal would remain as a backup
Roy Innis, national chairman of the New York-based Congress of Racial Equality, 12/12/07 (“Coal power potential” Washington
Post – Column. Lexis)
More than half from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt-hour than alternatives - leaving families
with more money for food, housing, transportation and health care. By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new
electricity according to forecasts from the Energy Information Administration, and industry and utility company analysts. Unreliable
wind power simply cannot meet these demands. Wind farms require subsidies and vast stretches of land. To meet New York
City's electricity needs alone would require blanketing all of Connecticut with towering turbines, says Rockefeller University
Professor Jesse Ausubel. They kill birds and must be backed up by expensive coal or gas power plants that mostly sit idle - but kick
in whenever the wind dies down, so factories, schools, offices and homes don't shut down. On a scale sufficient to meet the electricity
needs of a modern society, wind power is just not sustainable. For three decades, U.S. demand for natural gas has outpaced
production. In fact, gas prices have tripled since 1998, to $13 per 1,000 cubic feet today, and every $1 increase costs U.S. consumers
an additional $22 billion a year. With Congress and states making more gas prospects off-limits every year, this trend is likely to
continue - further driving up prices and forcing us to increasingly import expensive liquefied natural gas. We cannot afford to halt
construction of new coal-fired power plants, though some are trying to. Chesapeake Energy Corp. Enhanced Coverage Linking
Chesapeake Energy of our electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36 percent of our electricity. Barely 1 percent
comes Corp. -Search using: * Company Dossier * News, Most Recent 60 Days * Company Profile supported anti-coal
initiatives in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. The scheme was intended to drive up the price of natural gas, and thus profits, by making
coal less available and more expensive - with little regard for poor families. Former Clinton administration environment staffer Katy
McGinty engineered the lockup of 7 billion tons of low sulfur Utah coal, worth $1 trillion. Current and proposed regulations would
make it even more difficult and expensive to provide adequate coal-fired electricity. But energy and pollution reality support more coal
use, not less. Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28 percent and 43 percent respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz.
Coal-fired power plants are now the primary source of U.S. mercury emissions only because the major sources (incinerating wastes
and processing ores containing mercury) have been eliminated. U.S. mercury emissions are now down 82 percent since the early
1980s, and new rules - and new rules will eliminate most remaining mercury and other emissions from power plants by 2015. That
leaves carbon dioxide and catastrophic climate change as rationales for opposing coal. The latest U.N.-IPCC report again reduces
projections for future temperature increases, polar melting and sea level rise. Moreover, increasing scientific evidence suggests only
slight warming, climate change controlled primarily by solar cycles, and no storm, drought or sea level trends that exceed historical
experience. Yet, claims about imminent catastrophes have become borderline hysterical, in the weeks preceding international climate
talks in Bali. The inconvenient truth is that these climate chaos horror stories are based almost entirely on computer models and
digital disaster scenarios. They are no more real than the raptors in "Jurassic Park." Nevertheless, politicians are promoting
initiatives like the Lieberman-Warner bill and Midwestern Governors Association climate pact, which they say will prevent a
cataclysm, by slashing CO2 emissions by 60 to 80 percent and generating "thousands of megawatts" from wind energy. If these
initiatives become law, experts say electricity rates would soar another 50 percent by 2012. Labor unions predict millions of lost
jobs, as companies shift operations to foreign countries. China and other rapidly developing countries will build 1,000 new
coal plants during the next five years - with few of the pollution controls we require. That means even major sacrifices by
American workers and families won't affect global temperatures, even if CO2 is the primary cause of global warming - which
many scientists say is not the case. We need every energy resource: oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear - and wind, solar and
geothermal. We cannot replace 52 percent of our electricity (the coal-based portion) with technologies that now provide only 1
percent of that power (mainly wind). Wind is an energy supplement, not an alternative.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Solar Won’t Trade Off with Coal
Solar power is too expensive to replace coal
Edward Wheeler, Ph.D, 11/8/05 (“Nuclear Power: THE CLEANEST AND COOLEST CHOICE?” Eco-World
<http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=375> )
Remaining alternatives to nuclear power, such as wind and solar, are promising technologies but can't offer constant baseload power
generation like hydroelectric and nuclear power. Moreover, solar power is still far too expensive to be developed on a scale
sufficient to replace coal or nuclear power and meet growing worldwide energy demands. Also, windmills, as do new oil
refineries and nuclear plants, evince the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) response. It is estimated that photovoltaic solar power
costs about 23 cents per kilowatt hour (could get cheaper as new technologies evolve), while conventional coal and natural gas
plants cost about half that. Nuclear power weighs in at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – RPS Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal
Development of RPS will have no effect on clean coal – empirically proven
Richard R. Hall and , John Kirkham, natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP. 6/4/07, “coal: like it or not, it’s here to
stay,” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the environmental
impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a certain level or percentage of
electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from renewable sources. While renewable
portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the development of renewable energy sources, they do not appear
to have a significant effect on coal consumption. Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend to decrease the
consumption of natural gas, rather than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources may certainly prove
key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short term, encouraging the development of renewable energy sources
alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the
absence of other policy measures.
Turn- RPS spurs coal technology

Sara Parker, Staff Writer, 6/13/07 (“National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?” Renewable Energy World <
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48921> )
A National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) that includes clean coal technologies and nuclear power will reduce
the demand for "genuinely clean" renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal, said Jim Rubens of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. "There's only 15 percent to go around," said Rubens, adding that nuclear requires huge subsidies and clean coal
technologies are at least 10 years away from being commercial. "There is no reason to dilute the bill. [Renewables] are ready for
market now. They're cost competitive now and they don't require continuing operating and construction subsidies." The proposed
RPS (or Renewable Electricity Standard) would be added as an amendment to bill S.1419, The Renewable Fuels, Consumer
Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which Bingaman, who is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, co-authored with Domenici. The bipartisan legislation is intended to boost domestic renewable fuel supplies and spur
regional diversity of biofuels production and infrastructure across the U.S.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Cap and Trade/Carbon Tax Key to Clean Coal
Cap and trade/carbon tax is key to make clean coal price competitive
USA Today, 12/27/07, “Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions,” p. Lexis
Utilities continue to build conventional plants instead. That's why, Thompson says, it's paramount that federal and state policy use tax
credits to close the price gap between conventional plants and the first few gasification power plants. The Edwardsport plant wouldn't
be possible without the $460 million in local, state and federal tax credits it will receive, says Jim Stanley, president of Duke Energy
Indiana. The federal 2005 Energy Policy Act authorized $800 million in tax credits for coal gasification projects to promote clean
coal; $133.5 million was awarded to the Edwardsport project. Both Tampa Electric and Mississippi Power got tax credits of the same
size for coal gasification power plants. The Mississippi project is in the early stages of development. Tampa Electric canceled its
project in November because the company couldn't forecast the costs associated with potential federal and state regulations on carbon-
dioxide emissions. Thompson says the most effective action the federal government could take to encourage the widespread adoption
of coal gasification plants would be either to tax coal plants' CO{-2} emissions or to institute a nationwide cap on them and lower it
over time.
Carbon caps cause a shift to clean coal

Russell Ray, Reporter for the Tampa Tribune, 3/22/07, “TECO’s Bright Future,” The Tampa Tribune, p. Lexis
TECO invested $600 million to build the coal-gasification unit at its Polk County facility. That unit turns coal, a cheap but dirty fossil
fuel, into a cleaner-burning gas, which is used to generate electricity. Industry experts say the technology could be a central feature of
future power plants. But the biggest incentive to build more plants similar to TECO's could come from Congress, where several
legislative proposals to limit emissions are in play. If lawmakers in Washington decide to regulate carbon emissions, as TECO
executives expect, the industry may take a harder look at the technology because of its ability to capture carbon.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads DA
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads 1NC
A. Railroads are booming now because of demand for commodities like coal
Alex Roth, staff writer, 6/25/08, “Vote ’08: CSX vs. Activists”, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433409393200635.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
CSX Corp. and two activist hedge funds with big stakes in the railroad company have bickered for months -- over past
performance, profit potential, plans for capital investment and even how to interpret the company's balance sheet.They've
fought to a de facto impasse in federal court over securities law.They've even argued about the location of the annual
shareholder meeting, a New Orleans railyard that CSX calls a showpiece. The investors have labeled it "a swamp."Now,
shareholders are scheduled to decide Wednesday morning whether to give five of 12 CSX board seats to candidates offered by
The Children's Investment Fund and 3G Capital Partners LP, the activist hedge funds that control at least 8.7% of the
company's stock. Through so-called stock swaps, the funds have an economic interest in a substantial additional block totaling
more than 11% of CSX shares.The proxy vote comes at a pivotal time in the railroad industry. Trains in the U.S. are
undergoing a boom not seen in decades, spurred in part by railroads' fuel-efficiency advantages over trucking and their
ability to bypass the country's increasingly clogged highways.Big-name investors such as Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn
have taken sizable positions in some of the U.S.'s biggest railroads, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., and Union
Pacific Corp. Stock prices have soared. Since the end of 2002, the Dow Jones Wilshire U.S. Railroads Index has
increased nearly 240%. By comparison, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index is up roughly 61% over the
same period.Last year, TCI, headed by London financier Christopher Hohn, began accumulating shares of CSX, which
operates a 21,000-mile rail network in 23 states, mostly in the eastern U.S. The company reported $2.3 billion in operating
income in 2007. Roughly half its revenue comes from freight such as agricultural products, crushed stone and metal; a
quarter comes from transporting coal.CSX management says the company is performing well and needs no infusion of
outside leadership on its board. The stock has more than tripled under the leadership of Chief Executive Michael Ward, who
took the helm in 2003.
B. Alternative energy increases railroad competition for remaining coal shipments, driving down profits
Coal-fired power plants compete against power plants fueled by other energy sources. In 2006, for example, fuel sources other
than coal accounted for more than half of U.S. electricity generation. Railroads had little or no involvement with this
generation. This “product competition” constrains railroads, since a railroad serving a coal-fired power plant must price its
services low enough to make that plant’s electricity competitive compared to electricity generated from another fuel source.
Coal-hauling railroads also face strong “geographic competition”---i.e., the ability of a utility to obtain coal from different
mines served by different railroads or modes of transportation.
Product and geographic competition will continue to be an important means for utilities to constrain rail rates. For years,
significant change has been taking place in the electric power industry, including greater competition and interconnection
between utilities as a result of “Wheeling”; improved gas turbine technology, and increasingly-restrictive environmental
regulations. Electricity consumers often can obtain electricity purchased on the wholesale market or produced from natural has
and other fuel sources as an alternative to electricity generated from coal.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads 1NC
C. Profits from coal are key to infrastructure investments
Richard Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard, “Rebuilding U.S. Rail System Is Top Priority,”
9/6/2002, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2934rail_infra.html
Over the last 30 years, the railroads have become radically dependent on transporting coal. Many of the new
improvements that rail companies have made, and the new locomotives they have bought, have been on the lines that
come from Powder Basin, Wyoming, bringing low-sulfur coal to the East Coast. This raises a real question about
American energy policy. While coal is a legitimate source for power generation, its use ultimately should be declining,
were the United States serious about developing nuclear power, using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (and eventually
developing the higher energy-flux density fusion power). But instead, coal's use is dramatically increasing: In 1970, of all
the goods originated by the rail industry, coal constituted 405 million tons, or 27% of the total; but by 2000, coal constituted
758 tons, or 44% of the total.
D. Poor infrastructure causes radioactive catastrophe

Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 10/25/04, http://www.nirs.org/press/10-25-2004/1
Detroit, MI -- According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), highly radioactive nuclear fuel rods could travel the
same railway that experienced the train derailment involving highly flammable methyl alcohol in Detroit this morning.
Concerned citizens' groups fear that if high-level radioactive waste were to be involved in a massive methyl alcohol
explosion or fire, as could have happened in Detroit today, a radioactive catastrophe could result. A brand new website
shows that the proposed high-level radioactive waste shipping route passes within 0.3 miles of Greenfield Union Elementary
School, one of the two schools evacuated today due to the train derailment in Detroit. An address can be typed into the website
at http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php, and a map showing the distance to a proposed high-level
radioactive waste transport route will be generated. The website is based upon DOE's high-level radioactive waste
transportation route maps which were released in February, 2002 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed national dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A copy of this DOE map is attached. The Environmental Working Group
website also lists schools and hospitals in Detroit that are located next to the proposed high-level radioactive waste shipping
route (see www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/schoolhosp.php?stab=US).
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads 1NC
E. Another nuclear accident will cause extinction
Charles Hyder, B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from University of New Mexico and PhD in astrogeophysics from the University of
Colorado, formerly employed by NASA, UCLA, UNM and the Southwest Research and Information Center, 2001, “Human
Extinction on this Chernobyl-Contaminated Planet”, http://members.fortunecity.com/osservatorio/charleshyderbook2.html
Herein a mathematical and empirical model involving a cause-and-effect relationship between Chernobyl's Radioactive
releases, Species' Extinctions (Amphibia first!), and Human Survival is presented. It is a powerful statement.
What is needed to specify and clarify the true nature of the global extinctions is to take definitive measurements of
radioactive Pu, Sr, Cs, U, Br, Kr, Rb, I and Xe concentrations in all Amphibia, Humans, etc. and in their environments,
predators, and prey worldwide. These measurements would be the basis for the definitive empirical models for the
quantitative relationships between Chernobyl radioactivity, species Extinctions (Amphibia first!) and Human Survival.
The sooner that these global measurements of radioactive isotopes in Amphibia, Humans, environments, etc. are taken, the
sooner we can determine what steps really need to be taken over what time-scales.
Never forget: One of the 450 operating nuclear reactors is the world's next Chernobyl racing toward its explosive
extinction and the next wave of worldwide, radioactive mass extinctions of Humans, more amphibia and most other
vertebrates.
There is no compromise with nature! We must comply with nature's laws or fail.
As a species, we pursue imaginative, unlikely, and remote doomsday scenarios when the inevitable repeat of Chernobyl
explosions, and their immediate and chronic releases, will complete the purge of Amphibia started at Chernobyl. The
rest of us earthlings will be engulfed too.
I have developed a much deeper respect for Sternglass, Gofman, Gould, Tamplin, et ilk who have had the courage to calculate,
address, observe and think about the real costs of the Global Nuclear Folly in real numbers. I have taken that step that glimpses
the specific horrors that will befall the untold billions of Chernobyl's victims, 1986-2075 AD (Cs-137 globally plus Pu and Sr-
90 locally).
We must do all that can be done to minimize, then to end, the global horrors that the unbridled nuclear technologies
have brought down on our heads.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Profitable Now – Coal
Need for coal transportation leads to successful railroad businesses now
Thestockadvisors.com, 07/14/08, http://www.thestockadvisors.com/content/view/2420/9/
"Railroads are a play on three big secular themes: the drive for increased energy efficiency, growth in coal and the agriculture
boom," says Elliott Gue, a energy sector expert who has been in Japan covering the G8 Summit.
Meanwhile, in his The Energy Srategist, he states, "Railroads are now among the most fuel-efficient forms of freight transport
available." Here, he offers a bullish review of Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP).
"My long-held thesis on the group has been that the railroads are no longer totally dependent on the US economy for their
growth.
"It’s no longer appropriate to look at this sector as viciously economy sensitive. The traditional relationship between the
broader market and the rails has been breaking down for several years, but this trend appears to be accelerating.
"In 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the average railroad moved a ton of freight a distance of
436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. That makes freight trains roughly three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks.
"Union Pacific is the largest railroad in the US and has long been one of my favorites. The company’s network is nearly 33,000
miles long and is concentrated in the West and Midwest. It also offers a convenient example of the bullish forces at work for
the rails, particularly in the coal and agriculture industries.
"Union Pacific’s energy segment is its largest by revenue; it accounts for just shy of 20% of the company’s business. Coal
transport from a region of the West known as the Powder River Basin comprises the majority of Union Pacific’s energy
transport business.
"Strong demand for coal transport has made this segment a real bright spot for the railroad in recent years. Better still, Union-
Pacific still transports coal under contracts signed years ago at lower freight rates. As these contracts expire, Union Pacific
should see strong pricing gains as it signs new deals.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Profitable Now
Railroad doing well now – market forces favor rail
PR Newswire, 7/8/08, “Greenbrier Companies Reports Third Quarter Results”, http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-
railroad/20080708/AQTU05608072008-1.html
Furman concluded, "The long-term outlook for the rail industry remains bright, as market forces continue to favor rail.
In the nearer term, we expect that our marine, refurbishment & parts, and leasing & services businesses will continue with their
strong performance, while new railcar manufacturing will likely remain soft, due to macroeconomic forces. Greenbrier remains
committed to delivering value to shareholders through its integrated business model, which builds on the Company's core
strengths of railcar and marine manufacturing and engineering, while providing diversification and reduced risk through
various business cycles and economic conditions. Our near term operating focus is to integrate recent acquisitions, ensure
the smooth start up of our tank car production line at GIMSA, and to continue to realize revenue and cost synergies
from our integrated model."
Railroads revenue increasing

US Government Accountability Office, “Freight Railroads: Updated Information on Rates and Other Industry Trends,” E-
supplement, August 15, 2007 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07291r.pdf
In 2005, industry rail rates increased 7 percent over their 2004 levels, the largest annual increase over the past 20 years,
outpacing the rate of inflation for only the second time in 20 years. Rates also increased for the commodities we
reviewed— including such commodities as coal and grain. Freight railroad companies continued a 20-year trend of
shifting other costs to shippers, including railcar ownership. Revenues railroads reported as miscellaneous revenue—a
category that includes fuel surcharges—nearly tripled from $633 million 4 in 2004 to $1.7 billion in 2005. While it remains
difficult to precisely determine how many shippers are captive to a single Class I railroad because available proxy measures
can overstate or understate captivity, 2005 data indicate that potentially captive traffic continued to drop. At the same time,
traffic traveling at rates significantly above the threshold for rate relief increased in 2005.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
The railroad industry boom is fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel
costs for trucks
Frank Ahrens, staff writer for the Washington Post, 4/21/08, “A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/20/ST2008042002409.html
When Bob Billingsley hired on with Norfolk Southern railway 31 years ago, he was a rookie on work crews that were closing
unused lines as the nation's economy turned its back on the railroads.
Now he's in charge of raising the roof of a Norfolk Southern tunnel in southwestern Virginia to clear headroom for the
double-stacked container cars that have become the symbol of the industry's sudden surge thanks to a confluence of powerful
global factors.
"For years, we were looking for ways to cut costs to increase profits," said Billingsley, as a train rumbled by. "Now, we're
building business to increase profits."
The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is
ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads
laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock
prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001.
This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open
tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the
Transportation Department.
In the 1970s, tight federal regulation, cheap truck fuel and a wide-open interstate highway system conspired to cripple the
railroad industry, driving many lines into bankruptcy. The nation's 300,000 miles of rails became a web of slow-moving, poorly
maintained lines, so dilapidated in spots that tracks would give way under standing trains.
The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 largely deregulated the industry, leading to a wave of consolidation. More than 40 major lines
condensed into the seven that remain, running on 162,000 miles of track.
But the changing global market has fueled prosperity -- and the need to add track for the first time in 80 years. Soaring
diesel prices and a driver shortage have pushed freight from 18-wheelers back onto the rails. At the same time, China's
unquenchable appetite for coal and the escalating U.S. demand for Chinese goods, means more U.S. rail traffic is
heading to ports in the Northwest, on its way to and from the Far East.
Coal still accounts for the most tonnage hauled by U.S. railroads, but it is the ocean-crossing shipping container -- carrying
autos, toys, furniture and nearly every product a consumer will buy -- that has lit a rocket under the railroad industry.
Passenger rail traffic is also increasing; 2007 was Amtrak's fifth consecutive year of increased ridership, up 6 percent
from 2006.
The zeitgeist has even dropped a "green" gift in the industry's lap. A train can haul a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of
diesel fuel, about a 3-to-1 fuel efficiency advantage over 18-wheelers, and the railroad industry is increasingly touting itself as
an eco-friendly alternative. Trucking firms also use the rail lines; UPS is the railroad industry's biggest customer.
Rail traffic, revenue and profit began to soar in 2002-03 and seem largely immune to the economic downturn. Last Tuesday, for
instance, CSX reported a record first-quarter profit. On Friday, the stock price of Western rail giant Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) hit an all-time high. At the industry's nadir in the 1970s, the average annual rate of return on investment for a
railroad company was 1.2 percent. By 2006, that number was 10.2 percent.
And even though the economic slump has reduced key traffic about 4 percent this year compared with last, it has not slowed
the railroads' urgent tracklaying. Capital expenditures this year are up, as the railroads think the downturn is temporary, said the
industry's trade group, the Association of American Railroads.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroad industry booming – Illinois proves
The Herald News, 7/18/08, “Will, Kendall among tops in job growth”,
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/business/1063001,jo18_jobs_web.article
On the heels of Naperville, Bolingbrook and Orland Park honored as Top 100 towns by Money Magazine, the magazine also
lists Will and Kendall counties among the top 25 counties in the nation in terms of job growth since 2000.The magazine ranked
Kendall County Number 2 with job growth of 63.69 percent from 2000 to 2007 and had this to say:“A population boom in this
rural area just outside of Chicago has meant boom times for businesses. Kendall County’s employment growth reflects a
healthy restaurant trade, gains in construction and an influx of malls, shopping centers and big-box stores.“The population
spike has meant a major infrastructure boost, including highway improvements and a $30 million courthouse expansion. The
county is considering extending the commuter rail line from Chicago, which could fuel even more growth. Top employers
include home-improvement chain Menard, heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar and energy provider ANR Pipeline.”Will
County was ranked 21 on the list with a 35.9 percent job growth during that time. The writers had this to say:“As gas prices
continue to reach historic highs, the railroad industry is booming again, and Will County is reaping the benefits. After
doubling the amount of industrial space available in the county, the shipping hub has become a central staging ground
for importing and exporting, as goods change hands at the Burlington Northern Logistics Park.“And with at least three new
shopping centers, a new Ikea opening and an intermodal rail and industrial park planned, the county expects to add
more jobs overall than in any other Illinois area in the next few decades.”
Railroad profits increasing

Cargonews Asia, “US railroad on the up and up” 7/16/2008
http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/article.aspx?id=20&article=16501
US railroad company CSX Corporation recorded higher second-quarter net profit as strong pricing offset a three
percent decline in freight volumes, Reuters reports. Net income rose to US$385 million, or 93 cents a share, from $324
million, or 71 cents a share, a year earlier.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now
Railroads are reclaiming market share in the status quo
Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 07/06/08, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/06/economy-environment-have-
railroads-experiencing/
Railroads have not seen a dip in business in the last 20 years, but what they did lose was market share. As more and more
goods were shipped, more of them were on trucks.
In 1960, there were 1.2 billion tons of goods moved by rail in the United States. In 1980, that number was up to 1.5 billion, and
in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, nearly 2 billion tons of goods traveled the railways. And while railroads
have lost market share to the trucking industry, that is starting to change.
The Association of American Railroads figured that while it takes 27 gallons of diesel to move a ton of freight from coast to
coast, the same load could be moved on a train for seven gallons.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Key to Railroad Profits
Railroads dependent on interest from Energy Department who only cares
about getting their coal shipped
Congressional Budget Office, “Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term Issues,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, January
2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7021/01-17-Rail.pdf
Coal has long been the dominant commodity carried by rail in the United States. In 2004, it accounted for about 43 percent
of the tons carried (see Figure3) and about 20 percent of revenues of Class I railroads.28 Coal traffic has trended upward over
the past 10 years (see Figure 4 on page8). The principal sources of railroad growth over the past decade have been coal
and intermodal (“miscellaneous mixed”) shipments.29 Coal traffic (as measured in tons) rose about 37 percent from 1994 to
2003; in terms of revenue, however, it increased just 12 percent.30 Inter- modal shipments, which tend to be relatively high in
value and can command higher rates, grew about 33 percent in tonnage and 46 percent in revenues from 1994 to 2003.31
Projections of Growth in Demand for Rail Transportation Rail traffic is projected to continue to increase as the economy
grows. The Department of Energy’s Energy In- formation Administration (EIA) projects rail growth of 1.7 percent
annually, rising from about 1.6 trillion ton- miles in 2004 to nearly 2.4 trillion ton-miles in 2030.32 The Energy
Department’s interest in rail transportation derives primarily from its interest in the production and consumption of
coal. The EIA projects an increase in the number of tons of coal consumed in the United States of about 62 percent
between 2004 and 2030.33 About 92 percent of coal consumption in 2004 was for the production of electricity.34 The EIA
projects Western coal production to increase to nearly 1.1 billion tons in 2030 from 627 million tons in 2004.35 Most of
that coal will have to be transported over distances for which trucking costs would be prohibitive and where water
transportation is unavailable, so railroads will probably be called upon to fill the need for coal transportation.
Coal for electricity is key to rail revenue

Association of American Railroads “Overview of America’s Freight Railroads,” May 2008
http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Overview.pdf
America’s freight railroads operate in a highly-competitive marketplace. To compete effectively against each other and against
other transportation providers, railroads must offer high-quality service at competitive rates. Railroads account for 41 percent
of freight ton-miles, more than any other mode of transportation. The rail ton-mile share has been trending upward over the
past 15 years, after remaining flat or falling for decades. In part due to their superior cost effectiveness, railroads generate less
than 10 percent of intercity freight revenues. Railroads’ revenue share has been falling for decades, a reflection of the intensity
of the competition they face and of the large rate reductions railroads have passed through to their customers over the years.
Coal is the most important single commodity carried by U.S. railroads. In 2007, coal accounted for 44 percent of rail tonnage
and 21 percent of rail revenue. The vast majority of coal is used to generate electricity. Coal accounts for around half of U.S.
electricity generation, and railroads handle more than two-thirds of all U.S. coal shipments.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Key to Railroad Profits
Coal is 75% of railroad freight
Rob Cameron, BBC News writer, Wyoming, 29 August 2006, “Coal keeps U.S. economy burning”,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5295922.stm
Cheap it is, no doubt about that. Cheaper than natural gas, which is why coal is used to generate 52% of America's electricity.It
is also plentiful. The United States contains the largest coal reserves in the world, enough to last for 250 years or more. But the
energy utilities that burn the coal take issue with the reliability. They complain that supplies are not meeting demand, leaving
them low on reserves and Americans potentially exposed to power shortages. In a country where most homes, offices and
restaurants are heavily air-conditioned, this is clearly a problem. So who is at fault? Mile-long trains. The railroads - in this
case US's largest, Union Pacific - play a crucial role in the coal supply chain. Union Pacific moves huge quantities of coal
from the Powder River Basin to the power stations of the east. The task is approached with steely determination by men and
women who clearly take deep pride in their jobs. Locomotives move huge quantities of coal to US power stations "It's the
1,000lb gorilla that you have to watch day in day out," says Cameron Scott, Union Pacific's general superintendent of
railway operations, in North Platte, Nebraska - a crucial transport hub for US rail freight. "The coal trains represent about
75% of everything that runs in and out of this yard." And coal trains are no ordinary trains. They typically consist of up to
135 cars - making them about a mile and half long. Getting the coal to its destination is therefore a massive logistical challenge.
Union Pacific's space-age Harriman Dispatching Center, in Omaha, uses satellite-based GPS and other state-of-the-art
technology to keep track of its trains every minute of the day. Some, however, are beginning to question the wisdom of such
heavy reliance on coal.
Coal is the most important commodity carried by rail

National Atlas.gov, 07/04, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
Measured in ton-miles (the movement of one ton of freight one mile), railroads move 42 percent of intercity freight, more
than any other mode of transportation. The rail share of intercity ton-miles has been trending slightly upward over the past
10 to 15 years, after falling steadily for decades. In part because railroads' rates are so low compared to their competitors,
their 42 percent of ton-mile traffic generates less than 10 percent of intercity freight revenues. Railroads' share of intercity
freight revenue has been trending down for decades, a reflection of the intensity of the competition for intercity freight
transportation in the United States and of the significant rate reductions railroads have passed through to their customers.
Coal is the most important single commodity carried by rail. In 2002, it accounted for 44 percent of tonnage and 21
percent of revenue for Class I railroads. The vast majority of coal in the United States is used to generate electricity at
coal-fired power plants. Coal accounts for half of all U.S. electricity generation, far more than any other fuel source, and
railroads handle approximately two-thirds of all U.S. coal shipments. Other major commodities carried by rail include
chemicals, including massive amounts of industrial chemicals, plastic resins, and fertilizers; grain and other
agricultural products; non- metallic minerals such as phosphate rock, sand, and crushed stone and gravel; food and
food products; steel and other primary metal products; forest products, including lumber, paper, and pulp; motor vehicles and
motor vehicle parts; and waste and scrap materials, including scrap iron and scrap paper.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure
Coal profits key to infrastructure investments – forty percent of revenue is
invested
DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory reports that, as of May 2007, some 151 coal-fired generating plants in dozens
of states representing 90 gigawatts have been announced or are in development. If ultimately built, this new generation would
increase annual U.S. coal requirements by several hundred million tons. Railroad’s past performance strongly suggests that
they will be able to handle this increased demand, as long as the necessary investments in their networks are made. Because
railroading is a network business, improvements or investments in one location can affect rail traffic at distant points.
Therefore, even investments made on rail lines that do not carry substantial amounts of coal can positively impact railroads’
coal operations. It takes an enormous amount of money to run a freight rail system. The rail industry is near the top among all
U.S. industries in terms of capital intensity. In fact, from 1996-2005 (the most recent year for which data are available) the
average U.S. manufacturer spent 3.4 percent of revenue on capital expenditures. The comparable figure for U.S. freight
railroads was 17.2 percent, or more than five times higher. Similarly, in 2006 railroad net investment in plant and equipment
per employee was $620,000---nearly eight times the average for all U.S. manufacturing ($84,000). When maintenance
expenses are included, rail investments rise substantially. Including capital and maintenance spending, from 1980 through 2006
Class 1 railroads invested more than $375 billion (and short lines spent additional billions) to maintain and improve their
infrastructure and equipment---with most of this spending directly or indirectly benefiting coal. After accounting for
depreciation freight railroads typically spend $16 billion to $18 billion per year---equal, on average, to more than 40 cents out
of every revenue dollar---to provide the high quality assets they need to operate safely and efficiently. Moreover, rail capital
spending, which was already enormous, is expected to rise to around $9.2 billion in 2007, up from around $5.7 billion just five
years earlier. This huge increase demonstrates the diligence with which railroads are responding to the capacity and service
issues and positioning themselves to handle rail shippers needs in the future. Looking ahead, billions of dollars of rail
investments will be directed specifically at coal, including new locomotives and train sets; double-, triple-, and even quadruple-
tracking heavily-used coal routes; bypasses, sidings, and terminals; and thousands of new employees. These investments will
enhance coal-carrying capacity and the fluidity of rail operations.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure
Coal-fired electricity is key to railroad infrastructure investments
Jeremy F. Plant, The Public Manager, Fall 2005,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HTO/is_3_34/ai_n25120956/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1
Rails transport coal for electric production and industrial use, as well as export to other nations. Historically, coal has
been one of the most important cargoes for the rail industry, with inland waterways the only major modal competitor. Since
the 1980s, the locus of coal mining and rail operations has shifted from traditional mining centers in the East to the
Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, where the two major western U.S. rail systems, BNSF and Union
Pacific, have invested heavily in new rail infrastructure to meet growing demand, mostly from the electric utility
industry.
Coal key to railroad profitability and infrastructure

Tom Murray, Railroad Consultant and Columnist for TRAINS magazine, 07/07/06,
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=539
As the U.S. economy has grown, it has kept on producing the kinds of things that railroads typically haul: coal, grain,
chemicals, forest products, and other commodities that have a high ratio of weight to value. Because the population and the
economy have grown in absolute terms, the need for these commodities has continued to increase, which has allowed the
railroads to expand their traffic base. However, this growth has not kept pace with rest of the economy. And because
railroads haul the lowest-value commodities, they have limited ability to improve their profitability by charging their
customers higher prices. The importance of value versus weight as an economic factor is one of the themes that Alan
Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, kept returning to. He referred to this phenomenon as "the displacement of
physical weight of output with concepts." More people are doing things that involve ideas (like writing computer programs)
and a smaller percentage of the work force is involved in producing and using heavy, bulk materials. Those heavy commodities
are losing out to smaller, lighter goods. Mr. Greenspan cited copper as an example. Much of the copper formerly used in
electrical circuits has been displaced by electronic components that are not only smaller and lighter but also enable machinery
to run at a much higher level of efficiency. Copper, of course, was once an important commodity for the railroads. In other
words, the railroad industry's major sources of revenue represent a declining share of the economic pie. More significantly, as
heavy commodities (like steel) are replaced by lighter ones (like aluminum), the importance of inventory and logistics costs in
the final value of products is greater than it was in the past. Railroads as they operate today are well suited to commodities that
can stand significant variability in delivery schedules. Those, by definition, are low-value products. Motor carriers (in
combination with air and express companies) have captured virtually 100 percent of the market for service-sensitive, high-
value products. The key question for the rail investor is whether there is hope for the industry in light of its shrinking role in
the North American economy, and declining status in the eyes of the investment community. My view is that railroads are
simply too important to fail. By that, I don't mean that the government will have to step in to save the railroads again, as it did
with Penn Central and the other northeast bankrupts. Instead, I think that the boards of directors of one or more major railroads
will realize that they have a responsibility to bring about dramatic change. In the 1990's, railroads did a great job of
building the physical infrastructure to take them into the 21st century. If they can do an equally good job of matching
their services to the needs of the 21st century economy, rail investors will really have something to celebrate.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Profits Key to Railroad Infrastructure
Revenue key to safety
US Government Accountability Office, “Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and
the Department of Transportation,” GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies; Committee on Appropriations; House of Representatives, March 6, 2007.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07545t.pdf
Financing mechanisms for the nation’s transportation system are under stress. Our nation’s transportation
infrastructure is threatened by increasing demand for transportation services, and revenue from traditional funding
mechanisms for the nation’s highway and aviation systems may be unable to keep pace at current tax rates. In addition,
freight traffic is projected to grow substantially, but current planning and financing mechanisms impede public
strategies to address needs. Our nation’s mobility is threatened because the nation’s infrastructure is under great
strain. Congestion across modes (e.g., aviation, highways, and rail) is expected to worsen. However, funding by mode and
the lack of performance-related goals result in little assurance that funds are being channeled to the most critical mobility
concerns and that intermodal approaches can be integrated into the transportation system. Improvements in transportation
safety are needed to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from transportation accidents—about 95 percent of which
occur on our nation’s roads. Increases in congestion across modes as a result of population and economic growth could
cause deterioration in transportation safety despite departmental and state efforts to reduce accidents. The transition
from the current air traffic control system to a broader and modernized system will be one of the department’s most complex
undertakings. In previous years, FAA has faced systemic management and acquisition problems that led us to designate its air
traffic control modernization program as high risk. While the agency has made significant progress in recent years, a key
challenge going forward will be to institutionalize these improvements and to continually improve. In addition, the
department and the transportation sector face persistent human capital challenges due to an impending shortage of
skilled people to meet changing transportation needs. Furthermore, despite recent improvements in financial management,
the department received a qualified opinion on its 2006 financial statements. Finally, the department is working to clarify its
role in transportation security and emergency preparedness and response.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AT: Railroad Profits Resilient
Railroads are only becoming resilient because of strong coal demand
Steven Halpern offers the latest market commentary and favorite investment ideas from the nation's leading financial
newsletter advisors, “Union Pacific (UNP): 'Railroad renaissance'” Thestockadvisers.com, Jul 17 2008
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/17/union-pacific-unp-railroad-renaissance/
"Railroads are a play on three big secular themes: the drive for increased energy efficiency, growth in coal and the agriculture
boom," says Elliott Gue, a energy sector expert who has just returned from Japan where he was covering the G8 Summit.
Meanwhile, in his The Energy Srategist, he states, "Railroads are now among the most fuel-efficient forms of freight transport
available." Here, he offers a bullish review of Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP). "My long-held thesis on the group has been that
the railroads are no longer totally dependent on the US economy for their growth. "It's no longer appropriate to look at this
sector as viciously economy sensitive. The traditional relationship between the broader market and the rails has been breaking
down for several years, but this trend appears to be accelerating. "In 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads
(AAR), the average railroad moved a ton of freight a distance of 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. That makes freight
trains roughly three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks. "Union Pacific is the largest railroad in the US and has long
been one of my favorites. The company's network is nearly 33,000 miles long and is concentrated in the West and Midwest. It
also offers a convenient example of the bullish forces at work for the rails, particularly in the coal and agriculture industries.
"Union Pacific's energy segment is its largest by revenue; it accounts for just shy of 20% of the company's business. Coal
transport from a region of the West known as the Powder River Basin comprises the majority of Union Pacific's energy
transport business. "Strong demand for coal transport has made this segment a real bright spot for the railroad in recent years.
Better still, Union-Pacific still transports coal under contracts signed years ago at lower freight rates. As these contracts expire,
Union Pacific should see strong pricing gains as it signs new deals.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Infrastructure Key to Solve Derailment
Poor tracks lead to accidents
ESTHER D'AMICO, 01/14/08, Chemical Week, lexis
Meanwhile, congestion and high fuel costs and surcharges remain significant transportation concerns, shippers say. Congestion
and poor transport infrastructure, including old and neglected highways and tracks, are expected to worsen as freight volumes
rise. Infrastructure problems, in particular, have been blamed for many of the accidents and injuries in the last year. An
undetected break on track has been cited as the cause of an explosion last March when a CSX train carrying liquid
propane derailed and near Oneida, NY About 200 residents were evacuated due to the blast. The track was already
broken when the train passed over it, FRA says. The agency conducted a 23-state inspection of CSX tracks and found safety
violations, which resulted in CSX paying $ 350,000 in fines, FRA says. The incident also drew the attention of some
lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., NY), who testified before a Senate panel on rail safety last year about "the
inadequacy of the current system of monitoring and managing safety issues" on the railroads. She also called for further
inspections of major railroads and for increased FRA oversight and enforcement power.
Major capital investments prevent derailment – empirically proven

Christopher P.L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois, and C.
Tyler Dick, Graduate research assistant in Railroad Engineering at the University of Illinois, 2003, “Analysis of railroad derailment
factors affecting hazardous materials transportation risk”, http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002429.pdf
The US railroad mainline accident rate has declined by over 75% since 1980 (Figure 1) and the hazardous materials
accident-caused release rate has declined by nearly 90% (1,2,3). This improvement is the result of major capital
investments in infrastructure and equipment, improved safety designs of tank cars (4), employee training efforts, and the
development and implementation of new technology (5). Most of this improvement in safety took place in the 1980s, and
although the downward trend in mainline accident rate continued through the 1990s, it declined at a lower rate and has leveled
off in recent years (Figure 1). The occurrence of major accident-caused hazardous materials releases has declined to such an
extent that identification and implementation of further safety improvements is much more challenging because there is less
empirical information on which causes are contributing the greatest risk.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Derailment Impact – Nuclear Terrorism
Derailment create a target for nuclear terrorist attack
Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-20-2006/1
Surrey Township, Michigan— Concerned citizen groups are raising questions about the nature of the radioactive wastes
aboard a derailed train amidst conflicting press reports. The Associated Press first reported that the train, which derailed
in the early morning hours of June 16 in Clare County, was hauling eight to ten railcars containing radioactive water
used for cooling nuclear materials at Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan.
However, Consumers Energy spokesman Timothy Petrosky later told the Saginaw News that Big Rock no longer ships
radioactive liquids, and its cargo aboard the derailed train consisted of radioactively contaminated concrete and soil. According
to a spokesman from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Waste and Hazardous Materials Division,
the six rail cars carrying 42 "inter-modal" atomic waste containers from Big Rock are bound for a licensed radioactive waste
dump in Clive, Utah.
Clare County Sheriff's Department Emergency Services Division Sergeant William J. Larson told Nuclear Information and
Resource Service (NIRS) in a phone inquiry that tampering with the rails is suspected, and an investigation has been launched.
"This raises serious concerns about the security of atomic waste shipments," said Kevin Kamps of NIRS. "High-level
radioactive waste shipments from Big Rock that would travel this same rail route would be potentially catastrophic
targets for sabotage or terrorist attack rolling through countless Michigan communities."
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Derailment Impact – Mobile Chernobyl/Dirty Bombs
Accidents turn trains into mobile Chernobyls, causing mass deaths from radiation
Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-
20-2006/1
According to workers at the factory who spoke on condition of anonymity, the derailment took place close to the rail spur
leading into, and the shipping dock area of, the Renosol Corp. plant, manufacturer of polyurethane products for the auto
industry. "We know that extremely hazardous materials, such as toluene diisocyanate, are present at the Renosol
factory," said Kay Cumbow of Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, headquartered in nearby Lake Township.
"If the derailment had ignited a fire at the factory, could a toxic cloud have formed? What would be the health and
safety consequences downwind?" Cumbow asked. "Previous derailments have occurred on this very same section of track,"
said Keegan. "Was this train traveling at high speed, which led to the derailment? Why were hazardous radioactive wastes
being shipped in the dead of night to begin with? What emergency preparations are in place to deal with accidents involving
radioactive wastes?" The Saginaw News also quoted railroad spokesman Jim Dunn as saying of the radioactive waste
"[i]t's not dangerous at all." In response to a telephone inquiry from NIRS, Dunn stated that although the radioactive
"crushed concrete" from Consumers Energy was placarded as hazardous, it only emitted a "minimum" of radiation. Clare
County Sheriff's Sergeant William J. Larson told the Saginaw News that the rail cars containing the atomic wastes are "armor-
plated." "Such false assurances raise more questions than they answer," said Kamps of NIRS. "The only radioactive
wastes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires to be packaged in special containers during transport are
the most radioactive and hazardous of atomic wastes. So if these train cars are 'armor-plated,' that makes it sound like
these particular radioactive wastes from Consumers Energy are intensely radioactive." Kamps also pointed out that,
according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) documents, the very same Tuscola and Saginaw Bay Railway that experienced
this atomic waste train derailment would also be used to ship eight massive rail carloads of high-level radioactive waste from
Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant to Nevada if the Yucca Mountain dumpsite ever opens there.
Irradiated nuclear fuel from Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan would travel the
Tuscola and Saginaw Bay Railway through Boyne Falls, Kalkaska, Walton, Cadillac, Marion, Clare, Mount Pleasant, Alma,
Ashley, Owosso and Durand before transferring to the "Grand Trunk Western" railway through Lansing, Battle Creek, and
Schoolcraft. The rail shipments would then exit Michigan bound for Nevada if the Yucca dump ever opens. A copy of the DOE
route map can be viewed at: http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/NuclearWaste/pdf/eis_j_IN-MI-OH.pdf. "Severe accidents
or terrorist attacks can turn high-level radioactive waste shipments into Mobile Chernobyls or dirty bombs on wheels,"
said Kamps, referring to the 1986 Soviet nuclear catastrophe and radiological dispersal devices. "Release of just a
fraction of such a cargo could unleash a radioactive catastrophe deadly to emergency responders and residents
downwind."
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse
A railroad nuclear accident would cause thousands of cancers and deaths and
cost billions of dollars – the surrounding population would be exposed to the
equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour
Elizabeth Ridlington, spokesperson for Paryland PIRG and member of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, Timothy Telleen-
Lawton, political analyst with Frontier Group, Johanna Neumann, legislative advocate for Maryland PIRG group, Maryland PIRG
Foundation, Mar 2007, “The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor”,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/cz/AW/czAWZsu0DUwXPz9kzBq61Q/MaryPIRG.NuclearPowerReport.March-
2007.pdf
Low-level radioactive waste presents another problem. By the time that a third reactor begins operation at Calvert Cliffs,
Maryland will no longer be allowed to send its low-level radioactive waste to Barnwell, South Carolina, the site of a regional
dump for low-level waste. That low-level waste will have to remain in Maryland. The last major release of radioactive material
from a commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S. was several decades ago, but there have been close calls since then. The worst
nuclear reactor accident on U.S. soil occurred at the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March
28, 1979. A partial meltdown of the reactor’s core led 140,000 people to evacu- ate from the area.47 The accident resulted from
a combination of human and mechanical error—a plant malfunction combined with operator override of automatic safety
systems. Cleanup at the plant has cost approximately $1 billion.48 In addition, victims of the TMI accident have successfully
sued the plant’s owner and the nuclear industry for at least $50 million.49 The full health consequences of the TMI accident are
unknown. One study, conducted by researchers at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, suggests that the accident
caused an increase in lungcancer and leukemia rates downwind of the Three Mile Island reactor compared to upwind.50 The
Three Mile Island accident does not represent a worst-case scenario for the potential impact of a major nuclear accident. A
1982 study by the Sandia National Labo- ratories found that a serious core accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cause hun-
dreds to thousands of deaths immediately.51 Estimates of early fatalities ranged from 700 to 100,000, depending on the size of
the reactor and the proximity of large populations (in 1982).52 A serious core accident at the two existing Calvert Cliffs
reactors could cause 5,600 immediate deaths, 15,000 injuries and 23,000 deaths from cancer, assuming there are no more
people living near the reactors than in 1970.53 The two existing units at Calvert Cliffs have not had a major incident that
attracted public attention recently. The plant does have a history of violations, however. The NRC has levied fines for unsafe
practices at the reactors. In 1996, the plant was fined $50,000 for problems with emergency equipment that had been identified
in 1992 but had not been repaired four years later.54 The NRC issued a $176,000 fine in 1997 and a $55,000 fine in 1998
because personnel at Calvert Cliffs had been careless with exposure to radiation.55 Other problems have led to warning
notices but no fines. Problems have included malfunctioning water pumps and, in 2006, incorrect settings for a circuit breaker
that allows an emergency diesel generator to function. The incorrect settings were the result of an error that occurred during
installation of the emergency generator in 1996.56 In 2001, a sink hole formed outside the turbine room of the plant. By the
time the hole was discovered, it had grown large enough that filling it required 40 tons of dirt.57 The sinkhole was caused by
an underground drainage pipe that collapsed. The pipe carried groundwater away from the area under the plant and into the
bay. Over the years, saltwater corroded the pipe, allowing dirt into the pipe where it was carried away from the site. Calvert
Cliffs may be vulnerable to other unexpected natural disasters. Although Maryland is not known for its tornadoes, a category
five tornado (the strongest category, with winds above 260 miles per hour) formed in Maryland in April 2002, and passed
within two miles of the Calvert Cliffs facility.58 Meanwhile, Constellation has pared back staffing at the two existing units. In
2001, 1,400 people worked at the plants. However, to reduce costs, Constellation has eliminated 465 positions, cutting the
workforce to 935 people.59 At the same time, the facility was generating record amounts of energy. Fewer staff increases the
odds that personnel may be forced to work overtime or that there may not be as many staff available to handle an emergency.
Calvert Cliffs is also vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Nuclear power plants make attractive potential targets for terrorists—
either via external assault or internal sabotage. Specific information about security strengths and weaknesses at Calvert Cliffs
is not available because of security concerns; only general data about nuclear plants has been released. That general security
record of nuclear power plants is far from reassuring. In tests at 11 nuclear reactors in 2000 and 2001, mock intruders were
capable of disabling enough equipment to cause reactor damage at six plants.60
<CONTINUED…no text removed>
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse
<CONTINUED…no text removed>
Prior to September 11, 2001, half of reactors failed to defend themselves against simulated attacks.61A 2003 GAO report found
significant weaknesses in the NRC’s oversight of security at commercial nuclear reactors, including failing to require plants
to correct identified security weaknesses and con- ducting simulated attacks to test security staff and systems in which plant
operators were given advance warning and an opportunity to prepare.62 In September 2004— three years after the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks—the GAO reported that the NRC had not yet implemented some of the GAO’s earlier
recommendations andthat the NRC was not yet in a position to assure that plants are able to defend against terrorism.63 And in
March 2006, the GAO was unable to conclude that all nuclear power plants were capable of defending themselves against a
plausible terrorist attack, since only about one-third of the plants had conducted the necessary inspections through simulated
attacks. The GAO also questioned changes made to the NRC’s standards for protection against terrorist attacks, noting “the
appearance that changes were made based on what the industry considered reasonable and feasible to defend against rather
than on an assessment of the terrorist threat itself.”64 Most recently, the NRC ruled that nuclear power plants do not need to
create protections against the possibility of a terrorist attack by plane, despite evidence that the 9/11 attackers had considered
targeting a nuclear power plant.65 Were an accident or terrorist attack to occur at Calvert Cliffs, evacuation routes from the
area around the reactor would be limited and might be insufficient to remove all residents from harm’s way. The Calvert Cliffs
reactors are in the far southern tip of Calvert County where the county tapers to a point between the Chesapeake Bay and the
Patuxent River. The only major road serving the area is Route 2, which runs north/south. In case of an evacuation order,
people living south of Calvert Cliffs in Calvert County would need to drive south on Route 2 to the Governor Thomas Johnson
Bridge over the Patuxent River to St. Mary’s County. In normal traffic conditions, roads leading to the bridge are frequently
congested.66 During an evacuation, the road could become a bottleneck, preventing residents from escaping radiation
released from the plant. Releases During Waste Transport The danger to Maryland residents from radioactive waste will not be
over once a federal repository is finally constructed. stored in spent fuel pools for at least five years before it is placed into
casks for on- site storage or shipping. Transporting waste creates a hazard as the waste is shipped via train or truck. In theory,
the federal waste repository at Yucca Mountain will store spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes from commercial
reactors around the nation. The logistical challenges of actually achieving this are tremendous. Nationally, 118,000 tons of
spent nuclear fuel and 22,280 can- isters (typically containing 1 cubic meter of waste) of high-level radioactive waste could be
moved to Yucca Mountain if the site is ever opened.67 The Department of Energy plans for the transportation to occur over
the course of 38 years, assuming the department’s plans are carried out without a hitch.68 The waste would be shipped in
casks that would each contain as much as 240 times the amount of radioactive material released by the Hiroshima bomb.69
Radioactive Waste Management Associates, a consulting firm working for the state of Nevada, has estimated that 100 to 450
accidents will occur as nuclear waste is transported via train and truck to Yucca Mountain.70 A single serious accident could
cause thousands of cancers and cost billions of dollars.71 Fortunately, no major accident has occurred during the transport of
radioactive material, but many minor ones have. The Radioactive Material Incident Report data- base maintained by Sandia
National Labo- ratories identifies 402 incidents from 1971 to 1999 in which a vehicle transporting radioactive material killed or
injured some- one or was so damaged that it could not operate under its own power.72 Furthermore, even outside of an
accident, emissions from passing casks will deliver involuntary doses of radiation to people living within one-half mile of road
and rail routes. The DOE acknowledges that commuters stuck in traffic near a highly radioactive waste shipment would be
exposed to the equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AT: Nuclear Shipments Low
Nuclear shipments by rail projected to increase
US Government Accountability Office, “Rail Safety and Security: Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security,
but Risk-based Plan Needed,” Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2003 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03435.pdf
The proposed plan to ship spent nuclear fuel, as soon as 2010 and most likely by rail, to the Yucca Mountain Repository in
Nevada—the nation’s first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste—has
raised concerns about the safety and security of possible transportation to this site.9 A second proposal to ship spent
nuclear fuel to temporary storage in a private facility in Utah has heightened these concerns.10 Such shipments would
substantially increase the volume of nuclear material transported in this country.11
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Derailment Impact – Toxic Chemicals/Environment
Derailment causes chemical spills, killing the environment
Lange, Lori J, Fleming, Raymond, Toussaint, Loren, Social Behavior and Personality, 01/01/04,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200401/ai_n9404663
Even though risks related to railroads may be perceived as familiar, the contents that they are transporting may not be
perceived in the same way. It is not uncommon for trains to carry hazardous materials, and train derailments involving
chemical spills have been associated with greater environmental worry about chemicals in the environment (Bowler et
al., 1994). Because the accident under study in the current paper involved liquid propane and hazardous material, there is a
possibility that risk perceptions for chemicals may become elevated.
A railroad derailment can kill millions through toxic gases and chemicals
The Washington Post, 06/03/07, lexis
A 90-ton rail car of chlorine passing within blocks of the Capitol, if its cargo were released, could kill or injure about
100 people per second. It would be lethal within two to five miles and dangerous for 14 miles. These facts frame a debate
about whether to reroute rail cars carrying hazardous materials away from the District of Columbia, as explored
recently in The Post. But there is a cheaper and more immediate way to enhance public safety, whether or not trains are ever
rerouted. We need to develop quality training for preventing and handling accidents -- and acts of terrorism -- and then invest in
such training for railroad personnel, emergency responders and community residents. At the moment, training by the railroads
is woefully inadequate. Improvements in railroad safety are critical to regional and national security and to the health
and well-being of Americans. One million tons of hazardous materials, including chemicals and nuclear waste, roll
along railways every day through cities and towns across the United States, unprotected by adequate emergency
procedures or personnel trained in how to manage a toxic-materials crisis. Millions of lives and billions of dollars are at
stake. Training can mean the difference between life and death. In Graniteville, S.C., in 2005, one of three rail cars, each
carrying 90 tons of deadly chlorine, was breached after a derailment. More than 60 tons of chlorine vaporized into a
toxic cloud. The engineer, a young man in good health, ran through the cloud for safety, but, because he was breathing deeply,
he was overcome. The conductor, who had military training in responding to poison gas, walked slowly through the cloud
using shallow breathing and was able to escape with his life. A former chemistry teacher recognized chlorine gas emanating
from the crash site and warned residents to stay indoors and turn off their ventilation systems.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Turns the Case – Infrastructure Decreases Emissions
Improving rail infrastructure leads to lower transportation generated emissions
ESTHER D'AMICO, 01/14/08, Chemical Week, lexis
Some $ 148 billion will be needed to improve rail infrastructure and meet freight volumes that are expected to nearly
double over the next 30 years, according to a study conducted by Cambridge Systematics (Cambridge, MA) for AAR. Most
of that investment, $ 135 billion, would be concentrated along the lines of the nation's seven major freight railroads, and
would go toward new tracks, signals, bridges, tunnels, terminals, and service facilities.
"If needed investment isn't made, most of the increase in freight will move on the highways, further stressing overburdened roads
and bridges," AAR says. "However, if the investments are made, the freight rail industry will be able to significantly lower
transportation-generated emissions, reduce highway congestion, and ease wear and tear on highway infrastructure.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Turns the Case – Railroads Decrease GHGs
Railroads are key to decrease GHG emissions
Second, railroads are environmentally friendly. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that for every
ton-mile, a typical truck emits roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive. Other
studies suggest trucks emit six to 12 times more pollutants per ton-mile than do railroads, depending on the pollutant measured.
Railroads also have a clear advantage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, railroads account for
just 9 percent of total transportation-related NOx emissions and 4 percent of transportation-related particulate
emissions, even though they account for 42 percent of the nation's intercity freight ton-miles.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Key to Readiness
Railroads are key to getting military tech delivered on time – necessary for
combat
Robert S. Korpanty is a former U.S. Army Colonel, “Preserving Strategic Rail Mobility,” The Army, Nov-Dec 1999,
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec99/MS455.htm [ND]
The Railroads for National Defense Program ensures that the commercial railroad network is ready to deliver combat
power where it is needed when it is needed. Tell any mechanized maneuver commander he has to fight a battle without
his Abrams tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles, and you probably will see a puzzled look on his face that could be
interpreted as, "What planet are you from?" or, "What language are you speaking?" Since it is doubtful that a major
conflict will occur just outside the gates of Fort Stewart, Georgia, or Fort Hood, Texas, a key element of a successful
engagement will be getting combat power wherever it is needed on time. Without a reliable commercial rail
infrastructure, it is doubtful the tanks and Bradleys will make it to their place of business. To make sure they do, the
Military Traffic Management Command developed the Railroads for National Defense (RND) Program in 1976. In 1991,
the RND Program was assigned to the Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency
(MTMCTEA), which now executes the program on behalf of the U.S. Transportation Command. This program ensures that the
commercial rail infrastructure in the United States meets Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for deploying a force.
The RND Program works to preserve our strategic rail mobility.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Key to the Economy
Railroads key to the economy – shipping costs, manufacturing, and trade
Railroads of New York, 05, http://www.railroadsofny.com/economy_environment.htm
Both the United States and the State of New York are dependent upon a safe and efficient transportation system to
move people and goods. In today's global economy, many of the things we use, as well as the things we make to sell to
others, must be transported by the nation's freight transportation system. In New York State and the nation, that system
has undergone significant changes over the course of our history. Originally, it was focused on our waterways, then to our
railroads and more recently on our highway systems. Even so, today's rail freight system still plays a critical role in moving
freight across our nation and state. According to a recent report entitled "Transportation - Invest in America: Freight - Rail
Bottom Line Report", prepared by the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): 40% of
intercity freight ton-miles are handled by rail. Rail freight moves over 600 miles on an average trip, while the average
truck trip is about 245 miles. 92 billion truck-vehicle miles of travel would be added to the nation's highway system
without our rail freight system. This additional truck traffic would cost federal, state and local transportation agencies
an additional $64 billion over the next 20 years. If all rail freight were shifted to trucks, it would cost shippers an
additional $69 billion per year - or $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. Rail freight provides shippers with cost-effective
transportation, especially for heavy and bulky commodities. Rail is also a preferred mode for hazardous materials
shipments because of its positive safety record. Rail freight can be a critical factor in retaining and attracting
manufacturing industries (and jobs) that are central and regional economies. Rail freight carries 16% percent of the
nations' cross-border trade. Intermodal freight-rail service is critical to the global competitiveness of U.S. industries.
Rail freight is fuel-efficient and generates less air pollution per ton-mile than trucking. Rail freight is vital to military
mobilization and provides critically needed transportation system redundancy in national (and state) emergencies. The
rail industry today is stable, productive and competitive, with enough revenue and profit to operate, but not enough to replenish
its infrastructure quickly or grow rapidly.
Railroads are key to US competitiveness in a global economy

William W. Millar, President American Public Transportation Association, 04/26/06,
http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/aptatest/testimony060426.cfm
Chairman LaTourette, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the House Railroads Subcommittee, on behalf of the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA), we thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Rail
Capacity Crunch. We very much appreciate that the Subcommittee is taking a comprehensive view, considering both passenger and
freight issues. While goods movement is critical, the emergence of America's service economy has heightened the importance of
on-time movement of people as well. America long has enjoyed the most extensive and efficient transportation system in the
world. Today, other countries are catching up. Policies that support the growth of railroads - passenger and freight - are
critical to America's mobility and our ability to compete in a global economy. The critical capacity issues affecting railroads -
passenger and freight - are a part of an overall crisis in transportation system capacity that also affects our airports, roadways, port
facilities, and public transportation infrastructure. Such congestion is putting severe stress on America's transportation and
logistics network, which historically has given America its economic edge.
Railroads are key to US competitiveness

Freight railroads are critical to the economic well-being and global competitiveness of the United States. They move 42 percent
of our nation's freight (measured in ton-miles) - everything from lumber to vegetables, coal to orange juice, grain to
automobiles, and chemicals to scrap iron - and connect businesses with each other across the country and with markets
overseas. They also contribute billions of dollars each year to the economy through investments, wages, purchases, and taxes.
There were 554 common carrier freight railroads operating in the United States in 2002, classified into five groups.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads key to the economy – they stimulate demand and employment
FHA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration), 06/22/06,
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/today.htm
The benefits of freight transportation to the economy are enormous. Freight transportation increases the value of goods
by moving them to locations where they worth more and encourages competition and production by extending the
spatial boundaries of commodity and labor markets. Freight transportation also stimulates demand for goods and
services and employs millions of people. Freight transportation infrastructure is a significant component of our nation's
wealth and productive capacity.
From a macroeconomic perspective, transportation accounts for a significant share of the U.S. GDP. In 2000, purchases of
transportation-related goods and services accounted for approximately 11 percent of GDP (USDOT BTS 2002). Only housing,
health care, and food accounted for a greater share (Figure 3). For-hire transportation services, which include warehousing,
contributed about 3.3 percent ($303 billion) to GDP. Many industries and businesses depend on their own transportation
operations (primarily trucking) to move goods. These "in-house" transportation services contributed an additional $142 billion
to the economy (USDOT BTS 2001b).
Railroads key to the economy – they’re the most efficient means of transportation
William W. Millar, President American Public Transportation Association, 04/26/06,
http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/aptatest/testimony060426.cfm
Looking to the future, railroads - passenger and freight - are poised to play an even greater role in enabling commerce
and economic growth. Earlier this year America surpassed the 300 million mark in population. In 30 more years we are
projected to reach 400 million. Most of the population will be living in metropolitan areas, making our use of land and
transportation corridors all the more important. A look at the Los Angeles region's Metrolink commuter rail system
provides a projection of demand anticipated for commuter rail services. Freight and passenger rail traffic in the L.A. /
Orange County / Riverside corridor is expected to leap from 172 trains today to a total of 265 trains by 2010, and to a projected
390 trains per day in 2025.
While America needs a transportation policy balanced on the strengths and synergies of roads, ports and rails, overall there
should be a higher reliance on rail modes, which are much more efficient in terms of land and energy. Indeed, adding
rail capacity is imperative also for its positive impact on parallel freeways already clogged with traffic. These
urban/suburban areas have roads that are not only hopelessly congested, but roads that have already been expanded to close to
their maximum capacity. Adding highway capacity in these areas is enormously expensive. For a fraction of the cost of such
road construction/expansion, existing railroad rights-of-way can be reactivated / expanded / improved to accommodate
traffic and reduce highway congestion for both freight and passenger movements.
Railroads key to the economy – they move billions of tonw of freight

Brenda Turner, Employment Economist, 03/25/08, http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00002986
Freight and passenger railways tied the nation together like never before, allowing people and materials to move
overland faster than ever. It was a revolution. Rail transportation remains an important component of today's economy.
Railroads deliver billions of tons of freight and thousands of travelers to destinations throughout the nation, while subways
and streetcars transport millions of passengers within metropolitan areas.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Poor rail performance hurts the economy
Freight is big business. It is a necessity, not a luxury. When transportation system performance decreases, freight-
related businesses and their customers are affected in two ways. First, freight assets become less productive. Second,
more freight transportation must be consumed to meet the needs of a thriving and expanding economy. Thus, when
freight transportation under-performs, the economy pays the price.
Reliable, predictable travel times are especially important in an economy where many goods are expensive and are needed in
tightly scheduled manufacturing and distribution systems. Late arrivals can have significant economic costs for factories
waiting for parts to assemble and for carriers who are missing guaranteed delivery times.
Railroads key to the economy – jobs

Freight transportation also contributes to the economy by providing jobs to millions of people—an important indicator
of economic growth. In 2000, more than 10 million people were employed in transportation-related industries, including
for-hire services, vehicle manufacturing, and parts suppliers. Of that total, for-hire transportation (including warehousing)
employed more than 4.4 million workers, a majority of whom worked in freight-related jobs. Another 5.5 million people
worked in transportation occupations in nontransportation industries, such as truck drivers for grocery stores (USDOT BTS
2001b). Truck drivers, alone, accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total number of transportation occupational workers
(USDOT BTS 2002b).
Improvements in freight productivity help the United States maintain its competitive position in the world economy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that productivity for the intercity trucking, railroad, air transport, and petroleum pipeline
industries has improved over the last 20 years. The railroad industry has posted the most impressive gains, followed by the
pipeline industry. Improvements in railroad productivity resulted primarily from deregulation, divestiture of
uneconomic lines, reductions in labor force, and changes in technology and logistics. Productivity improvements in
trucking resulted primarily from public investments in a high quality national road network and deregulation.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroad key to international competition
John B. Ficker, president of the National Industrial Transportation League, 3/31/04, Testimony of the National Industrial
Transportation League”, http://www.nitl.org/johnf.pdf
The National Industrial Transportation League is one of the nation’s oldest and largest national associations representing
companies engaged in the transportation of goods in both domestic and international commerce. The League was founded in
1907, and currently has approximately 600 company members. These members range from some of the largest users of the
nation’s transportation system, to smaller companies engaged in the shipment and receipt of goods. League members use all
forms of transportation for the shipment and receipt of goods of all kinds, to literally thousands of points in the United States.
Many members of the League utilize rail transportation, and thus have a very substantial interest in federal policies
relevant to rail carriers, including the status of the Surface Transportation Board and railroad economic regulation.
Indeed, many League members are dependent on rail carriers to move their goods, and therefore need a safe, secure,
efficient and financially healthy rail industry. For this reason, over the years the League has been a staunch supporter of the
rail industry. Many League members are eager to increase their utilization of this vital industry, in order to meet their
own and the nation’s transportation needs. In fact, the ability of American manufacturers to compete in a world
economy and the creation of jobs in the United States, depends in substantial part on the existence of a competitive and
efficient rail industry. Rail transportation is thus not simply a matter of private interest between rail carriers and
shippers, but appreciably contributes to our nation’s overall economic health. Rail transportation also helps to alleviate
congestion on our highways, and thus adds to the overall efficiency and safety of our nation’s entire transportation system.
Moreover, the League well understands the capital-intensive nature of the rail industry and its large capital needs. Rail
shippers depend on those infrastructures for the safe and efficient transportation of their goods. Almost exactly one year ago,
the League appeared before this Subcommittee and urged the Congress to take steps to provide funds to improve the nation’s
rail infrastructure and to reduce the amount of taxes that the nation’s rail carriers pay so that additional monies can be directed
toward improving rail infrastructure.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Key to Agriculture
Railroads key to ag
Association of American Railroads, “The Economic Impact of America’s Freight Railroads,” May 2008
Without freight railroads, the U.S. economy could not function. In fact, railroads serve nearly every industrial,
wholesale, retail, agricultural, and mineral-based sector of the economy: • Agricultural Products – Railroads have helped
farmers get their goods to market since the earliest days of railroading. Class I railroads originated 1.7 million carloads of
wheat, corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products in 2007. • Chemicals – The more than 2.0 million carloads of chemicals
originated by Class I railroads in 2007 helped clean our water, fertilize our farms, package our food, build our cars and
homes, and enhance our well-being in thousands of other ways. • Coal – Coal generates half of our electricity, and railroads
haul more coal than any other transportation mode. Class I railroads originated 7.5 million carloads of coal in 2007,
enough to meet the electricity needs of every home in America. By helping to keep coal- based generation affordable,
railroads help reduce our dependence on imported energy. • Food Products – In addition to agricultural products, in
2007 railroads hauled 1.5 million carloads of animal feed, beer, birdseed, canned produce, corn syrup, flour, french
fries, frozen chickens, sugar, wine, and countless other food products.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Railroads Key to Low Food Prices
Railroads key to low food prices
AAR (Association for American Railroads), 06/24/08,
http://www.aar.org/Pressroom/News/2008/06/FOODCOST_RAIL_SAVINGS.aspx
In his June 16, 2008 Des Moines Register column "To rein in cost of food, beef up transportation," guest writer Mike
Steenhoek looks at the role the nation's distribution system contributes to food costs, noting that if more went by rail, costs
could be kept lower.
Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, wrote "The primary culprit for today's rising food prices
is a more costly distribution system - significantly impacted by the escalating price of oil. A rise in the price of crude oil
not only equates to a more expensive gallon of gasoline, but also a more expensive gallon of milk."
Mr. Steenhoek's solution, direct enough resources to maintaining and augmenting our transportation infrastructure.
"A railroad can transport one ton of freight 386 miles on one gallon of fuel," he wrote. "Yet our nation's leaders have
missed the opportunity to provide tax incentives to railroads - particularly the shortline and regional railroads serving
rural America - to augment their capacity-constrained network. Railroads, largely financed by the private sector, are
responding to the increased congestion on their systems by raising rates on their customers in agriculture and other industries.
Rail customers have witnessed fuel surcharges of up to $0.70 per car mile, equating to $130,000 in fuel surcharges for a train
full of soybeans headed to the West Coast."
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Food Prices Impacts – Starvation
A small food price increase means 1.1 billion deaths
Tampa Tribune, 1/20/96, p. 41
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet
demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in
Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13
percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the
17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of
the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt
poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of
reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He also said many people in low-
income countries already spend more than half of their income on food.
Continued high food prices will cause mass starvation for 95% of the world
Mike Adams is a staff writer for naturalnews.com. “The Biofuels Scam, Food Shortages and the Coming Collapse of the Human
Population” April 23, 2008 http://www.naturalnews.com/023091.html
So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It means that as these economic and climate
realities unfold, our world is facing massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this will be felt is in poor
developing nations. It is there that people live on the edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20% rise in the price of basic
food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of tens of millions of families. If something is not done to rescue
these people from their plight, they will starve to death. Wealthy nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be
able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass starvation in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the
honeybees die, in which case prepare to start chewing your shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant increases in the cost of
living, annoying consumers and reducing the amount of money available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.).
That, of course, will put downward pressure on the national economy. But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small
foreshadowing of events to come in the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor climate changes and foolish
biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just imagine what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in
and global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a gallon in the U.S., how expensive will food be
around the world? The answer, of course, is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that means many
more people will starve. Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor threatening future food supplies on our planet:
There's also fossil water. That's water from underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops, then it's
lost to evaporation. Countries like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water to irrigate their crops, and not
surprisingly, the water levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little as five years in some cases),
that water will simply run dry, and the crops that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass
starvation will only take a few months to kick in. Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity is
just one crop season away from mass starvation.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan
Rising food prices are creating political instability in Pakistan
Jason Gale “Pakistan's Food Affordability Threatens 77 Million” April 23 2008 http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-
issues/11104-77million-threatened-pakistans-food-affordability-pakistan-may-import-1-5m-ton-wheat.html
Almost half the population of Pakistan, the world's seventhmostpopulous nation, faces difficulty gaining access to
affordable food because of the soaring cost of cereals, a World Food Program official said. The Rome-based United Nations
agency increased its estimate of the number of so-called food insecure people in Pakistan to 77 million from 60 million,
spokesman Paul Risley said in a telephone interview from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, yesterday. Pakistan's food prices
jumped 21 percent in March from a year earlier, the fastest pace in at least six years, as water availability declined and farmers
planted fewer crops, shrinking harvests. The South Asian nation may need to import wheat for a second year if the current
harvest falls short of domestic demand. ``Pakistan has reached a tipping point,'' Risley said. `Ìt is no longer an exporter of
food, but rather an importer.'' Pakistan is affected by world food prices that have surged by about 83 percent in the past
three years, provoking riots in poor nations and threatening to set back efforts to reduce global poverty, according to the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Pakistan's prices of wheat flour, edible oil and pulses are at a record,
according to Fareed Qureshi, chairman of the Karachi Retail Market Association. Flour is priced at 1,750 rupees ($27) for an
80-kilogram bag and the average price of pulses has risen 50 percent since January, he said. Edible Oil Average edible oil
prices have climbed 16 percent since the start of the year and rice is 26 percent more costly than it was on Jan. 1. Hundreds of
people line up for hours outside state-run fair price shops offering subsidized food, where scuffles break out over bags of flour
or rice. Pakistan is one of 40 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, identified by the WFP as being at risk of food
insecurity because of rising food prices, Risley said. `Ìn each of these counties, we are especially concerned that a lack of
access to affordable food could lead to political instability and social disruption,'' he said. The rural poor will suffer hunger
silently, while the urban poor will be more prone to rioting, Risley said. ``This is an expression that hasn't been heard in
decades because recent economic growth, especially in Asia, has helped poor populations in urban and rural settings,'' he said.
``Now we're beginning to see a return to those very critical choices that are forced on families when food is not accessible,
when food is not affordable.''
Unstable Pakistan leads to proliferation

Kristin Roberts “Pakistan political instability raises nuclear risk” 08 Nov 2007
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08386391.htm
Pentagon officials say Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure in military hands, but some U.S. lawmakers and experts warn that
nuclear material and designs could leak out if political instability persists. Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
has concentrated control over the entire nuclear program. But a decline in his support within the military amid the current
political crisis raises a risk that control over the weapons could weaken. That could open the door to theft or sale of
weapons material to extremist groups, some experts say. Some weapons experts and U.S. officials still suspect Pakistan's
military of at least knowing about the smuggling activities of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network that sold weapons technology to
Iran, North Korea and Libya. "This is a country that's leaked nuclear weapons designs, centrifuges," said David Albright,
president of the Institute for Science and International Security. "Two of its scientists talked to (Osama) bin Laden about how
to make nuclear weapons in 2001." "It's a system that's leaked very dangerous information," he said. "You have to worry
about the integrity of the system in a period of growing instability." A senior U.S. general this week said the Pentagon was
worried about the security of Pakistan nuclear weapons after Musharraf declared a state of emergency on Saturday, prompting
protests and arrests. U.S. lawmakers, however, expressed more uncertainty about the security of the weapons. Rep. Ellen
Tauscher, a California Democrat on a congressional committee that oversees the U.S. military, said the United States lacked
full knowledge of Pakistan's weapons. "We need a lot more visibility on what's going on in Pakistan. Who does have that
football? Who is next in line?," she said about Pakistan's nuclear weapons. "I've learned that we don't have as strong a handle
on it," said Tauscher, who has access to some U.S. intelligence as a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee. Asked if she knew specific details of Pakistan's weapons, including their location and the chain of command over
those weapons, she said, "I don't know, and I've asked the question a couple of different ways." Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware,
a Democratic presidential hopeful and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Pakistan was at real risk of
becoming a failed state.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan
Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction
Victor A. Utgoff is Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival,
“Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” 2002, pg 87-90
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be
reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both
these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold
War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet
Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea,
Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little
prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed
aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them
to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint
would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear
weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the
technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point,
halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the
transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line
for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally
overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world
peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking
about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop
nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve
without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly
proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery
systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive
nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their
opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are
incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass
destruction, such as biological weapons. [The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the
use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the
Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air
strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts,
retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding
anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever
levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with
nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror
the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world
may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of
dead cities or even whole nations.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
Food Prices Impacts – Economy
Food insecurity creates failed states and disrupts the global economy
Lester R. Brown is founder of the Worldwatch Institute and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, “Exploding U.S.
Grain Demand for Automotive Fuel Threatens World Food Security and Political Stability” November 3, 2006 http://www.earth-
policy.org/Updates/2006/Update60.htm
The number of hungry people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and
the number began to rise. The United Nations currently lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of
these are considered failed and failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since food aid
programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half. Urban food
protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political
instability that would add to the growing list of failed and failing states. At some point, spreading political instability
could disrupt global economic progress.
High food prices are the biggest threat to consumer confidence

Robert Gavin, Globe Staff, 03/09/08,
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2008/03/09/surging_costs_of_groceries_hit_home/?page=2
Rising food prices can be particularly corrosive to consumer confidence because people are so frequently exposed to the
cost increases. "It's the biggest risk we face economically, and it might be the thing that does us in," said Rich Yamarone,
director of economic research at Argus Research Corp. in New York. "There's nothing really worse than having a job,
making money, and forking most of it over just so you can have the same amount of food. You're running in place, and
it really weighs on you."
As with energy, higher food costs cut into discretionary income that buys everything from cars to computers to movie
tickets and drives the consumer-based US economy. Falling home values and a faltering stock market have battered
consumer confidence, spurring a retrenchment in spending that is contributing to recent job losses and pulling the
economy toward recession.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF AT: Railroads DA
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Railroads Failing Now
Railroads aren’t investing enough to meet demand – trucks will fill in in the
squo
The freight railroad industry plays an important role in the nation’s economy as a mainstay of transportation for many
basic industries and, increasingly, for exports and imports that travel by rail to and from the nation’s ports. After a long
period of excess rail capacity, the pendulum has begun to swing toward tight capacity—at least at certain times and
places.1 Some transportation experts have expressed concern that the railroads are not investing enough to meet rising
demand for their services. If they cannot keep pace, the result could be higher costs not only for shippers and
consumers but also for taxpayers, because demand that the railroads cannot satisfy is most likely to be handled by
trucks and thus require more spending on the construction and maintenance of highways.
As freight transportation grows over the next ten years, the railroads will
struggle to keep up and won’t expand to meet the nation’s transportation
needs
John B. Ficker is President of The National Industrial Transportation League, “Testimony of The National Industrial Transportation
League Before the Subcommittee on Railroads Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,” in th eU.S. House of
Representatives, March 31, 2004.
While the economic and services bar is being raised higher, the data suggests that, though the freight railroad industry is
in far better financial shape than it was in the 1970s, it has not been able to maintain or expand its share of intercity freight
transportation. Freight transportation overall is expected to grow significantly over the next decade. According to the
report entitled “Freight – Rail Bottom Line” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) in 2000, freight volume is expected to grow fifty percent between 2000 and 2020. Freight railroads
need to be part of that growth. But if the trends of the past ten years discussed above are projected into the nation’s
future in 2020, trucking activity will more than double, while the railroads’ share of intercity freight revenues will grow
only slowly. Such a situation would result in a massive challenge to the nation’s existing highway infrastructure. The status
quo thus does not appear to be a model that will result in a rail industry that will fully participate in the growth
required to meet the nation’s increased transportation needs.
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF – Exports Turn
Plan shifts coal from domestic consumption to exports – this is key to railroads
From 1997 to 2006, U.S. coal exports averaged 56 million tons and, until recently, had been trending downward for several
years. In 2006, exports were 50 million tons, far short of the peak of 112 million tons in 1981. Nearly all U.S. coal exports are
Appalachian bituminous coal, and more metallurgical coal is exported than steam coal. A significant portion of U.S. coal
exports travels by rail, so a slowdown in coal exports has a negative effect on railroads
Coal Generic
DDI 2008 – Clark
AFF AT: Demand Key to Infrastructure
Railroads can’t keep up with production
John B. Ficker is President of The National Industrial Transportation League, “Testimony of The National Industrial Transportation
League Before the Subcommittee on Railroads Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,” in th eU.S. House of
Representatives, March 31, 2004.
Another aspect of this situation is shown in the growth of rail carriage compared to the growth in U.S. industrial production.
According to AAR figures, between 1993 and 2002, the number of carloads originated by Class I railroads grew by 28.6% and
tons originated grew by 26.5%. Yet, in this same period, U.S. industrial production grew by 36.8%.3 In other words, over an
entire decade, U.S. industrial production grew about twenty-five percent faster than railroads’ traffic. Even using ton-
miles, the measure of production most favorable to railroads (which measures not only the number of tons transported
but also how far those tons are carried), railroads’ growth still had not kept pace with U.S industrial production.5 In
other words, today railroads are carrying things – primarily coal – farther than they carried those things ten years ago,
but the number of carloads they carry is failing to keep pace with the growth in the U.S. industrial economy.
Rising demand doesn’t mean railroad investments – costs are too high
Why might the railroad industry not respond to rising demand as other industries do? Economic factors specific to the
railroad industry may reduce its ability and willingness to invest in new capacity. Building new track is costly, and
because track is fixed in a specific location, investing in it subjects railroads to the risk that demand will shift to other
locations and that the investment will not yield an adequate return. The other major domestic freight transportation
industries, trucking and water carriers, do not face that kind of risk; instead, the governments that build and maintain
highways and water-ways – and the taxpayers who provide their funding – bear that risk.
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF AT: Derailment Impact

Empirically denied – five train accidents happen every day
Lange, Lori J, Fleming, Raymond, Toussaint, Loren, Social Behavior and Personality, 01/01/04,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200401/ai_n9404663
Accidents due to train derailments are fairly common occurrences in the United States, with an estimated average of 5.7
train accidents per day between 1990-2000 (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001). Whereas physical injury and loss of
life may be results of these mishaps, other - less apparent - behavioral and psychological consequences also are likely
(Baum, Fleming, & Davidson, 1983; Bowler, Mergler, Huel, & Cone, 1994; Chung, Farmer, Werett, Easthope, & Chung, 2001;
Hagstroem, 1995). Research on technological mishaps and disasters has shown that technological accidents can greatly
impact upon psychological, behavioral, and physiological functioning (Gleser, Green, & Winget, 1981; Rubonis &
Bickman, 1991). As a result, accidents that do not necessarily result in immediate injury or death may still result in social and
psychological disruption (Baum, 1991).
Railroads are safe only 5% of carloads each year are dangerous. Federal law
requires that by the end of the year railroads must find safer routes.
David Singleton, Staff Writer for The Times Tribune.com, 07/15/08, http://www.thetimes-
tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19850882&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6
Of the 33 million carloads that American railroads transport each year, about 1.7 million, or roughly 5 percent, carry
materials that are classified as hazardous. However, very few of those substances — everything from whiskey to paint to
contaminated soil — would be considered life-threatening, Mr. White said. The target of the federal rule is the 100,000
rail cars that carry high-hazard materials. Two chemicals — chlorine, which is used for water purification, and
anhydrous ammonia, which is used in the production of fertilizer — represent about 80 percent of what the railroads must
track, FRA spokesman Steve Kulm said. Through December, railroads will collect data on the hazardous materials they
transport and the routes they use, Mr. Kulm said. They then have until Sept. 1, 2009, to complete a risk and route
assessment, taking into account 27 factors ranging from track type to availability of practicable alternative routes to
“proximity to iconic targets.”
Federal rule requires railroads to fine the safest and most secure paths
reducing risk of an accident
David Singleton, Staff Writer for The Times Tribune.com, 07/15/08, http://www.thetimes-
tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19850882&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6
Like most children, Bill and Mary Beth Booth’s kids love trains, reveling in the steel-on-steel excitement of the locomotives
and cars that rumble through Glenburn Township within sight of their front door. But Mr. Booth recognizes the flipside. As
much as his children — 5 years, 3 years and 17 months old — enjoy watching the freights that pass on the other side of
Waterford Road, their home is less than 150 yards from what he basically regards as an industrial site fraught with potential
calamity. “It’s a huge concern,” said Mr. Booth, 44, a former township supervisor. “When you think about what those cars are
carrying and what they might be carrying, you have to be concerned.” A federal rule that took effect July 1 requires
railroads around the country to explore alternative routes for the shipment of hazardous materials. The stated intent is
to shift the most dangerous substances to the “safest and most secure” paths and thus reduce the risk in the event of an
accident or terrorist attack. While the Federal Railroad Administration rule covers certain explosive and radioactive
materials, it is aimed mostly at “toxic inhalation hazards,” gases or liquids such as chlorine or anhydrous ammonia that
can be deadly if released.
87
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF AT: Derailment Impact

New technologies solve derailment
Gary P. Wolf, writer for the Railway Age, 12/97, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n12_v198/ai_20300258
The techniques, technologies, and strategies for achieving a zero derailment rate are changing dramatically.
Tremendous strides have been made since the early 1980s in reducing the number of railroad derailments. The chart on
page 45 shows a significant reduction in the derailment rate per million train-miles--a reduction, moreover, that has come about
during a time of increased freight market share and record ton-miles.
New and innovative technologies have contributed to this reduction. As we edge closer to 2000, the question remains: How
do we go about further reducing the derailment rate to below one per one million train miles? Improvement is possible, but
only with the dedicated resolve of top management and the implementation of basic and advanced technologies.
88
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Australia DA
89
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Australia 1NC
A. Australian coal exports booming- Asian demand
Phil Mercer, VOA News Correspondent in Sydney, 25 June 2008, “China to Pay Record Prices for
Australian Minerals”, http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa17.cfm [Bapodra]
Australia's resources boom shows no sign of slowing down, thanks largely to demand from Asia.
This week Anglo-Australian minerals company Rio Tinto has been negotiating with China's biggest steel maker, Baosteel,
which has traditionally set the international iron ore price for China's other steel producers.
In 2007, the Chinese imported 383 million tons of iron ore, up 17 percent from the previous year.
In the past, China has paid Brazilian and Australian exporters the same amount for minerals. But this year Australian miners
demanded more, insisting their iron ore is higher quality and - because Australia is closer to China - is costing less to transport.
B. Alternative Energy will replace coal – tops experts agree

Ethan Goffman, politics correspondent, 6/17/08 (“Renewable Energy Likely to Overtake Oil And Coal Sooner than You Think”
Gather, <http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977375141&nav=Namespace> )
Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute
panel (Tipping Point). Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and
other renewable energies, such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains
that we are at an amazing moment in the history of energy, a transformational moment, driven by historic high energy costs,
concern about climate change, and the worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are
likely to replace oil and gas sooner rather than later. Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the
scope and import of this expansion are severely under-reported, according to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric
Martinot. Investment in new renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007 and continues to exceed expectations.
Government policy has been a key driver, Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable energy. If current policies
supporting renewable energy are simply maintained, he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable. Venture
capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment, explains that the implications of current growth are far
bigger than people think. Conventional energy use is growing only incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth of
renewable energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed. Conventional thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually
unchallenged, is all wrong, according to Liebreich. This is because the big curve upward of renewable energy will
inevitably beat the little curve of conventional energy.
C. Coal is key to Australia’s economy – they compete with the US for market
share
Paul Graham and Tom Waring, 9-7-98, Abare Conference Paper, Junaid
Australia’s fundamental cost advantages have led to the development of a large export oriented coal industry. It is Australia’s
largest commodity export industry, doubling its export earnings over the past decade to reach A$9.5 billion dollars in 1997-98.
It is also a very competitive industry. In 1997 there were 118 mines producing 217 million tonnes of coal. The Australian
industry is characterised by a large number of companies competing vigorously with each other and with overseas rivals for
market share.
90
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Australia 1NC
D. Australian economic growth is key to Australia’s role in the alliance
ROD LYON, lecturer in International Relations at The University of Queensland, formerly Head of the Strategic Analysis
Branch in the Office of National Assessments, Australian government AND WILLIAM T. TOW, Professor of International
Relations at The University of Queensland, December 2003, "THE FUTURE OF THE AUSTRALIAN-U.S. SECURITY
RELATIONSHIP," URL: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/austraus/austraus.pdf
Some Australian officials also speak of Australia’s continuing impressive economic growth as an important determinant of a
larger strategic role. As the Australian economy continues to show good growth figures over a long period, when many of the
world’s major economies have been stagnant, it has offered Australian policymakers both a larger sense of Australia ’s role in
the world and the resources necessary to underpin an expanded role. The Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999
constituted a harbinger of that larger role; in the post-September 11 world an expansive policy of Australian global and regional
engagement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Solomon Islands is even more evident. All of these factors have been important in
driving Australia towards an energetic level of strategic engagement, made more noticeable by the hesitancy of other, larger,
Western allies to become part of the coalition of the willing in Iraq. This heightened level of engagement, however, has brought
into sharper and more contentious relief the doctrine, force structure, and procurement plans currently underlying Australian
defense policy.
E. US/Australia alliance prevents nuclear war

Desmond Ball. PhD Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. 2001. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 55, No.
2, pp. 235–248. The strategic essence.
However, it has been reckoned by Australian governments on both political sides that the maintenance of the ‘joint facilities’ is,
on balance, very much in Australia’s interests. The deterrence of nuclear war is an important national interest, and successive
governments have determined that the risk of the facilities being nuclear targets is worth taking since their operations
significantly reduce the probability of any nuclear exchange. More importantly, and at a less abstract level, it has been
considered that hosting the installations, and accepting the attendant risks and costs, represents Australia’s most meaningful
contribution to the alliance, in return for which the United States provides the sophisticated technology necessary for Australian
self-reliance in credible defence contingencies. Moreover, beginning in the early 1980s, there has been increasing participation
by Australians in the operation of these facilities, and increasing use of the facilities for direct Australian purposes. The North
West Cape communications station ceased being a vital element of the US strategic nuclear posture in 1982, when the Polaris
submarines were retired from the Pacific, and although it has continued to be important to the United States for
communications with its attack submarines, as well as during defence operations in the Indian Ocean, its principal user became
the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), which uses it for communications with both its submarines and its Indian Ocean Fleet more
generally. The station transferred to RAN control in October 1992, although it was maintained as a joint facility until 1999,
when it became a fully Australian facility.
91
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
US/Australia Relations High Now

Relations stronger than ever
The Age, 6-25-08, http://news.theage.com.au/national/gillard-reinforces-australiaus-alliance-20080625-2wji.html, Junaid
The Australia-US alliance is stronger than ever, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told a dinner in Washington."On
occasions like this, in places like the state department, among friends like you, our custom is to celebrate our relationship," she
told a group of Australian and American academics, business people and government officials.Ms Gillard is in the US for a
meeting of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue. "We emphasise, rightly, the ties that bind us, the alliance which
unites and protects us, the trade and investment links which help to underpin our prosperity and the mutual friendship which
provides a solid foundation for all the work we do together." The two nations' entwined history goes back further than the half-
century alliance, Ms Gillard said.
Recent meeting convey signal of Strong relations

Samantha Hawley, Reporter, The World Today, 1-29-08,
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2148877.htm, Junaid
ELEANOR HALL: Stephen Smith's first official trip to Washington to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was
never likely to be easy. Australia's Foreign Minister was bringing unwelcome news to the leading partner in the Coalition of the
Willing that the new Australian government would go ahead with its plan to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by the
middle of the year. But while this was in stark contrast to the sort of support the US administration received from the Howard
government, when the pair emerged from their inaugural talks, they were adamant that the bilateral relationship is as strong as
ever.
Firm alliance in the status quo- security policy trust

AUSMIN, Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations, 2008,
http://www.dfat.gov.au/GEO/us/ausmin/ausmin08_joint_communique.html,
Junaid
Australia and the United States reaffirmed the enduring strength of the alliance and its firm basis in shared values, high levels
of trust and a record of cooperation and shared sacrifice. Both sides recalled the long history of defence cooperation, reaching
back to the world wars, and given contemporary resonance by their current overseas commitments. They noted that ANZUS,
strengthened by more than fifty years of cooperation and invoked for the first time following the 11 September 2001 terrorist
attacks, continues to be the foundation of a dynamic and broad-ranging security relationship. Both sides agreed that the
Australia-United States alliance will continue to make a valuable contribution to stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific and
beyond. The discussions reflected the global dimension of Australia-United States cooperation with both sides reiterating their
commitment to working together to confront contemporary security challenges, including the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and global terrorism. Both sides underlined that Australia and the United States benefit from substantial
convergence in their strategic and security policy priorities.
92
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
US/Australia Relations High Now

Relations high- security alliance
Michael Fullilove, Lowey Fellow Foreign Policy, 4-4-08, Originally in Sydney Morning
Herald, Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0404_australia_fullilove.aspx, Junaid
It is unhealthy for an alliance to be tied too tightly to the fortunes of particular leaders. Indeed, there is good evidence that, with
its embrace of the Bush Administration, the Howard government was loving the alliance to death. In the three years since 2005
in which the Lowy Institute has conducted its annual poll, the percentage of respondents rating the alliance as "very important"
to Australia's security has declined from 45 per cent to 36 per cent. The dualism of Australians' attitudes to Washington showed
up in the 2006 poll, in which 70 per cent of respondents thought the alliance was either "very important" or "fairly important"
to Australia's security, but 69 per cent believed we were taking too much notice of the US in our foreign policy. If the intimacy
of the Howard-Bush relationship undercut the alliance in Australians' eyes, it also hurt us in some Washington constituencies. A
case in point was Howard's claim last year that al-Qaeda would be praying for a Democratic victory, which drew this deadly
response from Barack Obama: "I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to fight in Iraq,
otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." Here was a leading contender for the presidency making light of a dangerous
deployment we had undertaken largely for alliance management reasons, and implying we were not living up to our full
responsibilities - the opposite of the view we like to encourage.
Both countries committed to long-term alliance- similar foreign policy

Paul Dibb, Staff Writer, Strategic Forum, Aug 05,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_/ai_n15947846m, Junaid
Australia is America's oldest friend and ally in the Asia-Pacific region and second closest ally in the world. However, there
currently is a debate in Australia about what the United States expects from the alliance and the nature of American power.
Australia's self-reliant defense posture in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific contributes to mutual security. That posture is
strengthened by the U.S. security guarantee and access to U.S. intelligence, defense science, weapons, and military logistics
support. The alliance also enhances Australia's status in world affairs, especially in Asia. Australia will remain a committed
U.S. ally for the foreseeable future. Canberra and Washington share views on fighting the war on terror, dealing with the spread
of weapons of mass destruction, supporting democracy, and preventing the emergence of failed states. However, the challenges
Australia faces in its own neighborhood have first priority. Maintaining support for the alliance will also rest upon
Washington's success in convincing the Australian public that U.S. policies are both necessary and legitimate and that
Australia's contributions to mutual security are not taken for granted.
Despite recent events, relations remain high

NYT, New York Times, 2-24-08, Posted on Star News Online,
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080224/NEWS/802240372/-1/xml,
Junaid
Canberra, Australia | Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top Australian officials insisted on Saturday that the security
alliance between the United States and Australia has not frayed despite Australia's recent pledge to remove all combat forces
from Iraq Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, announced late last year that the country's 550 combat troops in Iraq
would leave by mid-2008. But Gates and his Australian hosts accentuated the positive, talking about policy matters on which
the two countries agree.
93
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Australia Economy High Now

Despite recent turbulence- growth is expected to pick up
Alice Coster, Staff Writer, Melbourne Herald Sun, 7-16-08, http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24026244-
664,00.html, Junaid
FINANCIAL markets are in for a rough ride as caution overcomes investors' appetite for risk but the Australian economy will
continue to grow, according to Mirrabooka Investments. Managing director Ross Barker yesterday said he expected growth in
the Australian economy despite the turbulent start to the financial year. "Certainly for the first half of the year things are going
to be quite volatile and fragile as people try to digest what is really happening in the US and in Europe," Mr Barker said. "But
no one is predicting recession at this point."
Australia is in better position than the rest of the world

Alice Coster, Staff Writer, Melbourne Herald Sun, 7-16-08,
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24026244-664,00.html,
Junaid
He said the Australian economy was in a far better position than the US or Europe. "Our banks are in better shape, we have got
pretty close to full employment, while property houses are high, maybe coming off a bit, they haven't had the big falls that have
happened in the US," Mr Barker said.
Economy is stable and at a new high- export boom

Reuters, 7-18-08, http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINSYD9844820080718, Junad
SYDNEY, July 18 (Reuters) - Australia's export prices leapt a record 13.5 percent last quarter as Chinese demand fuelled huge
increases in iron ore and coal, an economic windfall that sets it apart from other industrial nations less blessed with resources.
The jump more than compensated for a 1.4 percent rise in import prices in the second quarter, which included a near 16 percent
increase in fuel costs, government data released on Friday showed. Indeed, apart from fuel and by-products like fertilizer,
import prices were held back by the rising Australian dollar, which could mean next week's consumer price report might not be
quite as inflationary as first feared. As a result, Australia's terms of trade -- what it gets for exports compared to what it pays for
imports -- looked to have climbed by around 12 percent in the quarter, a boon to profits, employment, dividends and tax
receipts.
Trade has reached a record high- much growth predicted

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) expects the terms of trade will rise by a record 20 percent or more this year, which in
turn could lift national income by around 3 percent. But this good fortune complicates life for the central bank, which has
raised interest rates four times in the past year in an effort to cool the economy and restrain inflation. Recent data suggests
domestic demand has indeed slowed sharply, giving the RBA more confidence that inflation will ebb over time.
94
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Australia Economy High Now

Despite downfalls- numbers predict future highs
AAP, Australian Associated Press, 7-10-08, Posted on The West Australian,
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=28&ContentID=84062, Junaid
A drop in unemployment and a pat on the back from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are welcome news indeed, says
federal Treasurer Wayne Swan, who remains “optimistic“ about the economy. The jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 4.2 per cent
in June, as the number of people employed bounced back sharply, Australian Bureau of Statistics data released today shows.
The good news coincided with an IMF consultation paper which warned inflation risks in Australia were on the upside, but
approved a number of Rudd government policies. Mr Swan was pleased with unemployment figures. “Given the global credit
crunch, given the global oil shock, these figures are very welcomed figures indeed,” Mr Swan told reporters in Sydney. He also
accepted the IMF analysis and warnings for Australia to hopefully head off higher inflation and corresponding interest rate
rises.
95
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Australian Coal Exports High (Asia)

Australia’s mining boom is fueled by demand from China and India
Phil Mercer, VOA News Correspondent in Sydney, 25 June 2008, “China to Pay Record Prices for
Australian Minerals”, http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa17.cfm [Bapodra]
Australia's mining boom has fueled a decade-and-a-half of unprecedented economic growth.
It is driven by soaring demand for iron ore and coal from China and India.
The bonanza has the potential to end Australia's long-term current account deficit and push the country's international trade
balance into surplus.
But despite such massive earnings in the minerals sector, there are fears that the higher income from exports could increase
inflation in Australia and push up domestic interest rates.
But Australia's mining boom has cushioned the economy from the worst effects of the global credit squeeze.
96
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
US/Australia Competition for Market Share

The US and Australia compete for market share in China and India
Dianne DeMille & Stephen Priestley – Canadian American Strategic Review, November 2005, “Beyond
Kyoto – the Lure of Cheap, Abundant CoalA New Industrial Revolution for India and China?”
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-newfuel-2.htm
The US and Australia are two of the largest exporters of coal, while India and China are two of the largest consumers,
especially of black anthracite – the highest coal grade. It didn't take long for the Australian Prime Minister to convince
President Bush to pursue a deal with India and China, whereby the two former countries would sell the latter two the coal
they need to generate electricity, light their cities, and power their manufacturing plants. In addition, the two 'Western'
nations, with their more advanced technology, would sell them the equipment they need to burn the coal more cleanly. The two
populous nations would have access to 'clean coal' technology at very reasonable rates.
Australia faces strong competition from coal suppliers when exporting to Asia
Mark Vaile, Former Australian Minister for Trade, 7 May 2000, “Strengthening Australia's position as the
World's Leading Coal Exporter at the opening of the 2000 Australian Coal Conference and Trade
Exhibition”, http://www.trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2000/070500_coal.html [Bapodra]
While the export task will remain extremely challenging, there are some positive signs. The IMF forecasts that world output
will grow by 4.2 per cent in 2000 and 3.9 per cent in 2001. While Japan's economy remains sluggish, many other important
markets, including Korea, India and South-East Asian countries, are experiencing stronger growth. East Asia's economic
recovery will contribute to stronger regional demand for coal, but Australia will continue to face strong competition from other
suppliers.
Through continued improvements in productivity, the Australian coal industry has strengthened its competitiveness in this
tough trading environment. According to ABARE, Australian coal exports are projected to increase at an average rate of 3.5 per
cent a year in the next five years as cost reductions allow producers to compete successfully.
Modest demand growth for coal is expected to be driven mainly by higher demand for electricity and steel products in Asia, as
regional recovery continues. But new challenges are always emerging, such as the growing volume of "spot" trade in coal - a
result of abundant coal supplies and greater competition in Asian electricity markets.
97
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
US/Australia Competition for Market Share

Australia and the US are eager to export coal to China
Dianne DeMille & Stephen Priestley. Canadian American Strategic Review. November 2005. Beyond Kyoto – the Lure
of Cheap, Abundant Coal A New Industrial Revolution for India and China?
India has, many times over its long past, been a significant player in world affairs, and its leaders want it to be so again. China,
through millennia, has surged and receded like the global ice ages. Both of these ancient, populous nations are set to become
'Great Powers' once again. To grow, both in prosperity and political influence, these nations require access to cheap, abundant
energy. Right now, coal is one of the cheapest, most abundant energy sources in the world. Both India and China have their
own coal reserves, but, at their present rate of growth, they will need much more coal in the coming decades. The US
and Australia both have large reserves of high - quality, black coal. Both are eager to export coal to India and China. The
Kyoto Protocol: The Right Tool? Will it be Effective? Will it be Enforceable? The majority of 'developed' nations have now
ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This United Nations document established targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases
(GHG) , especially carbon dioxide , the product of burning fossil fuels such as oil , natural gas , and coal. The
United States and Australia openly refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. They had two primary objections for their
decisions: 1) No nation can suddenly reduce its energy consumption without adversely affecting its economic growth 2)
The so-called 'developing' nations were exempt from the 'First Round' of the Kyoto Protocol. This included the two
fastest growing economies in the world – China and India. In the view of both the US and Australia, this exemption was
ludicrous, since these two so-called 'developing' countries had robust, sophisticated civilizations when Europeans were
still picking nits out of each other's hair. It is true that both India and China have been going through an economic 'sticky
patch' in the recent past, but they now boast the two fastest growing economies in the world. Because of their phenomenal
growth rates, they are also two of the largest producers of GHG, falling in behind the leader, the United States.
98
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: US Not a Coal Exporter

The US exports coal to Asia
Reuters, 07/07/08, “More US coal moving to Asia - market sources”, Filed Under: Investing,
http://money.aol.ca/article/more-us-coal-moving-to-asia-market-sources/275990/ [Bapodra]
HOUSTON, July 7 (Reuters) - More U.S. coal is moving to Asia, including the first Utah coal and the first whole cargo of
Powder River Basin coal through Westshore Terminals at Vancouver, Canada, market sources said Monday.
Utah coal has never before moved through Westshore, the largest dry bulk terminal on North America's West Coast, and
Powder River Basin has shipped there only as part of a blend, said Denis Horgan, terminal general manager.
Coal analysts have been watching for increased movement of U.S. coal to Asia as prices soar in a booming, coal-hungry
market. Asian demand coupled with delivery problems in exporting countries has made U.S. coal attractive.
"It's because there's such a shortage in the world market now," said John Hanou, vice president of Hill & Associates, a coal
consultancy. "It tells you how desperate people are."
Asian countries buy US coal when it is less expensive

Bruce Nichols, Press Correspondent, 23 May 2008, “FEATURE-U.S. miners prosper as world demand for coal booms”,
Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23218166.htm [Bapodra]
BROOKWOOD, Ala., May 23 (Reuters) - Two thousand feet under the west Alabama woods, dust flies as a machine chews
into the Blue Creek coal seam, mining black gold for a booming world market that is lifting the once-laggard U.S. coal
industry.
Economic growth in Asia has outrun world coal supply, pushing buyers to the United States -- a market traditionally viewed as
too expensive -- for backup. Bad weather and producer problems around the world have fed the frenzy.
The new prosperity shows at Jim Walter Resources Mine No. 4. Walter has paid bonuses, bought new equipment and hired
more workers. It is expanding a nearby mine. Parent company Walter Industries Inc <WLT.N>, which posted record first-
quarter earnings, is shedding its home-building roots to focus on coal.
"The company's a little bit freer with money," said John Storm, a supervisor who arrives at the working face of the seam by
descending 2,000 feet in an elevator and then riding a tram through 5 miles of deep tunnels.
George Richmond, chief executive of Jim Walter Resources, said improved profitability "does allow us to share some of the
rewards."
99
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Coal Not a World Market

Domestic coal prices affect international prices.
Miles K. Light, Department of Economics, University of Colorado. 1999. Coal Subsidies and Global Carbon Emissions. By:
Light, Miles K., Energy Journal. Vol. 20, Issue 4
The international market has changed considerably over the last two decades as it has emerged into a stable, unified market.
Domestic coal prices are now linked to one another through international trade. This was not the case 20 years ago, when
coal trade accounted for 4% of world production. Today, trade in steam coal is about 12% of world production, still a small
share of total consumption, but large enough to transmit prices around the globe. Two informal spot markets for coal have
developed, one market serving Asian demand, and the other serving European demand. These markets are linked together by
exporters like South Africa, who pay roughly the same price to ship coal to either market. In 1995, 59% of South Africa's coal
exports went to Europe and 31% went to Asia. The coal market exhibits free entry as many new competitors are now supplying
coal to each spot market. Indonesia, Venezuela, and Colombia have all entered the market as net exporters within the last 10
years. Meanwhile, traditionally large exporters such as the United States, Australia, and South Africa, have all lost market share
to these new entrants.
Single coal price fluctuations affect the world’s markets due to Asian demand
Seeking Alpha, Stock Market Analysis site, July 03, 2008, “Rising Asian Demand Keeps Coal Prices
Inflated, Energy Stocks: Coal” http://seekingalpha.com/article/83756-rising-asian-demand-keeps-coal-
prices-inflated [Bapodra]
Coal prices on Wednesday plunged in Europe and the United States. European benchmark coal dipped by as much as $25 a
tonne, to below $200, which sent U.S. benchmark coal falling by $20 a tonne. Australian markets also got affected according to
Dow Jones Newswires. The Newcastle spot coal price, where the world’s biggest thermal coal shipping port is located - fell
sharply, following on from a 20% drop in spot thermal coal prices in Europe overnight. However, despite this latest pullback in
coal prices, analysts say - that a sharp pullback in benchmark Australian thermal coal prices is only natural correction after a
recent surge. The price drop is seen as a partial retracement of gains experience in recent weeks when the spot coal price surged
ahead of the recently agreed contract prices for Asian buyers of $US125 a metric tonne, and appears to be a temporary reversal.
Prices in Asia are also projected to stay high with all the indicators pointing to ongoing tightness in the market.
100
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Coal Not a World Market

International coal prices are parallel to US domestic prices due to its status as
residual supplier
Miles K. Light, Department of Economics, University of Colorado. 1999. Coal Subsidies and Global Carbon Emissions. By:
Light, Miles K., Energy Journal. Vol. 20, Issue 4
Between 1980 and 1990, the United States emerged as the residual supplier of export coal. This linked the international coal
price to the US domestic price. The US coal market has special characteristics which make it the residual supplier. First, the
US domestic market is large compared with the international market. US steam coal production was 781 million tons (Mt) in
1995, accounting for 30% of global production and almost three times the volume of world steam coal trade, which was 256
million tons. Second, there exists substantial excess railroad and port capacity in the US, allowing for increased exports in the
short run. Gruss (1997) estimates 1995 US port utilization at 65%--the lowest of all major exporters. In contrast, Gruss
estimates Australia and South Africa to have operated near full capacity in 1995, with Australia utilizing 92% of export
production capacity and South Africa 94%. This implies that the US is best positioned to actually produce and ship hard coal
when global demand is high. When international coal demand is slack, export coal reverts back to the large US domestic
market. Finally, the US is the world's highest cost supplier. Representative CIF coal prices for Europe were 40.5 US 1995
dollars for coal from the United States, versus about 34 dollars from South Africa and 39 dollars from Australia. The high price
of US coal makes them the marginal supplier. The relative price of US coal is even higher in Asian markets. On the other [land,
in fact, it is argued by Humphreys (1995) that the US should share the swing supplier role with Australia, at least as far as the
Asian market is concerned. Humphreys argues that the US accounts for less than 7% of total exports to Asia, which limits the
US role there. There is no firm consensus as to the role of Australia as the swing supplier to date, and the prospects become
more uncertain as the Los Angeles Coal Export Terminal (LAXT), which began operations in 1998, increases export capacity
between the US and Asia.
Although China is another large coal producer, it is uncertain whether this country could be the residual supplier. High
economic growth and poor coal shipping and production infrastructure imply China may become a net importer, rather than
exporter of steam coal, see Anderson and Peng (1998). However, this paper uses the Energy Information Agency's International
Energy Outlook 1998, which estimates that Chinese exports will increase slightly between 1995 and 2010. Although China
does not appear to be growing into a global supplier, it plays some role in exports here, simply because it is the world's largest
coal producer.
A World Price for Coal
A competitive model structure, with the US as a residual supplier, allows for a simple characterization of the world price. The
world steam coal price will be consistent with the US domestic price. When international demand increases, the world price
may rise slightly above the US price, but US producers will quickly respond to the arbitrage opportunity, supplying the
international market until prices are in line with those in the US. Furthermore, if international demand falls, US producers shift
production away from international markets, back into the vast US market--softening the downward price response in the
international market. In this way, the world steam coal price will "stick" to the US price.
Ellerman (1995) presents compelling evidence and explanation for this type of market structure. He shows that while
Australian and South African exports have risen steadily over the last 20 years, US exports tended to fluctuate, responding to
short term market activity. He shows how the world coal price moved parallel to the US cost of coal production. Increased
costs for mine labor in the United States coincides with sharply increasing coal prices in the mid-1970s. Increased productivity
in the US, along with lower railroad prices, may have contributed to the gradual decline in world coal prices over the last 15
years.
101
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
High Coal Prices Good for Australia

High oil prices benefit Australian industry
Romina Maurino, Staff Writer, The Canadian Press, 4-19-08,
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Mining/2008/04/19/5332951-cp.html,
Junaid
Rising demand from Asian steelmakers and production hiccups in coal-producing countries like Australia, China and South
Africa have constrained supplies of both thermal coal and the metallurgical coal used in steel production, leading to a sharp
increase in global prices. Metallurgical coal settled at US$305 per tonne for the year, which runs from April 1 to the following
March - about 200 per cent higher than it was last year. Thermal coal, used for power plants, is currently hovering around $120
to $125 a tonne. "The rainy season in Australia, where a lot of this coal comes from has, interrupted the flow of coal to China
and India, so you have this perfect storm happening: excellent demand that's growing and then you get a little bit of a speed
bump in terms of the supply," said Jennings Capital analyst Ron Coll. "The existing production is going to enjoy the ride,
because these are wonderful prices for all coal producers, particularly the Western Canadian coal producers."
High oil prices benefit Australian industry

Romina Maurino, Staff Writer, The Canadian Press, 4-19-08,
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Mining/2008/04/19/5332951-cp.html,
Junaid
Rising demand from Asian steelmakers and production hiccups in coal-producing countries like Australia, China and South
Africa have constrained supplies of both thermal coal and the metallurgical coal used in steel production, leading to a sharp
increase in global prices. Metallurgical coal settled at US$305 per tonne for the year, which runs from April 1 to the following
March - about 200 per cent higher than it was last year. Thermal coal, used for power plants, is currently hovering around $120
to $125 a tonne. "The rainy season in Australia, where a lot of this coal comes from has, interrupted the flow of coal to China
and India, so you have this perfect storm happening: excellent demand that's growing and then you get a little bit of a speed
bump in terms of the supply," said Jennings Capital analyst Ron Coll. "The existing production is going to enjoy the ride,
because these are wonderful prices for all coal producers, particularly the Western Canadian coal producers."
High prices benefit industry- empirically proven

The Independent, 7-1-08,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sharewatch/sharply-rising-coal-
price-may-undermine-drax-857750.html, Junaid
If the price a company can get for what it produces increases faster than the price of its costs, it makes money. That simple
equation has helped the coal power station operator Drax in recent months: the price of coal has surged, but not as quickly as
the price it gets for its power. The company reckons its future is bright, and said in yesterday's trading update that full-year
earnings will be ahead of analyst consensus, which the group says is about £400m. What is more, despite the price of coal
continuing to rise, the group has managed to lock in the margin it currently generates, by signing plenty of forward sales
contracts.
102
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Coal Key to Australia’s Economy

Australia’s coal industry is integral to its economy and Australia is the world’s
largest exporter of coal
Tim Gartrell, National Secretariat of Australian Labor Party, March 2007 ,“New Directions For Australia’s
Coal Industry The National Clean Coal Initiative
“http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/new_directions_for_australias_coal_industry.pdf [Bapodra]
Australia’s coal industry is an integral component of the Australian economy. In 2005-06, Australian firms produced just under
400Mt of raw black coal and just over 70Mt of brown coal, and there were around 30,000 people employed in black coal
mining alone. 1 Coal isalso the lifeblood of communities in regions such as the Bowen Basin in Queensland, the Hunter Valley
in NSW and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. In recent years Australia’s coal industry has benefited enormously from the global
resources boom; since 2003 the value of Australian exports has increased from $10.9 billion to $23.3 billion, an increase of 114
per cent. 2 Coal now represents around 14 per cent of merchandise exports (Chart 1) and Australia is by far the world’s largest
exporter of coal, accounting for around a third of total world coal trade in 2005-06. 3 The abundance and efficiency of coal
production in Australia makes it a key input into our energy production and means that our electricity prices are amongst the
lowest in the world. Around half of Australia’s energy is produced in coal-fired power stations and cheap energy also gives
Australian exporters of energy intensive goods such as aluminium an enormous competitive advantage in international markets.
Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter

Robert Milliken, Australia correspondent, The Economist, 2008, From The World in 2008 print edition,
http://www.economist.com/theworldin/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10094477&d=2008 [Bapodra]
Australia is one of the world’s biggest greenhouse-gas emitters per head. Along with America, it is one of only two rich
countries not to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Up to now this has been largely because of the “king status” of coal. Australia is the
world’s biggest coal exporter, with enough black coal reserves to last more than 200 years at current production levels (800
years in the case of its less combustible brown coal). The country derives 83% of its own electricity from coal, and
governments have shown little inclination to change this.
103
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Coal key to Australia's growth
Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate

Change Review, Junaid
The increase in the export price of coal this year is likely to add about $US25 billion to the value of Australian exports. The
increase in price alone, in one year, of this one commodity – our largest export commodity – is likely to contribute more than
two and a half times the total value of exports of all merchandise to the United States of America. That’s one important reason
why analysts are not anticipating a downturn in the Australian economy as the United States plays dice with recession. Rapid
growth in the Asian developing economies is being fueled by coal. China, India, Indonesia and others would be running into
serious energy and metal supply constraints without the ready availability of coal. Nearly 70 per cent of China’s energy comes
from coal, and exceptional proportions of India’s energy, and of the growth in Indonesia’s. Coal therefore plays a role in the
boom in Australian exports of other goods and services to Asia. Much of this coal comes from local sources in Asian
economies, and increasing proportions from Australia.At home, coal has made Australian electricity cheaper, to business and to
households, than in most other countries. The Garnaut Climate Change Review’s modelling in progress suggests that, under
business as usual, without concern for new climate change mitigation in other countries or Australia, the relative importance of
coal to Australians’ rising living standards will increase strongly through the twenty first century.
Coal is the most important asset to the Australian Economy
Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate

Change Review, Junaid
The success of the transformation of the Australian coal-using industries, and the transmission of that success to Asian
purchasers of Australian coal, will be the critical determinants of the future of the Australian coal industry. They will be critical
determinants of the outcome of the global effort to avoid dangerous climate change. They will be critical determinants of
continued strong economic growth amongst Australia’s Asian neighbours. Few things will be as important to Australian
prosperity through the twenty first century.
The coal industry is a large sector of the Australian economy
Paul Graham and Tom Waring, 9-7-98, Abare Conference Paper, Junaid
Australia’s fundamental cost advantages have led to the development of a large export oriented coal industry. It is Australia’s
largest commodity export industry, doubling its export earnings over the past decade to reach A$9.5 billion dollars in 1997-98.
It is also a very competitive industry. In 1997 there were 118 mines producing 217 million tonnes of coal. The Australian
industry is characterised by a large number of companies competing vigorously with each other and with overseas rivals for
market share.
104
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Coal key to Australia's growth
Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate Change Review, Junaid
The increase in the export price of coal this year is likely to add about $US25 billion to the
value of Australian exports.
The increase in price alone, in one year, of this one commodity – our largest export
commodity – is likely to contribute more than two and a half times the total value of exports of
all merchandise to the United States of America.
That’s one important reason why analysts are not anticipating a downturn in the Australian
economy as the United States plays dice with recession.
Rapid growth in the Asian developing economies is being fueled by coal. China, India,
Indonesia and others would be running into serious energy and metal supply constraints
without the ready availability of coal. Nearly 70 per cent of China’s energy comes from coal,
and exceptional proportions of India’s energy, and of the growth in Indonesia’s. Coal therefore
plays a role in the boom in Australian exports of other goods and services to Asia. Much of
this coal comes from local sources in Asian economies, and increasing proportions from
Australia.
At home, coal has made Australian electricity cheaper, to business and to households, than in
most other countries.
The Garnaut Climate Change Review’s modelling in progress suggests that, under business
as usual, without concern for new climate change mitigation in other countries or Australia,
the relative importance of coal to Australians’ rising living standards will increase strongly
through the twenty first century.
Coal is the most important asset to the Australian Economy

Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate Change Review, Junaid
The success of the transformation of the Australian coal-using industries, and the transmission of that
success to Asian purchasers of Australian coal, will be the critical determinants of the future of the
Australian coal industry. They will be critical determinants of the outcome of the global effort to avoid
dangerous climate change. They will be critical determinants of continued strong economic growth
amongst Australia’s Asian neighbours. Few things will be as important to Australian prosperity through
the twenty first century.
Coal has narrowed Australian trade deficit

International Herald Tribune, The Global Edition of the New York Times, March 6, 2007, Business
Section, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/business/ozecon.php [Bapodra]
SYDNEY: The Australian trade deficit narrowed in January as coal and manufacturing exports rose, signaling that growth may
pick up in the Asia-Pacific region's fifth-largest economy. The trade shortfall narrowed to 876 million Australian dollars, or
$677 million, from 1.38 billion dollars in December, the Bureau of Statistics said in Sydney on Tuesday. Exports rose 2 percent
and imports dropped 1 percent. Asia's growing appetite for resources has fueled an investment boom by Australian miners and
energy producers, stoking exports.
105
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Economy Key to Relations

Economic ties are A-Priori in US-Australian relationships
Heritage Foundation, 6-18-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1450.cfm, Junaid
President George Bush recently announced that he will meet with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia on September 10 in
Washington to discuss trade, regional security, and the future of U.S.-Australian relations. 1 Australia is one of America's most
durable and dependable allies and an important trading partner. 2 Indeed, Americans and Australians have fought side by side
in every major war of the last century. Although their defense alliance with New Zealand, the ANZUS Treaty, is marking its
50th anniversary this year, concerns about regional security are growing, and Australia is seeking a bilateral trade agreement
with the United States. Trade not only strengthens the economies of trading partners, but also enhances the defense and security
ties of allies. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign policy. A bilateral agreement
should be promoted. Regarding security, Australia is one of America's most supportive allies. Strengthening the interoperability
of U.S. and Australian forces to further buttress the alliance should be a policy objective. In addition, although the United
States has not yet approached the Australian government about a direct involvement in its missile defense efforts, there may be
a role for Australia to consider. The Bush Administration has signaled its desire to establish closer relations with Canberra, and
the opportunity to do so is clearly at hand.
Economic relations are crucial for US and Australia

Heritage Foundation, 6-18-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1450.cfm, Junaid
Australia is a pluralistic society that is strongly democratic and relatively open economically. While possessing its own unique
and vibrant culture, no other country in the Asia-Pacific region is more like the United States in its political and economic
values. Australia, a long-time ally, is clearly a strong candidate for closer relations with the United States, including a bilateral
trade agreement. The reason: As noted above, open trade between allies not only strengthens their economies, but also
enhances their defense and security ties. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign
policy. The United States has advanced global free trade as a key component of its foreign policy since World War II. It has
found that economies that are open to trade and capital flows prosper over time. Moreover, as countries liberalize
economically, conditions are created for them to do so politically. Thus, economically open nations often transform themselves
into politically open societies.
106
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Relations Resilient

The alliance is not immutable – lack of Australian support kills military commitments
Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. National Interest, Inc.
In short, Australia prefers an America that values partnerships and coalitions, that utilizes soft as well as hard power, that
emphasizes political methods as well as military ones. Such an approach is critical to maintaining a sense of common purpose
in relation to ends, means and language. One reason for this is that a certain rise in anti-Americanism is inevitable; great
powers, no matter how benign, invariably generate resentment. But Washington must understand that such a development
affects not just America but increases the potential price paid by America's allies in siding with the hegemon. This is not an
argument against all military action. It is an argument for more attention to the tone of U.S. policy, and for legitimizing military
action by law and through coalitions whenever possible.
Such care is particularly important because the American alliance system is overwhelmingly composed of democratic countries
with real publics. Australia's pro-U.S. political leaders spent much of 2002 trying to uphold the American position, only to be
engulfed by a tide of unilateral and provocative rhetoric from the U.S. administration that had the reverse impact. The U.S.
alliance is not immutable in Australia. It needs democratic nourishment and it can be sustained in the long run only by public
support that sees military commitments under its banner as being in the national interest and possessing international
legitimacy. It is idle to believe that any lurch to an American unilateralism would not erode the domestic political support
within Australia for the alliance.
US failure to maintain the Australian alliance will cause it to collapse

In the meantime, Americans might profit from reflecting upon what Australia brings to the partnership. It offers a range of
benefits: shared military arrangements and an ally that, when the chips are down, is prepared to fight; a country on the rim of
East Asia that can assist the U.S. position in the region; an independent partner with common values whose public support can
help the United States in political terms and whose private counsel can provide a test of policy. Australia is also an ally
prepared to take a leadership position as the metropolitan power within its region--an event rarely replicated in Europe during
the last decade. These are assets that a prudent America should value, and if they are valued, they will be sustained by U.S.
political capital and a genuine effort to define new points of concord. The alternative is easy to state: it is to watch as a true
partnership of peoples is undermined by a lack of understanding and imagination required in changed times.
Australia is just like George Harrison, if America’s John Lennon ignores its relationship with Australia
then the alliance is in peril
Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE
OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE
21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra]
So it is for U.S.-Australian relations. If Britain is seen as Paul McCartney to America’s John Lennon, so Australia under John Howard
can be viewed much as George Harrison—quiet, talented, dependable, a vital part of an amazing partnership—but also very much
overlooked. As was the case for the Beatles with George Harrison, America ignores its successful relationship with Australia at its
peril.
107
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Relations Resilient

The U.S. must utilize the well developed networks in Australia and engage Australia to maintain relations
No matter how politically constrained President Bush is during the last 2 years of his presidency, he will still have an obligation, and
numerous opportunities, to contribute to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. The good news is that the Bush
administration already has taken the first essential step by refocusing its attention on the area. The next step should be to take a page
from Mr. Howard’s play book by treating close ties to Canberra as a “plus . . . in forging stronger links in Asia.” An “Australia plus”
strategy would involve two progressively more difficult policies for U.S. policymakers. First, the Bush administration should respond
to Hulsman’s warnings about taking Australia for granted. This should involve more than “public displays of affection.” It should
utilize the well-developed network of institutional ties between the two governments, in conjunction with high-level 25 consultations,
in order to enhance the influence of Australian foreign and defense policymakers within the Washington policy community. On an
interpersonal level, this should be a relatively painless adjustment, since, as Kurt Campbell has observed: “It’s fair to say that
Americans generally like Australians, and it doesn’t hurt that senior Australian diplomats and officials are particularly expert at
engaging Americans—and even manipulating them on occasion!”7 The challenge will be for both sides to get beyond comfortable
social interaction so that Washington can benefit from Australia’s rich foreign policy experience—especially as it relates to the Asia-
Pacific region.
The United States must push aside policy differences to build mutual trust
with Australia
The second and more difficult policy which the United States should pursue corresponds to Kelly’s “essential truth” that “alliances
work better when mutual respect . . . incorporates a margin of difference.” As several contributors to this volume have noted, U.S. and
Australian interests are likely to diverge on a number of key foreign policy issues in the near future, as the two nations adjust to
significant structural changes in the Asia-Pacific region. However, this does not mean, as Doug Bandow has argued, that it is time to
scrap the ANZUS alliance so that both nations can pursue more flexible and independent foreign policies. On the contrary, in
accordance with my first recommendation, the ANZUS relationship should be strengthened in order to facilitate U.S.-Australia
consultation. And to the extent that bilateral consultation is improved, it will make it that much easier for both nations to prepare for
situations of foreign policy divergence.
108
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Afghanistan Module

A. Australian troops key to sustain stability in Afghanistan and prevent
renewed Taliban activity in Uruzgan province
Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007,
“THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE
START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia,
Our [Australia] troop commitment in Afghanistan, particularly in Uruzgan province, carries high risks. Uruzgan province is a
recognized danger area, and combat casualties cannot be ruled out. If that happens, it would cause serious public discontent.
Afghanistan could unravel before renewed Taliban activity, resurrecting a narco-economy and warlord cruelty and repression,
even though they are now nominal allies of President Karzai, who of recent date charmingly appointed 13 such people to senior
positions in the police force. These were people, according to a recently leaked United Nations (UN) report, with “links to drug
smuggling, organized crime, and illegal militias.” The same report names “leading Afghan politicans and officials accused of
orchestrating massacres, torture, mass rape, and other war crimes.”10 As these dreadful acts of government malfeasance
become better known, it will be mountingly difficult to keep a public commitment to this engagement in place.
B. Afghan instability spreads throughout Central Asia and triggers global nuclear war
S. Frederick Starr, Chairman, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns
Hopkins University, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus,
December 13, 2001
This imperial hangover will eventually pass, but for the time being it remains a threat. It means that the Central Asians, after
cooperating with the US, will inevitably face redoubled pressure from Russia if we leave abruptly and without attending to the
long-term security needs of the region. That we have looked kindly into Mr. Putin's soul does not change this reality. The
Central Asians face a similar danger with respect to our efforts in Afghanistan. Some Americans hold that we should destroy
Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the Taliban and then leave the post-war stabilization and reconstruction to others. Such a course
runs the danger of condemning all Central Asia to further waves of instability from the South. But in the next round it will not
only be Russia that is tempted to throw its weight around in the region but possibly China, or even Iran or India. All have as
much right to claim Central Asia as their "backyard" as Russia has had until now. Central Asia may be a distant region but
when these nuclear powers begin bumping heads there it will create terrifying threats to world peace that the U.S. cannot
ignore.
109
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Iraq Module

A. Australia’s commitment in Iraq is currently in accord with the U.S. providing
overall stability. Australian withdrawal would trigger bloodshed like the British
pullout
The lessons of history, however, do not provide cause for optimism. The current situation and the hope13 ful rhetoric
accompanying it remind one of Britain’s folly entering Iraq in 1922 and being confronted with revolt. Then, in 1927, after
empty promises that Iraq was ready to stand on its own feet—all this was well before the 1952 expiry date of the British
mandate— Britain removed its troops. There was bloodshed when Britain pulled out, later to be replaced by Sunni repression.
Now, in this re-run of that sad experience, the prospect is a balkanization of the country, with the Kurd segment creating major
instability in Turkey and Syria. Nor do the complications end here. Iran aims to use its influence to get control of the southern
oil fields. And there will be internal fighting among Iraq’s major players to see which dominates the rich Basra fields. Since al-
Zarqawi’s death, fighting has broken out among Shia factions jockeying for power and future control. At this writing, General
George Casey, commander of the coalition forces, has announced “that he may call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad,
possibly by increasing the overall U.S. presence in Iraq,” in the face of rising bloodshed.11 This sharp reversal in withdrawal
plans contrasts with the earlier announced decision not to replace two brigades of combat troops when they return to the United
States in September 2007, and to make big drawdowns of troops by the end of that year It is to be hoped that such backing-
andfilling is not a shadow play of the British tactics in 1927. In any case, it would be interesting to learn the views of
conference participants about whether Australia’s commitment in Iraq is in accord with the contemporary spirit of its alliance
with the United States. The great shame is that any hope of a UN option seems to have been squandered from the start.
110
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Iraq Module

B. Iraqi instability spreads throughout the region and kills the global economy
Kenneth M. Pollack, analyst for the Brookings Institute After Saddam: Assessing the Reconstruction of Iraq
foreignaffairs.org January 12, 2004
After the experience of the last thirty years we now know quite a bit about failed states -- enough to know that allowing Iraq to
become one would be disastrous. The chaos bred by a failed state can never be successfully contained. Iraqi refugees would
flow out of the country and into neighboring states. Chaos in Iraq would breed extremists and terrorists who would not limit
their targets only to those within Iraq's nominal borders. Groups within Iraq would call on co-religionists, co-ethnicists,
tribesmen, and fellow political travelers across the borders for aid. Petty warlords would seek help from neighboring powers,
and the neighbors themselves would inevitably begin to intervene in Iraq's civil strife if only in the vain hope of preventing it
from spilling over into their territory. The same would likely hold true for Iraq and its impact on the countries of the Persian
Gulf. They would be inundated by refugees and armed groups seeking sanctuary and assistance. They would be sucked in by
tribal rivalries, ethnic and religious ties, and fear that a failure to act will cause the chaos to spread across their borders. They
would likely become battlegrounds for rival Iraqi militias and breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. And
these are countries that the United States cares about deeply. Saudi Arabia is frail enough as it is. Many analysts fear that even
on its own, the Saudi state might not last another ten years. Add to that the tremendously destabilizing influence of civil war in
Iraq next door, and no one should be sanguine about Saudi prospects. Kuwait is another major oil producer, and if chaos
consumed Iraq and Saudi Arabia, it would be hard for tiny Kuwait to remain inviolate. The loss of oil production as a result of
chaos or revolution in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait would cripple the international oil market with unimaginable
consequences for the global economy. Beyond them, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are all also economically and political
fragile and all would suffer from the political, military and economic spillover of a failed state in Iraq. Given the history of
failed states, we simply cannot allow Iraq to slip into chaos and civil war. The results would likely be catastrophic for the
entire region -- a region that is vital to the interests of the United States and the economic health of the entire world.
C. Nuclear war
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 8/23/92, World Policy Institute
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their
leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for
them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people
and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.
111
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Deterrence

Relations are key to US intelligence and nuclear deterrence.
From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the United States maintained in Australia more than a dozen (and in the 1960s and 1970s,
more than two dozen) installations concerned with military communications, navigation, satellite tracking and control, and
various forms of intelligence collection, including half a dozen seismic stations which monitored underground nuclear
detonations (NUDETS) and other facilities which provided information for the US Ocean Surveillance Information System
(OSIS). Three of these installations were vital elements of the US strategic command, control, communications and
intelligence (C31) system which supported the US strategic nuclear posture: the ‘joint facilities’ at North West Cape, Pine Gap
and Nurrungar.
The naval communications station at North West Cape in Western Australia (WA) was originally established under an
agreement signed in 1963 to provide communications for US Polaris ﾏ eet ballistic missile (FBM) submarines operating in the
western Paci. c Ocean. It was the largest and most powerful of the three principal very low frequency (VLF) stations in the US
world-wide FBM submarine communications system (the other two being at Jim Creek in Washington, which covered the
northern Paci. c Ocean, and Cutler in Maine, which covered the Atlantic Ocean) (Ball 1980, Ch.4). During the 1970s and 1980s
the station was augmented with satellite communications (SATCOM) facilities, which enabled it to provide more general
communications support for the US Department of Defense and the Services (Ball 1989, pp. 142–55).
The satellite ground control station at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory (NT), which was established
under an agreement signed in 1966, controls US geostationary satellites (called Rhyolite, Aquacade, Magnum, Orion
and their successors) which were originally designed to monitor signals emanating from the Soviet Union, and especially
telemetry associated with the development of advanced weapons systems by the Soviet Union. These geostationary SIGINT
satellites have subsequently been used to intercept a wide range of microwave signals (including long-distance telephony),
emanating from China, Vietnam, South Asia and the Middle East in addition to the former Soviet Union (Ball 1988). (The
latest geostationary SIGINT satellites, called Advanced Orion, weigh some 4,650 kilograms, or about twice as much as the
Magnum/Orion satellites, and are able to intercept an even broader range of signals) (US Congress 1985 Pt2, p. 458; Davis
1989; Ball 1993, p. 17). The satellite ground station at Nurrungar in South Australia (SA), which was established under an
agreement signed in 1969, controlled US Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites stationed over the eastern hemisphere
(DSP-E), and was originally designed to provide early warning of Soviet ballistic missile launches and to monitor nuclear
detonations (Ball 1987; Richelson 1999). DSP satellites have subsequently been used to monitor a wide range of other ballistic
missile developments in the eastern hemisphere. They were used to provide the . rst warning of Iraqi Scud launches during the
Gulf War in 1991 (Richelson 1999, Ch.10). They have been used more recently to monitor ballistic missile test ﾏ ights in India,
Pakistan, Iran, China and North Korea.
112
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Heg

US-Australia Relations allow US hegemony to flourish globally.
Australian strategic and defence analysts have generally been enthusiastic about the revolution in military affairs (RMA)—that
combination of dominant battlespace knowledge and long-range, precision strike capabilities which allows military operations
to be conducted extremely effectively at minimal risk. The RMA will enable the United States to retain its military leadership
globally, and it will enhance the relative capabilities of America’s regional allies who have privileged access to the advanced
US information and strike technologies. According to Paul Dibb, America’s closest allies in the Asia–Pacific region, Australia
and Japan, ‘will become an integral part of the process of information dominance’ (Dibb 1998). From the Australian point of
view, the adoption of the RMA is a natural follow-on to the high-technology approach to the defence of Australia.
113
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Prolif Module

Australia has led efforts to neutralize WMD challenges in East Asia for the
United States
Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”,
Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra]
Fourth, Australia has played an important role in U.S.-led efforts to neutralize potential weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
challenges in East Asia. Canberra has been a prominent supporter and participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)—
ostensibly designed to intercept shipments of WMD-related materials wherever they occur but in reality designed principally
with North Korea in mind. On this latter score, Canberra also has been an active supporter of the Six Party Talks process in
which the United States is a direct participant, and Cranberra has been a vocal critic of North Korea’s provocative missile tests
of July 2006. The Howard government also has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States on missile
defense cooperation,31 an issue prefaced by the 2005 Defense Update containing the significant clause, “Australia will
continue to look for ways to support the United States in the Asia-Pacific region.”32
114
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Prolif Module

Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction
Victor A. Utgoff is Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival,
“Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” 2002, pg 87-90
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be
reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both
these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold
War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet
Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea,
Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little
prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed
aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them
to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint
would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear
weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the
technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point,
halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the
transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line
for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally
overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world
peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking
about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop
nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve
without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly
proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery
systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive
nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their
opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are
incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass
destruction, such as biological weapons. [The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the
use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the
Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air
strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts,
retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding
anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever
levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with
nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror
the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world
may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of
dead cities or even whole nations.
115
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Prolif

Alliance key to check terrorism, sea safety and nuclear proliferation
Asian Political News. April 7, 2008. Japan, U.S., Australia to hold security talks April 18 in Hawaii
TOKYO, April 4 Kyodo Japan, the United States and Australia are set to hold senior working-level talks April 18 in Hawaii on
security issues including how to better strengthen mutual cooperation in international peacekeeping missions, sources close to
Japan-U.S. relations said Thursday. For Japan, the planned trilateral talks will be an opportunity to strengthen security ties with
Canberra as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has taken positions close to China since taking office in December, the
sources said. Japan and the United States are also considering holding separate three-nation talks with South Korea on security
issues in the near future, Japanese government sources said.
A Japanese government source said the plans for the separate three-way dialogues reflect Japan's willingness ''to establish a
multi-track security framework without relying only on the Japan-U.S. alliance.'' But diplomatic experts warn the moves could
lead China to increase its vigilance. Nobushige Takamizawa, chief of the Japanese Defense Ministry's Defense Policy Bureau,
is likely to represent Japan in the trilateral talks with the United States and Australia. The U.S. delegation to the talks is
expected to be led by David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia. Japanese, U.S. and Australian officials
are expected to confirm their commitment to accumulate achievements of mutual cooperation in U.N.-led peacekeeping
missions as well as post-disaster relief and humanitarian activities, the Japan-U.S. relations sources said. The three countries
are also likely to agree to continue dialogues among experts for cooperation in transportation using midsize aircraft. The
delegates from the three countries also plan to discuss how better to fight terrorism, secure sea lane safety, and deal with the
problems of North Korea's nuclear programs and ballistic missile development. The issue of upgrading the trilateral security
talks to subcabinet level will be also taken up in the Hawaii talks, the sources said. The plans for the two trilateral sessions
come after Australia has tried to boost ties with China by taking steps such as holding the first bilateral ministerial talks in
February on security, trade and human rights.
116
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Asian War Module

U.S.-Australian relations are key to Asian stability
Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 6-29-2001 “The Australia-United States Alliance and
East Asian Security,” Speech at the University of Sydney conference [Bapodra]
I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty
and the alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable
trade-offs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining strong
relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest that the depth and strength of
our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense. In fact, ANZUS was seen from
the outset as a means of enhancing our ties with the region: Percy Spender, who pushed so strongly to conclude the ANZUS Treaty,
did so with a clear and expressed conviction that Australia’s destiny was bound up with Asia. He saw the Australia – US alliance as a
linchpin for stability in the region. On the eve of his departure for the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Spender said that
“Australia and the United States of America are the two countries which can, in co-operation one with the other, make the greatest
contribution to stability and to democratic development of the countries of South-East Asia.” This was 13 months before the crucial
Canberra negotiations at which the fundamentals of ANZUS were hammered out.
Instability in Asia leads to major power wars and nuclear conflict

Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Winter 2001,Strategic Trends: Asia at a Crossroads, Naval
War College Review, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...r/art2-w01.htm [Bapodra]
The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the former
Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe. Unlike in Europe,
it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological confrontation still exist across the
Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and these two countries
are more confrontational than at any time since the early 1970s; in Southeast Asia, Indonesia—which is the world’s fourth-largest
country—faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup. The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150
billion a year) than any other part of the world except the United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or
five global military spenders. Asia also has more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia’s security is at a crossroads:
the region could go in the direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are
positive tendencies, including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic
view. But there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial,
ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation or arms
control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional Forum have shown
themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises.
117
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Terrorism

Australia is critical to checking terrorist efforts in Southeast Asia
Second, the Long War has a significant Asian regional dimension in which Australian and U.S. interests converge. Both have
had significant concerns about jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia and are keen to cooperate with major regional countries in
helping them to address this challenge. Paramount here is cooperation with Indonesia—although Canberra may find that its
own direct bilateral relationship with Jakarta is the best way forward here. The initial and more catastrophic Bali bombing
(October 2002) provided Australia with a very direct stake in the future 122 management of the terrorist challenge in Indonesia.
In the successful police-led cooperation with Indonesia that followed, it also provided Canberra with the opportunity to further
enhance bilateral relations which had been so strained in 1999, and which will continue to be challenging to manage.
Notwithstanding the terrorism issue, however, one possible role here for Australia is to encourage Washington to view
Indonesia’s internal circumstances in all of their complexity. It also should be noted here that Australia has increased its
counterterrorism cooperation with the Philippines,28 whose struggles with a southern insurgency also have been a major
concern for the United States.
118
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Regional Security Module

Strong relations are indispensable for peace in Asia
Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. ational Interest, Inc.
WHILE AMERICA is Australia's most vital state-to-state relationship, its most important region is East Asia-the focus of its
trade (56 percent of exports), neighborhood cooperation and security concerns. For several decades the central task of
Australian policy has been to integrate its Asian ties with its U.S. alliance, a challenge assisted by the fact that these objectives
have been mutually reinforcing most of the time. For example, the joint status of Australia and Japan as U.S. security partners
deepens the scope for Australia-Japan collaboration. If the U.S. alliance came to be seen as undermining Australia's role in
Asia, on the other hand, then it would count as a serious liability to be weighed against the undoubted benefits of the alliance.
Australia, therefore, has a profound interest in the way America manages its relations with China. Australia values a U.S.
forward role that contributes to the regional balance but tolerates the rise of China by seeking to incorporate it into mainstream
international economic and security systems. This view is founded in realism, buffered by a bit of justifiable optimism. It
recognizes the lack of strategic stability in East Asia, China's role as an anti-status quo power, and the risk inherent in Asia's
three unresolved flashpoints: the India-Pakistan dispute, the division of Korea and the Taiwan issue. A strong U.S. role is
indispensable to a peaceful regional balance. It is hard to see any downgrading of ANZUS, however, that would not be part
of a U.S. regional retreat--a retreat that would also concern Japan and South Korea in the north and, at a minimum, Singapore,
Thailand, the Philippines and Australia in the south.
119
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Regional Security Module

Instability in South Asia triggers global proliferation and nuclear war, ending in
extinction.
Mirza Aslam Beg; Ex-General Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army l; May 20, 1999. Nuclearization of South Asia:
Rational Diffusion of Holocaust.
During the darkest days of the World War I, the Austrian poet, Karl Kraus wrote: “If we still had imagination, we would no
longer wage war”. But human innovative proclivity towards destructive pursuits, it appears, often draws curtain over
imagination. The creation of the doomsday machine - the atomic bomb - brings the most frightening prospect of what has been
characterized as the “nuclear winter”. It is not a fantasized popular end-of-the-world-dread, but “gives concrete substance to
that image; using a just small portion of our nuclear stockpiles, we may so impair our habitat, the earth, that it no longer can
sustain human and other forms of life.”1 Andrei Sakharov also reiterated: “A very large nuclear war would be a calamity of
indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending towards the worst.... all-
out nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilization, throw man back centuries, cause the death of
hundreds of millions or billions of people, and with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a
biological species.”2 (continue…) Deterrence worked in the case of two super powers during the Cold War as has been
dramatically brought to light by Gorbachev. Pleading for one standard, Jaswant Singh maintains: “India’s nuclear policy
remains firmly committed to a basic tenet, that the country’s national security in a world of nuclear proliferation lies either in
global disarmament or in exercise of the principle of equal and legitimate security for all.”31 He believes disarmament to be
“unrealistic politics”, and discards the apprehensions with respect to India becoming nuclear. “If the permanent five’s
possession of nuclear weapons increases security, he says, “why would India’s possession of nuclear weapons be dangerous?”32
To come at par with the five nuclear nations, is the driving motive. “If the permanent five continue to employ nuclear weapons,
as an international currency of force and power, why should India voluntarily devalue its own state power and national
security?33 He therefore poses a fundamental question: “If deterrence works in the West as it so obviously appears to, since
western nations insist on continuing to possess nuclear weapons - by what reasoning will it not work for India”.34 Dr. Bowen,
questions the efficiency of seductive super power model, which in his view, is wrong. “Such a logic”, he said, “would be
persuasive if several things were always true; if leaders were always logical; and of perception of the situation in the real world
were always reasonably accurate. After having gone through it, my take on the Cold War is that the super powers get through it
with a consistent streak of luck as much as through the careful and wise decisions of national leaders. It was not western
superiority that was decisive in preserving peace but prolonged luck”.35 The second argument is that US and USSR did not
share common geography as the South Asian rivals do. The super powers shared a buffer -thousands of miles of Ocean between
them - but this is not the case with South Asia. “Even with the fastest ballistic missiles”, he said, “the time from launch to
impact was 30 minutes. A half-hour may not be much time, but it is generally enough to pause to assess a warning that
something drastic is about to happen, to determine if the warning was a false one, or simply to give a chance for cooler heads to
prevail.”36 In the case of South Asia, it would be “a tenth of the time the super powers had - 30 minutes isn’t much, but it’s a lot
better than three minutes”. It is on this basis that “progress on weaponization, on inducting weapons into the armed forces, and
deployment of these nuclear forces should stop. Each step up the ladder, each additional rung, places the region closer to the
point where some accident or miscalculation could lead to nothing but disaster. The nuclear genie cannot be put back in the
bottle - but the genie need not be allowed to dictate how weapons and missiles go from the drawing board to the battle field.”37
One can thus see the futility of “non-first-use” of nuclear weapons proposition put forward by India, as the geography makes it
utterly impossible to determine as to who was the “trigger happy”, within a span of three minutes. The conflict-ridden South
Asia has become all the more vulnerable after its nuclearization as historical animosities, may escalate into nuclear
confrontation with horrendous consequences. Nuclearization is very often a precursor of nuclear competition, which exerts a
dynamics of its own, where irrational fears, cloud rational thinking and misperceptions guide judgments. By altering the non-
weaponised nuclear character of South Asia, India has triggered a snow-ball impact on the continent of Asia, and even beyond.
Iran, may feel threatened and may opt to become nuclear. The nuclear fear waves may touch the shores of South East Asian
countries, who would legitimately be concerned about their ‘security’ and maintaining the pace of their economic development.
Similarly, with the prospect of Indian nuclear submarine, freely playing in the Indian Ocean - reportedly in the making in
collaboration with Russia - Australia and Japan would have reasons to worry about and choose options to meet the threat.
120
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Regional Security

US/Australian relations key to regional security
Kevin Rudd. House of Representatives Australia. April 20, 2007. THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION THE
RISE OF CHINA AND THE STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S.-AUSTRALIA RELATIONS.
The future peace and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region ultimately depends on getting the strategic fundamentals right; that
is, in turn, first and foremost, it requires continued U.S. strategic engagement in East Asia and the West Pacific anchored in the
existing pattern of U.S. military alliances, including those with Japan and Australia. Based on these foundations, it also
requires that we actively and affirmatively engage China in the maintenance of a regional and global rules-based order. This, in
effect, is what the Council on Foreign Relations' Independent Task Force on China U.S. Relations recommended earlier this
month, and I quote from them: "An affirmative agenda of integrating China into the global community by weaving them into
the fabric of international regimes on security, trade, and human rights and balancing China's growing military power."
Eighteen months ago this concept was eloquently articulated by Robert Zoellick, then Deputy Secretary of State, in what he
described as the concept of China as a responsible stakeholder in the regional and global order. He posited that in the light of
China's economic success and its rising political influence Beijing had an increasing interest, an increasing self-interest, in
ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703)
519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 13 working with the international community to sustain and strengthen the
international security order. Because China has benefited from that order and the economic growth that has proceeded from it,
China therefore, according to the logic, has an intrinsic interest in sustaining that order and contributing to its sustenance.
121
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Regional Security

U.S. Australian relations are key for East Asian stability
The point of this discussion has not been to suggest that Australia’s alliance relationship with the United States has been deprived of
its Asian dimension completely. Several elements are important to note in that regard. First, it remains strongly in Australia’s interests
for the United States to continue to play a significant balancing role in East Asia in the process of promoting peace and stability.
Securing the ongoing presence of substantial U.S. forces in North Asia in particular remains one of the core objectives behind
Australia’s commitment to its own part of the huband- spokes system. The 2005 Defence Update states that “U.S. engagement in the
Asia-Pacific region has been the foundation of the region’s strategic stability and security since World War II, and is no less relevant
60 years on.”26 Australia’s close relations with the U.S. Pacific Command, and that Command’s interest in Australia’s neck of the
regional woods, also remain highly valued in Canberra, including the regular Pacific rim exercises which involve the ADF alongside
forces from the U.S. and a number of other regional countries.27
Relations empirically key to regional security

Bruce Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade, 8-8-07,
Federation of American Scientists, Junaid
Australia plays a key role in promoting regional stability in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific. Australia has led peace-
keeping efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, includingEast Timor and the Solomon Islands, and has supported U.S. Efforts and
worked closely with key regional states in the war against terrorism in Southeast Asia. Theseactions demonstrateAustralia’s
resolveto promotestabilityin Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. Australia has also worked closely with Indonesia to counter
terrorism in Southeast Asia. This report will be updated.
122
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts

Asia’s geopolitics and revolution in military affairs means that there is a high risk
of prolif and ballistic missile warfare
Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Naval War College Review, Winter 2001,Strategic Trends:
Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...r/art2-w01.htm
[Bapodra]
The political makeup of Asia is highly varied, and this adds to the geopolitical complexity of the region. Unlike Europe, where a broad
swathe of democracies now occupies most of the continent, Asia has four of the world's five remaining communist countries: China,
North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos. Whilst there has been an encouraging rise of democracy in recent years in South Korea, Taiwan,
Thailand, and the Philippines, authoritarian regimes are firmly in power in Pakistan and Burma, and the governments in Malaysia and
Singapore practice forms of "soft authoritarianism." As for Indonesia, it remains to be seen whether democracy will survive there. In
any case, the trend toward democracy in the region, if it continues, does not necessarily imply easier relationships with the United
States, as the New Zealand case demonstrates. The highly questionable proposition--which has become an article of faith in some
quarters in Washington--that democracies do not go to war with democracies may be disproved one of these days in Asia. In any case,
deep-seated historical, cultural, religious, and territorial differences in Asia suggest that, irrespective of the development of democratic
institutions, the dangers of armed conflict remain. Late in 1999 there was a risk that military conflict would erupt (over East Timor)
between Australia and a newly democratic Indonesia. As the "revolution in military affairs" spreads to Asia and introduces longer-
range and more accurate weapons supported by good surveillance information, the geography of Asia will be compressed. The
introduction of long-range cruise missiles and the development of ballistic missiles will make smaller countries much more vulnerable
if deterrence fails. The risk then will be either of an escalating proliferation of ballistic missiles, or of the acquisition from the United
States of a protective ballistic missile defense, which in turn may lead to the multiplication of offensive missile systems. The ballistic
missile proliferation challenge for the United States and its allies will be more acute in Asia than anywhere else. The ready availability
of advanced conventional weapons not only compresses but alters the geography of the region. For instance, the proliferation of
supersonic antiship cruise missiles will make it more dangerous for the United States and its allies to operate militarily in the littoral
environment of many states of the region. Thus although the long lead-times in acquiring major military platforms are likely to keep
the overall orders of battle of regional countries from changing much over the next five years, capabilities in many instances can
change quickly through the acquisition of quite limited numbers of relatively cheap, long-range, and accurate tactical missiles.
123
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Asian-Pacific instability causes major power struggles risking war all over Asia, involving the U.S.
Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Naval War College Review, Winter 2001,Strategic Trends:
Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...r/art2-w01.htm
[Bapodra]
The Asia-Pacific region has entered a particularly complex strategic situation; a new balance of power may be evolving. The Asian
economic crisis, tension between China and the United States over Taiwan, North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the
risk of war between India and Pakistan, and the possibility of Indonesian disintegration have all arisen suddenly, and they serve to
underline the basic insecurity of the region. But whether Asia remains a peaceful region will largely depend upon the struggle for
power and influence between the major powers: China, Japan, India, Russia, and the United States. It is not in the interests of the
United States or of its allies to see the region dominated by any one Asian power or by a concert of them. China is a rising power that
sees itself as the natural leader in Asia. It perceives its aspirations in this regard as being thwarted by the American military presence
in the region and the U.S. alliance network. China is acquiring, with assistance from Russia, modern military equipment that will
enable it to prevail militarily in the South China Sea against any regional power, if it so wishes. Were China to succeed in asserting
sovereignty over the South China Sea, it would be able to penetrate deeply into Southeast Asia and influence events there. Thus there
are serious questions surrounding the rise of China to power. Will China be a responsible and cooperative member of the international
community, abiding by the community's rules of nonaggression? Or will China become an expansionist power, as have other rising
powers in the past? World history has been marked by the rise of ambitious new powers seeking to displace weaker powers. China is
many decades away from being a peer competitor of the dominant world power, the United States; already, however, the main danger
to the region is the risk that the next military confrontation will be between the United States and China. David Shambaugh stated in
early 2000 that growing "strategic competition" is likely to characterize Sino-American relations for most of the coming decade,
whatever American administration came to office in 2001. [2] The greatest danger is over Taiwan: war between the United States and
China in the Taiwan Straits might well draw in America's allies, including Australia. Washington would expect its other allies,
particularly Japan and South Korea, to support it, and such expectations could seriously damage its alliances in the region.
War with China leads to Extinction

Chalmers Johnson, Chairman of the Center of Chinese Studies at UofC Berkley and President of the Japan
Policy Research Institute, May 14 2001.. “Time to Bring the Troops Home.” The Nation [Bapodra[
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's
nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese
warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war,
remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that
no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war
would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most
populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear
holocaust. Since any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's sovereignty,
forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
124
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

US-China war will cause a nuclear war ending civilization
Ching Cheong, staff writer from the Straits Times, 6-25-2000, June 25, “No one gains in war over Taiwan”)
[Bapodra]
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. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might
seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
125
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Asian instability causes nuclear wars throughout Asia. The U.S. would be involved because of Asia’s
economic importance
Jonathan S. Landay, San Jose Mercury News, March 11, 2000, “Nuclear war threat feeds Asian tension U.S.
arranging delicate diplomacy”, Mercury News Washington Bureau
http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/asia11.htm [Bapodra]
WASHINGTON -- The 3,700-mile arc that begins at the heavily fortified border between North and South Korea and ends on the
glacier where Indian and Pakistani troops skirmish almost every day has earned the dubious title of most dangerous part of the world.
Few, if any, experts believe China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a
minor miscalculation could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have
nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic
relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. ``Nowhere else on earth are the stakes as high
and relationships so fragile,'' said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think
tank. ``We see the convergence of great-power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security
mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster.'' In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton, Defense
Secretary William Cohen and national security adviser Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals this month. For
America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are at least 100,000 U.S. soldiers committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South
Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or if North Korea attacked South
Korea. Although Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global
taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international non-proliferation regime. In addition, globalization
has made a stable Asia -- with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources -- indispensable to the U.S. economy.
Numerous U.S. companies and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to
the Commerce Department. With so much at stake and Asia's smaller states anxious over China's growing power, some experts are
pressing the United States to step up its role as the ultimate guardian of the region's security. ``We need to be looking to the Pacific
with much more intensity,'' said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chair of the House intelligence committee. That could prove difficult, he
said in an interview, as `òne of the hardest things is for us to look deeper into Asia and (away) from Europe.''
126
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Asian instability creates a cycle of nuclear breakouts resulting in global nuke combat
Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy, No. 118 (Spring, 2000), “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain” pp. 120-136,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Bapodra]
The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere
else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly
negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian
continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses.
Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South
Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear
arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is
forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the
largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are
capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region,
which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously
with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these
governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and
political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.
127
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Failed States

Australia is critical in engaging global failed states
Third, Canberra welcomes Washington’s endorsement of Australia’s leading role in addressing state fragility in its nearer
neighborhood. For the United States and its partners (including Australia), reminders of the difficulties associated with nation-
building have come not only from Afghanistan and Iraq. They also have been evident in the disappointing return of violence in
2006 to the streets of both Dili in East Timor and Honiara in the Solomon Islands, which precipitated the reentry of Australian
forces in both instances. These instances raise the question of both countries’ reliance on the military option in their responses
to complex internal political challenges. For some, it also recalls criticisms after the initial 1999 intervention in East Timor that
Australia tends to act as Washington’s regional deputy. But this perception probably has less relevance in the Pacific than in
parts of Southeast Asia, and even there one would have to consider P.J. Boyce’s valid disclaimer of Asian alienation over
Australian participation in the Vietnam war, which begins this chapter.29 But the validity of his second point—the 123 need for
policy differentiation between Australia and the United States—also needs to be considered
128
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Relations Key – Laundry List

U.S.-Australian relations must be strengthened to face challenges like- terrorism, rogue states, prolif,
natural disasters, and pandemics
In the evolving post-Cold War environment, alliances are more flexible and more linked to improvised ad hoc expeditionary
groupings. They also face more unpredictable challenges. Assuming that terrorism, rogue states, WMD proliferation, natural
disasters, and health pandemics are the emerging threats, these alliances must adapt further. They will be less static, more
supple, and geared to operational initiatives. While Australia has strengthened its military ties with the United States, the
political conditions for alliance cooperation are more fluid than before. In this context, it is worth asking how important it is for
Australia to keep fighting in all of America’s big wars. This Australia-U.S. tradition, extending from World War I to Iraq, is
proud and honorable. But the future will be more than an extension of the past. In the coming century, it may be better for both
sides to realize that a strong alliance does not necessarily mean Australia’s automatic involvement in every U.S. conflict,
particularly if Australia has contravening commitments elsewhere.
129
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Relations Bad

The advantages of a US-Australia relation outweigh the disadvantages.
Mark Beeson. PhD Political Science. November 26, 2004. Bush and Asia: America’s Evolving Relations
with East Asia, Brisbane. < http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/about/Staff/Beeson.shtml>
The key assumption underpinning the Howard government’s approach to foreign policy generally and the bilateral relationship
with the US in particular, is that Australian and American interests are essentially congruent. The key assumption is that, while
there may be short-term costs associated with demonstrating a continuing commitment to that relationship as far as Australia is
concerned, the long-term pay-offs justify such sacrifices. Strikingly, this is a position that has generally enjoyed fairly
uncritical, bilateral support in Australia, and despite Mark Latham’s recent, much publicized criticisms of both American
foreign policy and George W, Bush, this has not changed – as the ALP has been at pains to emphasize (Rudd 2003). And yet, as
we have seen, in both key areas of the bilateral relationship – security and economic relations – the merits of the deal for
‘Australia’ are debatable at best.
130
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF AT: Australia DA
131
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Australian Economy Low Now
Australia is far below its long term growth rate

Sydney Morning Herald, 7-16-08, http://news.smh.com.au/business/economy-to-
record-below-trend-growth-20080716-3frn.html, Junaid
The Australian economy is expected to record below trend growth for the rest of the year and into 2009, a survey shows. The
Westpac-Melbourne Institute leading index found Australia's annualised growth rate was 2.1 per cent in May, well below the
long term trend of 3.9 per cent. The annualised growth rate of the leading index has fallen from 6.5 per cent six months ago. It
is the sharpest six-month decline in the growth rate since February 2001, when the goods and services tax was introduced. The
index, which measures the likely pace of economic activity three to nine months into the future, rose 0.1 index points in May to
255.6 points. Westpac chief economist Bill Evans said the result was "entirely consistent with the prospect that the Australian
economy can be expected to slow further through 2008 and into 2009".
High risk of economic fall in the squo

Some of that would be due to record petrol prices. Friday's data showed import costs for fuel had increased by 16 percent in the
second quarter and by 50 percent in the year to June. Yet, elsewhere intense competition and the strength of the Australian
dollar had led to falls in import prices for cars, office machinery and telecoms equipment. "If anything, prices for consumer
goods were softer than many expected," said Brian Redican, a senior economist at Macquarie. "That suggests some possible
downside risk to the consumer price report, though the outcome is still likely to be high." (Editing by James Thornhill)
Economy low- dollar plunge

Bloomberg, 7-18-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a9ASetTkHKUk&ref
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Australian dollar fell for a third day as prices of commodities the nation exports declined after
China said its economy grew at the slowest pace since 2005 in the second quarter. The local dollar declined against 11 of the
16 most-traded currencies on concern that a slowing global economy will damp demand for the nation's raw materials. Traders
also sold the Aussie, as it's known, after the yield differential between 10- year Australian and U.S. government debt narrowed
to 2.36 percentage points, the lowest since May 13. ``We may have seen a peak in the Australian dollar with the positive
factors that have worked so strongly to see the currency gain, starting to reverse,'' wrote London-based Stephen Koukoulas,
head of global foreign exchange and fixed-income strategy at TD Securities Ltd., in a research note. Australia's currency slid
0.3 percent to 97.27 U.S. cents at 9:01 a.m. in Sydney, from 97.60 cents in late Asian trading yesterday. The local dollar fell to
the lowest in four days after the UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index dropped 2.1 percent, taking its loss this
week to 6 percent.
132
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Australian Economy Low Now

Australian economy low- commodity prices and banks
Bloomberg, 7-18-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a9ASetTkHKUk&ref
Commodity prices influence the Aussie because raw material exports contribute 17 percent to the nation's economy. China is
Australia's second-largest destination for overseas shipments. The currency's decline began this week after Reserve Bank of
Australia Glenn Stevens signaled on July 16 that borrowing costs were high enough to check rising prices. Minutes from the
RBA's July 1 meeting released the day before indicated that current policy was `èxerting the appropriate degree of restraint.''
Australian government bonds fell, pushing the yield on the 10-year note up 5 basis points, or 0.05 percentage point, to 6.37
percent. The price of the 5.25 percent security due March 2019 declined 0.344, or A$3.44 per A$1,000 face amount, to 91.528.
133
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Relations Resilient

Australia won’t abandon the US or question the alliance
Dennis Phillips, Professor of US Foreign Policy, University of Sydney, June 2008,
Australian review of Public Affairs,
http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/07/phillips.html,Junaid
Nothing in Australian politics basks in a warmer, bipartisan glow than the Australian-American alliance (ANZUS). For more
than a half century now—and 67 years after a Labor Prime Minister famously declared, ‘Without any inhibitions of any kind, I
make it quite clear that Australia looks to America free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United
Kingdom’ (Curtin 1941)—the American alliance remains the absolute bedrock of the nation’s foreign policy. It matters not
which political party commands a majority in the Australian parliament or whether Australia is led by the ‘man of steel’ (John
Howard, 1996–2007), or by ‘My name is Kevin and I’m here to help’ (Kevin Rudd, 2007–), Australia’s loyalty to ANZUS is
paramount and unquestioned. As Alan Renouf, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, noted long ago, the
American alliance has entrenched itself as ‘the equivalent of the Bible in foreign relations’ (Renouf 1979, p. 115). Historian
Peter Edwards put it somewhat less dramatically when he explained, ‘The Australian-American alliance is far more than just
another bilateral relationship. … It has become a political institution in its own right, comparable with a political party or the
monarchy’ (Edwards 2005, p. 2).
Despite unpopular policies in the US- relations remain high

Bruce Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade, 8-8-07, Federation of American Scientists,
Junaid
Australia’s commitment to military operations in Iraq may be curtailed, especially if the opposition Labor Party succeeds in
ousting Prime Minister Howard in elections which many believe are likely to be held by the end of the year. The Australian
Left is increasingly disillusioned with the war in Iraq and has perceived the United States as pursuing an increasingly unilateral
foreign policy. U.S. Policies on Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, have negatively affected segments of the Australian
public’s perceptions of American power. Despite this, support for the ANZUS alliance with the United States remains strong
among most Australians.
134
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Relations Resilient

Relations are so high they can’t be disturbed
AFP. Global News Agency. 2/23/08. Australia, US reaffirm security talks.
< http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Australia_US_reaffirm_security_talk_02232008.html>
http://rawstory.com
Australia reaffirmed its close security relations with the United States Saturday but said it has no plans to add more troops to its
force in Afghanistan. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte met Foreign
Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon for the first annual review of relations under the new Labor
government. "Both sides underlined that Australia and the United States benefit from substantial coverage in their strategic and
security policy," they said in a joint statement. Gates praised Australia's "global leadership" and said the United States has "no
better ally." "Above all it is clear we agree on the challenges we face together and the solutions we must forge together," he
said. Among other things, they discussed the way forward in Afghanistan for Australia, which has nearly 1,000 troops serving
in the violence-ridden southern part of the country, the ministers said. "We have no proposal to increase the 1,000 or so troops
we have in Afghanistan," said Smith at a news conference. He said Australia was looking to shift its efforts toward non-military
assistance in the form of police trainers, and work aimed at increasing the Afghan government's capacity to provide for its
people. But, he said, "When it comes to Afghanistan, I wouldn't be quite so underwhelming about our contributions to
Afghanistan: over a thousand troops in one of the toughest areas. "There are other nation states whose contributions are not
nearly as profound, in not nearly as hard-fought areas, and in addition to that we are certainly not contemplating a drawdown,"
he said. The United States is sending in an additional 3,200 marines in anticipation of a possible Taliban offensive in the spring,
and has been pressing NATO allies to fill shortfalls in troops and equipment under the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's centre-left government confirmed this week that it would honour an election
pledge to pull 550 combat troops out of southern Iraq by the middle of the year. Australia will still have about 1,000 military
personnel in and around Iraq, including a 110-strong security detachment in Baghdad and personnel for aircraft and a warship
based outside Iraq. The two sides also discussed China, and shared views on developments in southeast Asia and the Pacific
islands. Smith said Australia's growing economic ties with China were "win-win," with no adverse impact on its relationship
with the United States. "Australia's economic engagement with China is only beaten by the United States economic
engagement with China," he said. The pair are the most senior US officials to visit Australia since Rudd won office in
November and Gates said he looked forward to an ongoing high-level dialogue to see where the new government in Canberra
was headed. "We anticipate there will be a great deal of continuity. We have a lot of common interests," he told reporters on
Friday. "Continuity doesn't mean there won't be change to tactics or approaches to certain problems," Gates said. "What I was
referring to was continuity in the close relationship between the United States and Australia, and vice versa, for a long time."
Australia has long been the United States' closest ally in the region, one whose previous conservative government provided
troops and staunch political backing to US-led operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Rudd government's new tack on Iraq
comes as the United States is wrestling with how quickly and deeply to draw down the 155,000-strong US force deployed
there. The top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is expected to make recommendations as early as next
month on whether further cuts can be made to forces after a drawdown of five combat brigades, about 20,000 troops, by July.
Gates said Petraeus and his commanders had persuaded him that a brief pause would be needed to consolidate and assess the
situation in July. "My hope still is that we will be able to further draw down our troops in Iraq over the course of the next 10 to
12 months," Gates said.
135
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Regional Security

US-Australia relations will trigger conflict with China and drag Australia into it
Australia's main worry, however, is not the likelihood of a U.S. retreat but of an ideological overreaction to China's rising
power. Australia opposes any American effort to define its Asian purpose as the "containment" of China. This applies either to
the emergence of a hardline U.S. unilateralism or any effort to conscript America's Asian alliances into a plan of regional
containment. If America's allies in the Asia-Pacific are typecast as part of a China containment strategy, the entire region could
become hostage to a deteriorating U.S.-China rivalry--and, from the looks of China's de facto post-communist realities, a
needless rivalry at that.
US- Australia relations have hindered Australian interests and pulled them into more
conflicts.
Mark Beeson. PhD Political Science. November 26, 2004. Bush and Asia: America’s Evolving Relations with
East Asia, Brisbane. < http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/about/Staff/Beeson.shtml>
First, Australian politicians have always been willing - even enthusiastic - supporters of the alliance and taken pains to
demonstrate their sincerity and loyalty. The premium for this insurance policy has generally been costly, however. In Korea,
Vietnam, and both conflicts with Iraq, Australia has assumed a prominent position amongst America’s allies. While the merits
of all of these conflicts are debatable, the significant point to emphasize is that Australia participated despite the absence
of a direct threat to Australia itself. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that the current head of Australia’s armed forces, General
Peter Cosgrove, now considers Australia’s contribution to the conflict in Vietnam not to have been ‘sensible’ (cited in Beeson
2003a: 394). What merits emphasis more generally, however, is that Australia’s essentially uncritical support for American
foreign policy has repeatedly necessitated its participation in conflicts that pose little direct threat to ‘Australian interests’. On
the contrary, not only have close relations with the US occasionally complicated the pursuit of exclusively Australian interests,
but Australia’s prominent position in both the Cold War and more recent conflicts has arguably made Australia less secure than
it otherwise might have been.
The second initial point to make, therefore, is that Australia’s and America’s ‘national interests’ are not necessarily or
inevitably congruent. In the Manichean atmosphere of the Cold War when the bipolar strategic order discouraged a more
nuanced calculation or understanding of national interests and differences, this was predictable enough, perhaps. What is more
remarkable is that in the post-Cold War environment many of the old assumptions about the nature of the purported security
threats
136
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Security

US/Australian alliance increases tensions with neighbors
The increasingly politicized nature of Australia-US relations tended to obscure other, arguably more fundamental questions
about the strategic costs and benefits of the alliance. As noted earlier, no serious analyst of Australia’s strategic position,
including the government itself, thought there was any credible conventional danger to Australia from other states. And yet
Australia’s defense spending continued to rise significantly as a direct consequence of its close alliance with the US and its
commitment to fill a ‘niche role’ in any US-led military coalition (Brown 2004). The purchase of Abrams tanks, air warfare
destroyers designed to operate with US carrier groups, and an associated commitment to join the US in the development of an
unproven, highly expensive ‘missile shield’, were major initiatives that were undertaken with remarkably little public debate.
Not only were the technical merits of and rationale for these acquisitions debatable, but they had the potential to complicate
relations with Australia’s more immediate neighbors. Indonesia expressed concern about the implications of Australia’s
participation in the missile defense scheme and its stated intention to acquire cruise missiles – an issue of particular sensitivity
given the Howard government’s emulation of a US-style doctrine of preemption in Southeast Asia (Fickling 2002).
The benefits of US-Australia relations are negligible. In fact, American

influence hindered diplomacy with Australian opponents
The question of whether Australia’s close alliance with the US had damaged relations with the East Asian region more
generally was unclear. While the Howard government eventually repudiated any characterization of itself of America’s ‘deputy
sheriff’ in the region, some of Australia’s traditional opponents in the region had been able to make diplomatic life difficult for
Australia by highlighting its ambivalent position in the region (see, Beeson 2001). But the departure of Malaysia’s Mahathir
Mohamed from the regional political stage clearly removed a major obstacle to closer regional ties as far as Australia was
concerned, a possibility that was manifest in improved relations with both Malaysia and the ASEAN countries (Milner 2004).
Similarly, the Howard government trumpeted improved ties with China and the signing of a long-term agreement to supply
natural gas to China as evidence of the effectiveness of its ‘pragmatic’ approach to the region (Murphy and McBeth 2002).
And yet the dramatic expansion of the Chinese economy highlighted an inescapable economic reality: East Asia remained an
area of critical importance as far as Australia’s future economic development was concerned. The only question was how the
economic relationships with the region would be managed. It is clear that balancing potentially competing ties with the rising
regional power of China and the extant global power of the US would be the defining foreign policy challenge of the 21st
century for Australia. It would also be difficult to finesse – as Alexander Downer’s ill-judged remarks about Australia’s
supposedly neutral policy stance in the event of a clash between the US and China over Taiwan served to demonstrate
(Armitage 2004). While Downer may have inadvertently given some insight into government thinking about Australia’s
‘nightmare scenario’, everything the Howard government had done since taking office in 1996 suggested that, in extremis,
Australia would fall into line with the US.
Indeed, what distinguished the Howard government from their more Asia-centric predecessors in the Hawke-Keating ALP
governments was their determination from the outset to ‘revitalize’ the relationship with the US, and rebalance relations with
the region as a consequence. While the Howard government may have benefited from the rise of China and the demise of
Mahathir, the privileging of relations with the US – both strategically and economically – inevitably meant that this critical
bilateral relationship would be expected to deliver tangible strategic and material benefits. As we have seen, the strategic
benefits are questionable; the economic benefits are even less compelling.
137
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – AT: Relations Solve Taiwan War

Australia won’t defend Taiwan
By the same token, the United States should be aware that in any conflict over Taiwan, the Australian contribution would at
best be extremely modest and quite probably merely declaratory. Australia has no legal obligations to Taiwan. The "one China"
policy is rarely contested in Australia. There would be little support for a democratic Taiwan moving toward independence.
Australia's view is that Taiwan enjoys autonomy and de facto independence as it is and that there is no reason why any
Australian should die to convert that into de jure independence. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances , outside of overt
Chinese aggression, where any conflict over Taiwan would generate even modest support for Australian involvement. The
potential damage to Australia's interests in terms of its China relationship could represent the most serious cost for Australia in
the alliance's history. In terms of the current debate, Australia has no vital national interest at stake with Iraq--except as it may
ultimately affect W MD proliferation trends. But Australia certainly does have vital interests at stake with China, right here and
right now.
Australia's view is that China should meet the region's expectation of a nonmilitary solution, and that the United States and
Taiwan should avoid provocation in the short term to win a managed solution in the long term. In the event of a more militant
and unqualified pro-Taiwan line emerging in the United States, the chance of a breach between Australia and the United States
could not be ruled out.
That the war on terrorism may improve long-term U.S.-China relations, or at least reduce the likelihood that a rivalry will
intensify anytime soon, is good news. But the enduring message for the alliance is the need to manage expectations over China
to avoid sudden shocks and political disappointments between Washington and Canberra. Now--when the emotional focus in
both countries is being directed elsewhere--is an excellent time to talk this out.
138
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal DA
139
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal 1NC

A. Clean coal is winning the competition against renewables now
"Coal is abundant and cheap, and we have increasing energy demand," he says "We can wish all we want, but people are going to do
what it takes to keep the lights on. And that means coal." Others, such as environmentalist John Blair, who lives about an hour south
of Edwardsport and is fighting the plant, say more coal isn't inevitable. "The plant is not needed, because we have incredible (energy)
efficiency potential in this state," Blair says. "That's cheaper than a new coal plant." Even worse, says Bruce Nilles, who directs the
Sierra Club's anti-coal campaign, is that investment in new coal plants -- gasification or not -- will drain resources from cleaner
options. "No investor in their right mind will put money up for renewable energy, because there will be no market for it." Only about
2% of U.S. electricity comes from non-hydropower renewables such as wind power. "The fact is, we don't have a good alternative to
fossil fuels at this time," Herzog says. "People want the world the way they want it, but we have to look at the facts."
B. Renewable energies will trade off with clean coal if their cost decreases
Tim Burrows, Director in Climate Managers’ Melbourne Office, 4/6/07, Concentration Thermal Power Comes of Age,
http://www.climatemanagers.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=51&option=com_content&task=view
In the Australian context, all renewables must inevitably be compared to coal fired power incorporating carbon capture and
storage. Studies have suggested that this type of generation will add between 50% and 100% to the cost of generation, which
suggests that a clean coal plant will be capable of generating low carbon electricity at between $45 and $70 per MWh. While
there are many issues yet to be resolved in relation to this type of generation, there is no technical reason why the technology
should not work, hence one must conclude that in the absence of external market distortions, renewable energy will only
supplant clean coal if the cost of renewable electricity generation is at least equal to that available from a clean coal plant.
C. Coal is key to the economy

Frank Burke, vice president of the Research and Development Consol Energy Inc., 4/27/07, “Sustainable Low Emission
Electricity Generation”, http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:s9HW7uGJx9AJ:www.nma.org/pdf/cong_test/burke_042704.pd)
The United States is not unique in its dependence on coal, and it is vital to our national interest to promote the increased
use of coal not only domestically, but worldwide as a key component of our energy and economic security. The most
compelling evidence of this is China. This year, the Chinese will mine and consume 1.5 billion tons of coal. In 15 years, they
will consume 2.5 billion tons; China’s increase alone will equal our current consumption. They expect to double their coal-
fueled electricity generating capacity to 600 GW by 2020. By 2040, the Chinese expect to use 4 billion tons of coal annually.
Throughout the world, economic growth and political stability are tied to electrification, and electricity is tied to coal.
Therefore, the desire and, in fact, the necessity of the world to utilize its abundant coal resources will not be denied.
Energy availability and energy quality are key to meeting all three aspects of sustainable development: economic,
societal and environmental. The question is not whether we need or will use coal for human development, but how we
will use it.
140
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal 1NC

D. Nuclear war
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 8/23/92, World Policy Institute
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their
leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for
them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people
and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.
E. Turns the case <insert from appropriate section>
141
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Coming Now

Clean coal will be commercially viable by 2020
The Age, 5/8/08, “Climate expert sees bright future for coal; Ross Garnaut says the industry will continue to be viable,” p.
Lexis
CLIMATE change adviser Ross Garnaut believes "clean coal" technology will be commercially viable by 2020, contradicting
claims made this week by environment group Greenpeace International. Professor Garnaut has used a speech to a clean coal
summit in Sydney to outline a bright future for coal. He said that coal was set to play a big role in Australian prosperity -
provided effective emission-control technology can be developed. He said near-zero emissions from power generation would
be required by the middle fo the century to tackle climate change, and suggested this would be possible using integrated clean
coal technologies being developed in projects like Australia's ZeroGen and America's FutureGen. "These projects are complex
and large and have struggled to make rapid progress. This complexity is partly responsible for the widely - but I think
erroneously - held view that clean coal technologies will not be commercially viable until post-2020," he told the conference.
However, Professor Garnaut warned that not enough new technology plants would be built in time to meet short-term
emissions targets, and existing plants would need to be retrofitted as a transitional measure. Those existing plants would be
unlikely to capture all the carbon dioxide that they were emitting. Professor Garnaut also implicitly rejected calls by
Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation that clean coal technology be entirely funded by industry. "It is
already clear that substantial new investment in infrastructure is likely to be required, particularly for the transmission of
electricity, natural gas and carbon dioxide," Professor Garnaut said. He also said additional funding would be required to
ensure clean coal technology could be adopted in established plants and regions. However, while predicting an important role
for coal in meeting future energy needs, Professor Garnaut suggested the Federal Government's existing target of reducing
greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2050 was not ambitious enough, saying it was only "an early step". He said Australian coal
production was increasing to meet demand from China, India and Indonesia, and that these countries would be running into
serious energy and metal supply constraints without the ready availability of coal.
Bush is funding clean coal now

Andrzej Zwaniecki, Washington File Staff Writer, 11/30/06, “United States Advances $1 Billion for Clean Coal Projects,”
Washington File, http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20061130/20061130172755.html
Washington â€“ The Bush administration has awarded $1 billion in federal tax credits to utility companies for clean-coal power
generation as part of a broad U.S. strategy to move toward emission-free energy. The tax credits, authorized by the energy law
passed by Congress in 2005, were awarded November 30 to nine companies mostly for advanced coal and gasification projects
using a process called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). An additional $650 million in tax credits for similar
projects will be available in 2007, according to an Energy Department fact sheet. Briefing reporters the same day, James
Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, called the action the largest step to broad
commercialization of clean-coal technologies. He said the United States is well on the way to meet its stated goal of reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of its economy by 18 percent by 2012 through the use of these and other clean-energy
technologies as well as measures to increase energy efficiency.Â GHG intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to
economic output. About half the credits will help fund construction of IGCC plants. IGCC, based on a process in which coal is
converted into a gaseous fuel through partial oxidation, is the most environmentally friendly technology for coal-fired power
generation available today, according to the Cooperative Research Center for Coal in Sustainable Development.Â The center is
part of an Australian public-private partnership. Coal gasification offers the opportunity to generate power with near-zero
greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the pathways to a future hydrogen economy, the center said in its presentation of the
technology. The wide-scale commercialization of these and other clean-coal technologies can help slow down, stabilize and
eventually reverse â€œatmospheric trendsâ€ caused by greenhouse gas emissions, according to an Energy Department fact
sheet. Many scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming.
142
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Clean coal is coming
Keith Orchison, Energy Correspondent for the Australian, 11/18/06, “Fossil fuel tipped to adapt and maintain dominant position,” p.
Lexis
A GLOBAL shift in attitude towards power plant fuel and the inevitability of more strict environmental regulation has intensified the
search for clean coal technologies, says Xstrata Coal. Colin Whyte, the company's general manager, sustainable development, has told
a Sydney conference that coal is on the comeback trail. The scale of growth in global energy use is one of the key drivers for coal
demand. Projections to 2030, Whyte says, indicate coal suppliers will retain their 23 per cent share of world energy consumption,
notwithstanding climate change pressures. He points to the 2006 utilities survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers which has 116 senior
power utility company executives in 43 countries concluding that coal tops the list of fuels they expect to make the biggest
contribution to meeting electricity demand. The world's three largest builders of power stations, Alstom, Siemens and General
Electric, all forecast a reversal in coal's fortunes. ''Between 1997 and 2001,'' Whyte says, ''60 to 70 per cent of the world's market
share in new power generation went to natural gas. Current forecasts by the major manufacturers suggest that, over the next decade, 40
per cent of new plant will be coal-fired, with the share for gas falling to between 25 and 30 per cent.'' The substantial shift in key
markets is attributed to issues of energy security, the rising cost of natural gas, concerns about supply adequacy and inadequate
transportation, and gas storage infrastructure. Economic development in China -- which now accounts for 40 per cent of the global
consumption of coal -- is another driver. Coal use has doubled in five years and conventional thermal sources are expected to remain
the dominant fuel for Chinese power plants. ''If Australia stopped using coal in power generation tomorrow,'' Whyte says, ''the
greenhouse gases saved would be replaced in China in just nine months.'' Even in the European Union, where there has been a strong
focus on using renewable energy for electricity production, there is now a shift towards the burning of fossil fuels, including clean
coal. ''The new view of the EU,'' Whyte asserts, ''is that use of coal will not decline, but increase. Across Europe there is an increasing
interest in post-combustion capture (of carbon dioxide) and carbon capture and storage technologies.'' CCS technologies, he claims,
are either economically feasible under specific conditions or are part of mature markets now. ''Carbon storage is not something for the
distant future -- it is a reality. The potential for deep cuts in emissions is enormous.'' Coal's ability to enhance worldwide energy
security is an obvious key advantage, he adds. ''There's plenty of it. It's being mined in more than 50 countries. It's affordable. It's
safe.'' He acknowledges the future of coal is directly related to cleaner technology in a transition towards near zero-emitting plant, and
then ultimately to hydrogen, with coal as an essential element of its production. In this respect, he says, the surge in oil prices is
working for coal, too. It is encouraging investors to plan new coal-fuelled power plants and to focus on conversion technologies such
as the producing diesel from coal. Converting coal to liquid fuel or natural gas, he points out, is economical when oil is above $US40
a barrel -- and it has not traded below that mark since June 2004. ''Coal gasification,'' he says, ''is a proven technology with great
potential and offers one of the most versatile and clean ways of converting coal into electricity, hydrogen and other valuable energy
plants. Coal gasification power plants are now operating commercially and many experts predict that it will be at the heart of future
clean coal technology plants.'' Whyte says looking to pursue technological change is not new to the coal sector. Miners, power plant
manufacturers and utilities have been pursuing improved coal-related performance for decades. These include substantially reducing
air pollution and big increases in plant operating efficiency. In the 1950s, he says, 700g of coal produced one kilowatt hour of
electricity -- that consumption has been reduced to 300g. Cost is a critical factor in the pursuit of new markets for all energy
technologies and fuels. ''Power companies,'' says Whyte, ''are saying generators are willing to pay a premium to avoid future liabilities
associated with tougher emissions regulations. But how much and who should bear the extra costs? ''Ignoring the economic and social
realities is as dangerous as ignoring the scientific ones.''
143
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

All political leaders support clean coal
Matthew L. Wald, New York Times Staff Writer, 5/30/08, “Mounting Cost Slow the Push for Clean Coal,” New York Times, p. Lexis
For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from
coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues
of ''clean coal.'' All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are
for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.
Clean Coal is going to be the future of the energy industry

Ronald L. Rardin et al, 2005 , Professor of Industrial Engineering at Purdue University,
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9893/32012/01489554.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1489554)
The game rules for electricity production have been changing rapidly. Facing rising natural gas prices, more stringent
environmental standards and energy security concerns, many countries have been trying diligently to diversify fuel supplies
using different technologies. Among them, IGCC technology has emerged as one of the best ways of tackling the above issues.
Coal gasification has been in existence for many decades in refinery and chemical industries. However, IGCC technology is
relatively new for commercial electricity production. After more than a decade of design, demonstration and test operation, the
IGCC system has emerged as a new technology that may be deployed at an accelerated pace to replace traditional coal based
power production.
IGCC technology is being heavly researched and will be avaliabel in the near
future
P.E. Campbell, September ,3, 1999 “Fuel” (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3B-
409621D4&_user=4257664&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=425766
4&md5=58cfe99f34ac8d9c3802c75eb6cc8055)
This paper looks at the development of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant, based on components
which are commercially available today or are expected to come on the market very soon. Currently, four major coal-based
IGCC stations are in operation, these are plants in Buggenum in the Netherlands (253 MWe), Puertollano in Spain (300 MWe),
Wabash River (262 MWe) and Polk County (250 MWe) in the USA. Pinõn Pine (100 MWe), also in the USA, is currently in
the commissioning phase and is not yet operational on coal. The power plant in Puertollano is seen as the most efficient IGCC
plant, which is currently in operation. However, much technical progress has been made since the construction of this plant,
especially with regard to the gas turbine. Starting from the design principles of the Puertollano power plant, an advanced IGCC
concept (IGCC 98) has been developed. The target was to achieve the maximum efficiency improvement for the Puertollano
IGCC plant, without incurring unjustifiable capital investment, within the constraints of using proven materials and process
layout, conventional components, and a gas turbine-generator operating at a higher turbine inlet temperature. Such a gas
turbine-generator is expected to become available in the near future. For a fair comparison of this new IGCC concept
144
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Clean coal coming soon – US leading in development
Bingaman, Senator from mexico – chairman of the committee on energy and natural resources, 8/1/07, hearing before the
committee on energy and natural resources, “Clean Coal,” http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_senate_hearings&docid=f:38602.wais
The United States, largely through the good works of the National Laboratories, has been a leader in the development of clean
coal technology. Over the last few decades technologieshave been produced and policies have been implemented, to
significantly reduce emissions of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and mercury. The next challenge is to
deal with the issue of carbon dioxide emissions from coal generation. Today, those emissions are roughly double the emissions
produced from burning natural gas. We've reached some measure of consensus around the Congress that global warming is a
problem we need to address. I think where we lack consensus is on how to address it. I expect that we will be having debates
on that subject even before this session of the Congress is over. I think what we need to be doing in the interim, of course, is
determining how we can go about reducing emissions and what timeframe we need to follow. This latter point of timing is
very important, not only because of the pace of construction in India and in China that I mentioned, but also, when we do arrive
at an approach to regulating green house gas emissions that puts a price on carbon dioxide, we need to try to have technologies
identified that can be deployed.
145
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal not Feasible

Scientific consensus proves clean coal is feasible
The New Zealand Herald, 6/17/08, “Chris Baker: Appliance of science will ensure coal (and Earth) have healthy futures,” p.
Lexis
Commercial applications of CCS are feasible within the decade and could then be widely deployed with a favourable policy
environment. Progress on CCS is highly promising: "Complete CCS systems can be assembled from existing technologies that are
mature or economically feasible under specific conditions," says the 2005 IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage.
"Significant progress is being made in proving the commercial feasibility of CCS in projects such as the pilot scale demonstration of
permanent storage of carbon underground in Victoria, Australia and commercial-scale trials of carbon capture by Sargas, Norway to
remove 95 per cent of carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power station," it continues. "There is widespread scientific and
intergovernmental support for CCS as one of a combination of solutions to reduce emissions from organisations including the IPCC,
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, IEA and the European Commission, among
others.
146
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal a Long Way Off

Clean coal coming in the near future
St. Louis Post., 12/18/07, “Back to the Future,” p. Lexis
Coal-gasification technology - the common denominator of both FutureGen and GreenGen - is unique. It allows carbon, which
otherwise would be released into the atmosphere when coal is burned, to be captured and stored underground. That is a crucial
development, because carbon released by burning coal and other fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming. Both the United
States and China have huge reserves of coal underground. Both countries also are under increasing pressure from the rest of the world
to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases. Without a viable technology for capturing and storing carbon, those massive coal reserves
will be of limited value. That's a big reason for Peabody's investment in IGCC technology. But even as the company builds IGCC
plants in the United States and China, it continues to pursue its plans for a new plant with older non-IGCC technology in Marissa in
southeastern St. Clair County. That plant would burn pulverized coal. The coal would be scrubbed before being burned, and emissions
gases would be treated to reduce such pollutants as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. But the plans for the plant do not include
provisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Coal-gasification plants are more expensive to build than those that use pulverized
coal (although they are not more expensive to operate). Right now, those higher construction costs mean that electricity made from
pulverized coal is cheaper than that made from coal gasification. But that economic equation doesn't include the costs of addressing
global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Once those costs are added, the economics change. A bill to cap carbon dioxide
emissions and set up a system for trading them is pending in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, negotiations already are underway for a new
international treaty to address global warming. The average lifespan of a coal-fired power plant is 40 years. As we first pointed out
more than two years ago, it's short-sighted for Peabody to be building an expensive facility now that it knows will have to be modified
at considerable additional expense in the near future to address the carbon emissions issue. Two years ago, Peabody executives
suggested that coal gasification was a technology of a distant future. Distant? The Chinese plant in which they bought a stake last
week is expected to begin operating in 2009; FutureGen here in the United States should be on-line in 2012.
147
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Construction Costs Kill Transition

Lower operation costs compensate for construction costs
Russell Ray, Reporter for the Tampa Tribune, 3/22/07, “TECO’s Bright Future,” The Tampa Tribune, p. Lexis
The changes come as coal regains its luster as a source for generating electricity. More new power plants are being built to burn coal, a
change inspired by the higher price of natural gas, which burns a lot cleaner than coal. In addition to being cheap, coal is abundant in
the United States, which has an estimated 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, more than any country in the world. The
TECO plant, though, is one of only two facilities in the United States that use coal-gasification technology. The other plant in Terre
Haute, Ind., was completed in 1995. The industry has been reluctant to build more coal-gasification plants because the cost to build
them is 10percent to 20 percent more than a conventional coal plant, TECO's Hornick said. About a quarter of the cost to build the
TECO plant was covered by a $150 million grant from the Department of Energy. Start-up costs are higher, Riedinger said, because
"there are more steps from getting from the lump of coal to the electron." However, the higher construction costs are offset by lower
operating costs, Hornick said. In fact, of all the units at TECO's four power stations, the coal-gasification plant is the least costly to
operate. The other three units at TECO's Polk facility burn natural gas to generate electricity.
148
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Climate Change

Clean coal solves climate change
Rhett A. Butler, has a degree in math and economics, 3.13.06, “Clean coal could fight climate change,” mongabay.com – a site that
writes articles to increase awareness about the environment, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-coal.html
A new chemical process for removing impurities from coal could lead to significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions
from coal-fired power stations say researchers sponsored by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Britain's
main agency for funding research in engineering and the physical sciences.
Cleaner, more efficient use of coal could play a key role in addressing climate change, especially with the growing importance
of coal as an energy source as world crude oil supplies are diminished in the future. Coal presently supplies about two-thirds of
China's energy and one-third of the energy demand in the United States but, due to its abundance, is forecast to become an
increasingly important relative to petroleum around mid-century.
Clean coal is key to solve global warming

Keith Orchison , Energy Commentator for the Australian, 11/4/06, “Coal too big a factor to eliminate - CLIMATE CHANGE,”
Weekend Australian, p. Lexis
IS so-called clean coal an oxymoron or a bridge to a sustainable low-carbon future? Industry and some governments are
investing billions of dollars to demonstrate that reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not necessarily imply elimination of
the coal industry. The radical case against clean coal is summed up by Greenpeace Australia: ''Whichever way you wash it,
pulverise it and scrub it, coal from extraction to end-use remains a dirty, dangerous, polluting source of energy. The notion that
carbon capture and storage will allow coal plants to be built and not add vast amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is
an illusion.'' On the other hand, WWF Australia has called for clean coal research to be fast-tracked, -- while the Australian
Conservation Foundation says it would support the use of clean coal technology at existing power stations.Britain's chief
scientist Sir David King extols clean coal technology as ''mankind's only hope'' in staving off catastrophic climate change,
given countries such as China and India have massive plans for coal-fired power.
149
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

Clean coal key to global warming
Weekend Australian, 3/31/07, “Cooling the Hot Air on Climate Change,” p. Lexis
The MIT report assumes that the risks of global warming are real and says the US and other governments should and will take
action to restrict emissions. But it nonetheless believes that coal use will increase because coal is cheap and abundant and
geographically widespread so that, unlike oil, supplies are secure from political upheaval in the Middle East. MIT concludes
that carbon capture and sequestration are the critical enabling technology for reducing CO2 emissions while also allowing coal
to meet the world's pressing energy needs. It says the most urgent objective of the climate change response should be the
successful large-scale demonstration of the technological, economic, and environmental performance of carbon capture and
storage. During his lightning visit to Australia this week, Sir Nicholas rejected the suggestions by Lateline host Tony Jones
that clean-coal technology was unproven or that Australia should concentrate its research efforts on alternative technologies
such as solar. He said it was beyond doubt that China and India would continue to use a lot of coal for the next 30 to 40 years,
and Australia was likely to be one of the world leaders in solving the riddle of developing technologies to burn coal efficiently
and capture and store the carbon emissions. Contrary to the view of clean-coal sceptics, Sir Nicholas said the technology was
progressing, with working examples in Canada, Algeria and Norway. The challenge now was to demonstrate that the
technologies could be deployed on a commercial scale. Sir Nicholas said engineers working on the technology were optimistic
that, if proven, it could be put in place fairly quickly. Such confidence is heartening and gives reassurance that, rather than
being an international pariah on climate change, Australia is, in fact, at the forefront of progress towards a realistic solution to
climate change. While Australia is criticised for having not signed the Kyoto agreement, it is considered to be in a key position
through the AP6 -- the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate -- to engage the world's biggest carbon
emitter, the US, and the world's biggest emerging carbon emitter, China. Australia's faith in clean-coal research is being
increasingly vindicated. It ultimately represents a continuation of the way in which developed economies have improved the
environmental performance of coal as they have harnessed its economic potential. Such progress supports The Weekend
Australian's core belief in science as the pathway to progress. While ideally placed to pioneer new coal technology, there is no
reason why Australia might not also play a role in other areas of research including solar, wind and geothermal power. But
there is no reason to assume that Australia must be involved in or invent every new technology. Governments should not
attempt to pick winners but should apply public funds according to what has the best chance of success in making a significant
contribution to solving the problem. The Weekend Australian supports the Government's commitment to practical, balanced
action that will achieve results. This includes the Government's global initiative on stopping illegal logging of forests in
Southeast Asia, which has the potential to deliver both climate-change and broader environmental benefits. The Government
estimates the potential atmospheric carbon benefits from stopping illegal logging to be 10 times those of the Kyoto agreement.
There is also merit in Kevin Rudd's attempts this weekend to bring together interest groups, including business, to explore
solutions. The Opposition Leader faces a daunting challenge in attempting to find answers that will satisfy participants with
wildly differing expectations on what is an emotionally charged issue. The Weekend Australian is heartened that among those
at the forefront of seeking a solution to global warming there is a growing confidence that tackling the problem at its source,
the point of power generation from coal, is likely to be met.
150
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

IGCC is the most economical way of reducing emissions.
Jeremy David and Howard Herzog, 2000, Professor at MIT,
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=IGCC%2C+coal%2C+natural+gas&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as
_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=1998&as_yhi=2008&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&safe=off)
Based on the studies analyzed, there is a consensus that using today’s capture technology would add 1.5-2¢/kWh to the
busbar cost of electricity for an IGCC or NGCC power plant. For a PC plant, the incremental cost of electricity would be
over 3¢/kWh. The strongest opportunities for lowering the capture costs in the future were identified as gains in heat
rates and reductions in the amount of energy required by the separation. New technologies like coal gasification show
the most long-term promise, with incremental costs for CO2 sequestration at IGCC power plants being potentially
reduced to about 1¢/kWh in the next decade. To put the costs presented here in context, further analysis with economic
models is required (see Biggs et al., 2000). Opportunities for future cost reductions will include the investigation of
innovative technologies, including new types of power plants and power cycles. Moreover, system-level analyses should be
performed to minimize not only capture costs, but also the sequestration costs associated with transportation and injection.
Clean Coal is very cost effective and non polluting

Jeremy David and Howard Herzog, 2000, Professor at MIT,
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=IGCC%2C+coal%2C+natural+gas&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as
_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=1998&as_yhi=2008&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&safe=off)
Fossil fuels currently supply over 85% of the world’s energy needs and will remain in abundant supply well into the
21st century. They have been a major contributor to the high standard of living enjoyed by the
industrialized world. However, their future is clouded because of the environmental and economic threat posed by
possible climate change, commonly referred to as the “greenhouse effect”. The major greenhouse gas is
carbon dioxide (CO2) and the major source of anthropogenic CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. If we
can develop technology to capture and sequester the fossil fuel CO2 in a cost-effective and
environmentally sound manner, we will be able to enjoy the benefits of fossil fuel use throughout the next
century. We have conducted a comparison of published studies from the past several years that analyzed the economics
of capturing CO2 at Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants (six studies), Pulverized
Coal (PC) power plants (four studies), and Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants (four
studies). MEA scrubbing of flue gas was used to capture the CO2 in the PC and NGCC plants, but IGCC
plants allow the use of more energy efficient scrubbing processes involving physical absorption to capture CO2 from the
high pressure synthesis gas. All studies were made using commercially available technology and include the
cost of compressing the captured CO2 to about 100 atm for pipeline transportation. The results do not include
cost of CO2 transportation and injection, which will add about $10/tonne of CO2 avoided. Initial results were
presented at GHGT-4 (Herzog, 1999), while detailed results of this analysis are presented in David (2000)
151
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name

IGCC has benefits like sequestration
Howard Herzog, 2000, Principal Research Engineer MIT Energy Laboratory,
(http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/economics_in_technology.pdf)
In addition to power plants, there are a number of large CO2-emitting industrial sources that
could also be considered for application of capture and sequestration technologies. In natural gas
operations, CO2 is generated as a by-product. In general, gas fields may contain up to 20% (by
volume) CO2, most of which must be removed to produce pipeline quality gas. Therefore,
sequestration of CO2 from natural gas operations is a logical first step in applying CO2 capture
technology. In the future, similar opportunities for CO2 sequestration may exist in the
production of hydrogen-rich fuels (e.g., hydrogen or methanol) from carbon-rich feedstocks
(e.g., natural gas, coal, or biomass). Specifically, such fuels could be used in low-temperature
fuel cells for transport or for combined heat and power. Relatively pure CO2 would result as a
byproduct.
152
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: No Room for Carbon Storage

Plenty of space underground for carbon storage
After coal is gasified and the CO{-2} is captured, it still must go somewhere. The Department of Energy has estimated that North
America has room underground to store 3.5 trillion tons of CO{-2}. In theory, the USA could store all its power plant emissions for
centuries. In fact, oil and gas companies have been injecting CO{-2} into depleted oil fields without incident for decades. The
CO{-2} dislodges trapped oil and gas, increasing the fields' yield and profitability.
153
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Technology won’t Spill Over

Clean coal technology will spill over internationally
J. Allen Wampler, The Atlanta Journal Constitution Staff Writer, 6/11/08, “COAL POWER: Stress efficient carbon capture-and-
storage,” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. Lexis
The continuing development of this technology --- and its successful demonstration in large-scale testing --- is the key to reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions. In turn, it could be exported abroad or developed and demonstrated jointly with other countries like China
and India that rely on coal to power their economies.
US clean coal leadership is key to developing country action

Jack Torry, Reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, 3/15/07, “U.S. needs to take lead on global clean-coal efforts, report says,” p. Lexis
On the same day that Gov. Ted Strickland announced a fresh initiative to develop clean-coal technology in Ohio, a new study warned
that America's existing efforts are "completely inadequate." The report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that
because the United States and many developing nations will continue to rely on coal to produce electricity, it will be difficult for the
U.S. to make the dramatic reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions necessary to combat global warming. But the study, whose authors
included former CIA director and current MIT professor John Deutsch, rejected pleas by utilities such as Ohio's American Electric
Power that the U.S. should not adopt tough carbon-dioxide controls if China and India refuse to curb their emissions from coal-fired
plants. "U.S. leadership in emissions reduction is likely a pre-requisite to substantial action by emerging economies," the study
concluded, even as it warned that such action will take time. Any debate over coal is automatically of huge importance to Ohio, which
still has large deposits of the material, although it's generally considered environmentally "dirty" coal. The report promised a bit of
something for both environmentalists and the power industry. The authors argued that the U.S. can develop the technology on a
commercial basis to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which would allow far greater use of coal in the future. But the report urged
Congress to pass a bill that would call for reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions. "The report, to me, looks extremely thoughtful,"
said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Washington-based Clean Air Watch. "This may be the definitive report on what we do
with coal in the future." It also encouraged the development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle by AEP. The utility hopes to
build two such plants in Ohio and West Virginia that would gasify coal to produce electricity with fewer emissions harmful to the
environment. But as an added advantage, the report pointed out, it would be cheaper to retrofit an IGCC plant with technology
eventually developed to capture and store carbon dioxide, and thus reduce those global-warming emissions. Melissa McHenry, an
AEP spokeswoman, said the company does not "agree with all the statements in the report, but we do agree that we need to move
forward with demonstration and development of carbon capture and storage." Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-
N.M., hailed the report, saying its "recommendations will carry a lot of weight here in Congress." Bingaman plans to have the authors
of the report testify before his committee next week. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-St. Clairsville, a member of the House Science and
Technology Committee, said he hopes to see clean-coal technology take root in his eastern Ohio district, where "we have the water,
the coal and the work force." "We just feel that coal has a lot of the answers," Wilson said. "We just have to connect the dots to match
it together to burn clean and provide the energy we need." In his State of the State address, Strickland unveiled plans to use tax-
exempt bonds to help finance $1 billion in energy programs during the next four years. Strickland said that clean coal, along with
other "next-generation energies" such as bio-fuels and fuel cells, gives Ohio an "opportunity to create jobs, support our farmers,
reduce our dependence on foreign-oil producers and be responsible stewards of the environment." Coal produces 50 percent of the
electricity in the United States and coal-burning power plants emit 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. By contrast, solar and
wind produce less than 0.5 percent of the nation's electricity.
154
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Technology Won’t Spill Over

Only clean coal will spill over – other renewables are too expensive
The risk here is that, unless and until a cost-effective technology becomes available to capture and store carbon emissions, U.S.
utilities would be forced to shift from coal to high-priced natural gas. And any reduction in U.S. carbon emissions would be more than
offset by increased emissions from countries with fast-growing economies that have no such restrictions on carbon dioxide releases
from power plants. Any plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without making provisions for the future use of coal worldwide will
be doomed from the start. A country like China --- which relies on coal for 80 percent of its energy --- can't be expected to abandon it,
since doing so would cause energy shortages and serious damage to its economy. Policymakers like to talk about the need for
alternative energy sources --- solar and wind power, geothermal energy, natural gas, nuclear power and conservation. But those
alternatives, though helpful, aren't enough to meet growing demand for electricity in increasingly digitalized economies. The growth
of nuclear power is severely constrained by equipment and manpower shortages. Even with state mandates, it's unlikely that
renewable energy sources will ever account for more than a fraction of U.S. electricity generation. Solar and wind have serious
limitations due to cost and practicality. Neither one is of much help on days when the weather isn't cooperating. For the United States
and globally, a combination of more efficient coal combustion and carbon capture-and-storage offers a potentially workable solution to
the greenhouse-gas problem --- and an opportunity to reach a comprehensive strategy for international cooperation on carbon
mitigation. Energy supply would be more secure, and the citizens of coal-producing countries would gain more from the natural
wealth their countries control. Both producing and consuming countries would win --- regardless of where the carbon is sequestered.
155
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Oil Depletion

IGCC technology can be used to recover oil
The idea of separating and capturing CO2 from the flue gas of power plants did not start with
concern about the greenhouse effect. Rather, it gained attention as a possible economic source of
CO2, especially for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations where CO2 is injected into oil
reservoirs to increase the mobility of the oil and, therefore, the productivity of the reservoir.
Several commercial CO2 capture plants were constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the
US. When the price of oil dropped in the mid-1980s, the recovered CO2 was too expensive for
EOR operations, forcing the closure of these capture facilities. However, the North American
Chemical Plant in Trona, CA, which uses this process to produce CO2 for carbonation of brine,
started operation in 1978 and is still operating today. Several more CO2 capture plants were
subsequently built to produce CO2 for commercial applications and markets. Some of these
plants took advantage of the economic incentives in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
(PURPA) of 1978 for “qualifying facilities”. A listing of the major CO2 capture plants are
shown in Table 1.
IGCC will allow us to do oil sequestration, helps us get more oil

Klaus S. Lackner, June 2003, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, “climate change”
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5626/1677)
Underground injection is probably the easiest route to sequestration. It is a proven technology suitable for large-scale
sequestration (5). Injecting CO2 into reservoirs in which it displaces and mobilizes oil or gas could create economic
gains that partly offset sequestration costs. In Texas, this approach already consumes ~20 million tons/year of CO2 at a price
of $10 to $15 per ton of CO2. However, this is not sequestration, because most of the CO2 is extracted from underground wells
156
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence

Clean coal can reduce US dependency on foreign oil suppliers
Clean coal technologies inc, company that created and patented clean coal technology, 2007, “The Pollution Solution”
http://www.cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com/
With CCTI's technology, coal becomes a cost-effective, efficient and extremely clean-burning fuel that could potentially reduce
our dependency upon oil. Over time, as utilities, power plants and manufacturers shift to our clean coal, we can achieve major
advances in reducing pollution throughout the globe, and become the worldwide emission standard for future plants. For
countries with significant coal deposits, the result could also result in a reduced dependency upon oil and foreign suppliers.
Additionally, as in the case of the US, our technology could provide an excellent export opportunity for clean domestic coal
products.
Development of clean coal key to US energy independence

Paul C. Oakley, Executive director at the coalition for affordable and reliable energy, 3/13/03, “Whitfield-Boucher ‘clean coal act’
essential to america’s energy independence,” http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=62
"By promoting the development of new and advanced technologies to ensure even cleaner and more efficient use of abundantly
available coal to meet our growing energy needs, the Whitfield-Boucher bill will help ensure our energy security for years to
come. "Promoting the cleaner and more efficient use of coal must be a key component of a broader national energy strategy for
America. CARE praises Congressmen Whitfield and Boucher for their leadership on this important issue. Congress should act
quickly to adopt this important legislation." - Washington, DC -- "With concern over foreign energy supplies mounting and
America’s demand for energy expected to increase sharply in the coming years, we must take steps today to promote the use of
more domestic energy resources. The Whitfield-Boucher bill represents a significant step in this direction.
Due to abundance, shift to clean coal key to energy independence

US Department of Energy, 9/1/06, “assistance secretary of energy highlights clean coal technologies to sustain america’s
economic growth,” http://www.doe.gov/news/4133.htm
Clean coal is our nation’s most abundant and affordable energy source that powers our homes and businesses and keeps our
economy thriving,” Assistant Secretary Jarrett said. “Through Bush Administration research investments, DOE’s National
Energy Technology Laboratory is helping to change the outlook of America’s energy future by advancing clean coal
technology research to increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Pittsburgh stands on a 250-year supply of coal, a seam which is one of the most valuable natural resource supplies in the
world,” Rep. Murphy said. “The development of clean coal technology and the ability to use waste coal as a source of energy
are absolutely vital in leading us towards energy independence. We have to diversify our energy sources in order to reduce the
trend toward higher natural gas and oil prices. Coal is the ace in Southwestern Pennsylvania's hand.”
157
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence

Shift to clean coal alone will not solve energy dependence
E-commerce times, writers articles about finances and the economy, Theodore F. di Stefano, 7/11/08, “Getting Serious about
Energy Independence,” http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/63695.html?welcome=1216390508
There is a solution, albeit no quick fix. There is no doubt in my mind that we, as a country, must achieve energy independence.
However, I don't believe that there is one single path to this independence. I think that we have to have a multipronged
approach -- an approach that includes nuclear energy, clean coal technology, hybrid cars, solar and wind power, just to mention
the major possibilities. Incidentally, the engineers with whom I've spoken of late think that we are still quite a few years away
from having hydrogen power on any mass scale.
So, we have work to do as a country, and I have no doubt that we have finally become serious about energy independence. Let's
hope it happens sooner rather than later. Good luck!
158
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Energy Dependence Impact

America’s energy dependence undermines US national security and clout –
decreasing dependence now is key .
Council on foreign relations, John Deutch: former director of the CIA and former undersecretary of energy, James R.
Schlesinger: former defense and energy secretary, David G. Victor: adjunct senior fellow for science and technology, 10/12/06, “US
energy dependence undercutting US national security, council task force warns,”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11693/us_energy_dependence_undercutting_us_national_security_council_task_force_warns.html
America’s dependence on imported energy increases its strategic vulnerability and constrains its ability to pursue foreign policy
and national security objectives, finds a Council-sponsored Independent Task Force. “The lack of sustained attention to energy
issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national security,” says the report.
At the same time, energy suppliers—from Russia to Iran to Venezuela—are able and willing to use their energy resources as
leverage to pursue their strategic and political objectives. “Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer countries are
free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests inimical to our national security,” says the report. Dependence also puts the
United States into competition with other importing countries, notably China and India. “The challenge over the next several
decades is to manage the consequences of unavoidable dependence on oil and gas that is traded in world markets and to begin
the transition to an economy that relies less on petroleum,” says Task Force Chair James R. Schlesinger, a former secretary of
defense and secretary of energy. The report warns, “The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma.”
159
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Competitiveness

The US can sell clean coal technology to other countries
Dianne DeMille and Stephen Priestley – Canadian American Strategic Review, November 2005, “Beyond Kyoto – the Lure
of Cheap, Abundant CoalA New Industrial Revolution for India and China?” http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-newfuel-2.htm
The US and Australia are two of the largest exporters of coal, while India and China are two of the largest consumers,
especially of black anthracite – the highest coal grade. It didn't take long for the Australian Prime Minister to convince
President Bush to pursue a deal with India and China, whereby the two former countries would sell the latter two the coal
they need to generate electricity, light their cities, and power their manufacturing plants. In addition, the two 'Western' nations,
with their more advanced technology, would sell them the equipment they need to burn the coal more cleanly. The two
populous nations would have access to 'clean coal' technology at very reasonable rates.
160
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Coal Key to the Economy

Clean coal will greatly help US’s economy
NCC, national coal council, 1993, “The role of US coal in energy, economy,”
http://nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE%20ROLE%20OF%20U.S.%20COAL%20IN%20ENERGY,%20ECONOMY.PDF)
The potential of clean coal technology provides an enormous future opportunity for the United States. Energy efficiency can
be improved and the environment protected while coal use expands to generate electricity, promote growth, and improve
the nation’s balance of payments. Coal, the nation’s largest source of domestic energy, contributes both directly and
indirectly to the U.S. economy. Direct Economic Contribution. The $21 billion in current value of annual coal production yields an
impact of $81 billion on the economy. While many U.S. industries have declined over the past two decades, the U.S. coal industry has
increased its export position. The abundant coal resources of the U.S. provide opportunities to improve the nation’s balance of trade in
the 1990s, strengthen basic infrastructure, and employ advanced technologies in the U.S. and overseas. Indirect Economic
Contribution. The U.S. economy and the standard of living it supports depend on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Electric
power is the largest and fastest growing enduse sector in energy. Coal is the principal fuel
used to generate electricity. Availability of lowcost coal has enhanced the electrification of the U.S. economy
Sustainability of coal and coal industry key to US economy

Gregson Vaux, a scientist, 5/27/04, “The Peak in U.S. Coal Production,”
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html
In conclusion, is there any hope that the coal production peak can be pushed back to a later date? The various models described
above, all assume that current trends will continue along a certain path, but we can decide to change the way we consume
energy. There exist technologies such as coal gasification that produce electricity and even synfuels much more efficiently than
current methods. We can also make efforts as a nation to conserve our resources and perhaps even conclude that endless growth
may not be in our best interests. It is probably safe to assume that coal and economic growth will be closely tied in the next few
decades meaning that we can either have long lasting coal supplies or economic growth, but not both.
161
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Coal Key to the Economy

Coal industry key to economy
NCC, national coal council, 1993, “The role of US coal in energy, economy,”
http://nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE%20ROLE%20OF%20U.S.%20COAL%20IN%20ENERGY,%20ECONOMY.PDF)
The economic wellbeing of the United States depends substantially on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Coal has
been the nation’s largest domestic source of energy for nearly a decade. Electric power, the largest and fastest growing
enduse sector in energy, is the primary market for coal. Accounting for 56% of total generation, lowcost coal contributed
to the electrification of the economy over the past twenty years. If coal had not been available to meet the growth in electric
demand, consumers would have incurred over $190 billion in additional fuel costs since 1971. Coal contributes over $80
billion annually to the economy and stimulates over one million jobs. Coal also contributes to the economy in terms of tax
revenue, exports, and infrastructure and technology development. Further development of coal production, combustion,
and emissions technologies can ensure that coal continues to contribute to energy security, economic growth, and
environmental protection.
Clean coal plants help economy – create jobs

Joe King, works in Northern Illinois University office of public affairs, 5/25/07, “NIU says clean coal power plant makes
economic sense,” http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/2007/may/coal.shtml
Springfield, Ill. — A study released Tuesday, May 15, by the Regional Development Institute at Northern Illinois University
found that a proposed “clean coal” power plant makes good economic sense for Taylorville, Ill.
“Construction of the Taylorville Energy Center will create more than 1,500 construction jobs, plus hundreds of permanent
mining and power plant jobs,” said John Lewis, an NIU economist who also serves as associate vice president for NIU
Outreach. Lewis was the lead author of the report. “Our analysis indicates central Illinois will also benefit from a regional
ripple effect that will create hundreds of new positions in industries such as retail, hospitality and health care,” Lewis said. New
technology The unique plant (which is being proposed by Tenaska, an international power development company and energy
marketer, with expertise in power plant development) would be the first industrial-scale coal gasification power plant in the
world. The coal gasification process converts the coal to a gas and pollutants are separated and removed before the gas is
burned. Supporters say it would be among the most environmentally friendly, commercially sized coal plants in the world. The
process makes the type of high-sulfur coal, which is common to Illinois, an economically viable fuel source again. The plant
could be up and running as early as 2012. Producing power … and jobs According to the NIU study titled “The Economic
Impacts of an Electric Power Generation Facility in Illinois,” the plant will generate not only power but also employment.
Lewis estimates that once the facility is operational it will create 663 direct and indirect jobs in Christian County resulting in
annual economic activity of $355.9 million. The report also suggests that the power plant will help revitalize the sagging
Illinois coal mining industry which has suffered as environmental regulations prompted power plants to switch to low-sulfur
coal mined in the western U.S. With an estimated annual coal consumption of 1.5 million tons, the plant is expected to create
416 direct and indirect jobs related to coal mining in Illinois, generating $78.5 million in annual economic activity for that
industry. Illinois residents in other parts of the state also would stand to benefit from the plant. Lewis estimates that lower-
priced power generated by the plant could create $190 million a year in gross savings to Illinois customers during its first eight
years of operation. Results of the report were presented at a May 15 press conference in Springfield, Ill., where supporters of
the Taylorville project were seeking support for the Clean Coal Program Law which would allow power developers to enter
into long-term contracts with Illinois utilities to sell their power. Illinois law currently prohibits such contracts
162
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Pollution

Clean coal is key to solve air pollution
From the top of a hill here in coal country, you can see distant swells of smoke curling up from coal-fired power plants along the flat
horizon. Even here, in a town of only 348 residents, a small coal plant has operated off and on since World War II. But that plant
might soon be replaced by a new kind of coal plant, one that could signal a critical turning point in the future of coal and how the
United States reconciles its conflicting energy and environmental needs. Duke Energy, the Charlotte, N.C.-based utility, is now
awaiting an air permit from Indiana for a $2 billion, 630-megawatt coal plant, large enough to power about 200,000 homes a year.
Considered only average-size as traditional plants go, it would become the world's largest coal-fired power plant to use a new, cleaner
technology called integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC. "It's a technology that has the ability to take air pollution out of
the debate over coal," says John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program at the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based
environmental group that supports the plant. "The day that plant opens, the 500 or so coal plants in the U.S. are obsolete." Unlike
conventional coal-fired power plants, often called "pulverized" coal plants because they crush coal to a powder before burning it to
make electricity, the Edwardsport plant would turn coal into a gas before burning it. "Gasification" makes removing pollutants easier.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, such gasification plants emit about 65% less mercury and 75% less sulfur dioxide
than conventional plants, while nearly eliminating particulate matter, the fine particles linked to heart and lung disease. But perhaps
more important, coal-power experts say, the Edwardsport plant's gasification design would enable Duke to capture the plant's carbon-
dioxide emissions, then inject them underground where they cannot affect the atmosphere, a process known as carbon capture and
sequestration. Coal-fired power plants account for a third of U.S. CO{-2} emissions, the primary gas blamed for global warming,
about as much as every plane, train and automobile in the country combined. Yet, most energy experts say the nation can't meet its
energy demand for decades, at least, without a lot of coal. Deploying coal gasification technology at power plants such as
Edwardsport could be a crucial first step toward solving that conflict, supporters say, because capturing CO{-2} from conventional
coal plants is likely to be prohibitively expensive. "If those (pulverized coal) plants go ahead, it is extremely unlikely carbon will ever
be captured from them," says Doug Cortez, who heads a clean energy consulting firm in California. But with gasification plants, it's
more likely, he says.
Clean Coal help control emissions while still being an economical option
Edward Rubin, 1992, (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/1992/26/i10/f-
pdf/f_es00034a016.pdf?sessid=6006l3)
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems represent a promising new approach for the cleaner and more efficient
use of coal for power generation, offering low levels of SOz and NO, emissions along with benign
solid wastes or byproducts, and zero or low wastewater discharges. A distinguishing feature of IGCC concepts is
the type of fuel gas cleanup strategy employed. Typical designs for IGCC systems use “cold gas cleanup” (CGCU),
including low-temperature removal of SO2 and particulates from the coal syngas, sulfur byproduct recovery, and syngas
moisturization to reduce NO, formation in the gas turbine combustor. On-going research by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and others is focused on developing dry physical and chemical hot gas cleanup (HGCU) techniques to reduce the
efficiency penalty associated with syngas cooling (1). The cost and performance of IGCC systems with hot gas cleanup is
expected to compare favorably with advanced alternatives for SOz and NO, emission control in pulverized coal power plants.
In IGCC systems, environmental control is required not just to meet environmental regulations but also for proper plant
operation. In particular, contaminants such as sulfur, particulates, and alkali must be removed prior to fuel gas combustion to
protect the gas turbine components from erosion, corrosion, and deposition. Because of the close interactions among plant
performance, environmental control, and cost, assessments of IGCC technology must be based on integrated analysis of the
entire system.
163
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Acid Rain

Clean coal eliminates acid rain
CBS, 6/20/08, “Clean Coal- Pipe Dream or Next Big Thing?”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_4199506
The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean
because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.
According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen
and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.
164
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Doesn’t Solve Sulphur

Clean coal eliminates sulphur emission
The New Zealand Herald, 6/17/08, “Chris Baker: Appliance of science will ensure coal (and Earth) have healthy futures,” p.
Lexis
The modern coal industry has successfully developed technological solutions for the near-elimination of particulate and sulphur
emissions - technologies which are now commonplace in modern coal-fired power stations. The challenge is now to progress clean
coal technologies to a stage where coal can be used as a near-zero emissions energy source.
165
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
Clean Coal Solves Hydrogen

Turns the Case: Clean Coal makes the hydrogen economy possible in a cheap
and non polluting way
Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants are an example of the hydrogen route. Coal is gasified to
form synthesis gas (syngas) of CO and H2. The gas then undergoes the watergas shift, where the CO is reacted with
steam to form CO2 and H2. The CO2 is then removed, with the hydrogen being sent to a gas turbine combined cycle.
This approach allows for a CO2 removal process (e.g., a physical solvent process like Selexsol) that is much less energy
intensive than the MEA process because capture takes place from the high pressure syngas as opposed to the atmospheric
pressure flue gas. A similar process is available for natural gas, where the syngas is formed by steam reforming of methane.
The hydrogen route opens up opportunities for “polygeneration”, where besides electricity and CO2, additional
products are produced. For example, instead of sending hydrogen to a turbine, it can be used to fuel a “hydrogen
economy”. In addition, syngas is an excellent feedstock for many chemical processes.
166
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Coal Will Run Out

US has largest coal reserve in world – can last 236 years
Energy information administration, took information from: annual coal report (2005 and 2006), national energy education
development project, and intermediate energy infobook (2004-2005), feb 2007, “coal – a fossil fuel,”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html
Coal reserves are beds of coal still in the ground waiting to be mined. The United States has the world's largest known coal
reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use. Coal
production is the amount of coal that is mined and sent to market. In 2005, the amount of coal produced at U.S. coal mines
reached an all time high of 1,131.5 million short tons. Coal is mined in 27 states. Wyoming mines the most coal, followed by
West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas.Coal is mainly found in three large regions, the Appalachian Coal Region,
the Interior Coal Region, and Western Coal Region (includes the Powder River Basin).
US coal supply will last at least 250 more years

Jeffrey W. Johnson, Senior correspondent, BS in industrial engineering at California state polytechnic University, MS in
journalism at University of Oregon, writer for Chemical and Engineering News, 2/23/04, “Getting to Clean Coal,”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8208/8208coal.html
Yet these miners barely tap the U.S.'s coal supply. Geologists say the nation has enough coal to last at least another 250 years.
And U.S. coal is so cheap that even the poor efficiency of the nation's aging power plants doesn't make much difference.
US has largest coal reserve in world – second largest producer

Richard Heinberg, author of eight books, senior fellow of post carbon institute, regarded as worlds foremost peak oil educators,
june 08, “Coal in the United States,”http://www.richardheinberg.com/MuseLetter/194
Because the US has the world’s largest coal reserves, it has sometimes been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal." It is the world’s
second-largest coal producer, after China, but surpasses both the number three and four producer nations (India and Australia)
by nearly a factor of three. Wood was this nation's primary fuel until the mid-1880s, when deforestation necessitated greater
reliance on abundant coal resources. Coal then remained America's main energy source until the 1930s, when it was overtaken
by oil. Today coal fuels about 50 percent of US electricity production and provides about a quarter of the country's total energy.
The US currently produces over a billion tons of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the
amount produced in 1960. However, due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced
(i.e., declining resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having
peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts to more than 30
percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation's increasing reliance on
sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining even within each coal
class.
167
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Coal Will Run Out

Coal is becoming the only practical means to meet the world’s growing power
needs
Bob Moen, Associated Press via Yahoo!News, 9 June 2006, “Railroads Struggle to Ship Coal in U.S.”,
site attained: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/16980 original article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609/ap_on_bi_ge/railing_on_coal [Bapodra]
With plentiful coal reserves and alternative fuels still too costly or years away from becoming reality, coal is seen by many as
the most practical means to meet the nation's and world's growing power needs.
"The economy is still rolling along so everybody expects production and demand to keep increasing," Fred Freme, industry
statistician with the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. "It is the cheapest as far as electric
generation goes."
168
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
CP – Clean Coal Incentives Solve

Increased incentives would accelerate the development of clean coal
Andrzej Zwaniecki, Washington File Staff Writer, 11/30/06, “United States Advances $1 Billion for Clean Coal Projects,”
Washington File, http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20061130/20061130172755.html
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who made the announcement, said that the energy content of abundant U.S. coal resources
is higher than that of nearly all the oil in the world. â€œThese tax credits will help us find ways to use coal in an
environmentally sensitive way,â€ he said. Because coal is both plentiful and relatively cheap in the United States and in some
other countries such as China, it is expected to remain the main source of electricity generation for decades to come, the
department said. The portion of power generated from coal in overall electricity production is projected to increase in the
United States from the current 50 percent to 57 percent by 2030 as demand for electricity grows. The department said it
believes that incentives such as tax credits will accelerate the widespread use of advanced technologies that allow electricity to
be generated from coal more efficiently and with fewer harmful environmental effects. IGCC and other advanced technologies
are expected to extract 55 percent to 60 percent of coalâ€™s energy content compared to 35 percent in existing, modern coal-
fired plants, Connaughton said. The president of Tampa Electric, one of the tax credit recipients, said that incentives also
would bring significant savings to customers. Tampa Electric was the first U.S. utility company to commercialize IGCC
technology in partnership with the department. The Energy Department said the overall U.S. strategy to make the best and
most efficient use of coal in power generation also includes investing in carbon sequestration (capturing and storing carbon
dioxide); supporting further modernization of existing power plants; making sure that new plants have the most efficient and
environmentally friendly equipment; and building the first virtually emission-free coal power plant known as FutureGen. Â
The FutureGen plant is intended to deliver electricity at competitive prices and with nearly no greenhouse gas or other
emissions by combining a range of innovative technologies such as carbon capture and storage. The construction of the plant is
expected to start in 2009 and conclude in 2012. The plant will be operated by an international consortium, which includes
companies from Australia, China and the United Kingdom.
169
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF AT: Clean Coal DA
170
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now

Clean Coal not coming soon enough to limit global warming – mounting costs
and wavering government backing.
NYT, Matthew L. Wald – staff writer, 5/30/08, “mounting costs slow the push for clean coal,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the
government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois
where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that
would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant
and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon
capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global
warming. “It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the
University of California, Berkeley. “Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that
makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by
the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will
be a long-term disaster.
Construction costs are killing clean coal now

Matthew L. Wald, New York Times Staff Writer, 5/30/08, “Mounting Cost Slow the Push for Clean Coal,” New York Times, p. Lexis
For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from
coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues
of ''clean coal.'' All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are
for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent
months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was
supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil
underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida,
West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled
or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building,
testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal
compatible with limiting global warming. ''It's a total mess,'' said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate
Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. ''Coal's had a tough year,'' said John Lavelle, head of a business at
General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects
were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned
around, will be a long-term disaster.
171
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now

Lack of government support is killing clean coal now
Neal St. Anthony, Star Tribune Staff Writer, 5/12/07, “'Clean coal' possible, experts say, but needs federal help;
Xcel Energy and others are embracing coal gasification, but government spending on crucial research has declined.” The Star Tribune,
p. Lexis
The "clean-coal" technology uses a chemical process to convert coal into a gas. It is burned in a modified combustion turbine
to generate electricity, increasing the efficiency of the plant and reducing emissions. The captured CO2 can be stored
underground or piped to depleted oil wells for storage and to aid in the extraction of hard-to-get oil. A 1970s-vintage
gasification plant in North Dakota already is capturing thousands of tons daily of CO2 for injection into an oil field in
Saskatchewan. But integrating the technologies for widespread use is going to require the Bush administration to do more than
talk about clean coal, critics say. The Great Plains report said federal spending on related research and development has
declined over the past several years. "Early adopters of these technologies face greater risks, especially with low-rank coals,"
said Charlie Bullinger, senior engineer with Great River Energy of Elk River, Minn. "That's why we're encouraging an
expansion of federal incentives to reduce the risk." President Bush has pointed to clean coal as a partial solution to America's
energy issues, including conversion of coal to liquid fuels, and approved some research funding. But the administration has
barely acknowledged global warming despite mounting scientific evidence and even calls by industrialists for American
leadership in "green technologies."
172
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Impossible

Clean coal not possible—it’s propaganda by coal industry to stay afloat
Tony Troughton-Smith, ex-Australian systems analyst and anti-global warming activist, 5/16/08, “Clean coal, dirty business?”
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081605-17334.html
While there may be no question of WWF Australia's good intentions in adding its name to the coalition calling for increased
emphasis on research into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), is it really advisable to campaign for an increase in government
investment (financial, but also philosophical) in this still mythical technology? The feasibility of the basic idea is not in
question: we know it's possible to remove carbon dioxide from either the exhaust gases or feedstock of a power station, and
then pump it underground. However, my understanding is that it remains highly unlikely that what is a relatively simple
laboratory process can be scaled up to address the vast volumes of CO2 produced by power stations, especially (but not only)
when retro-fitting the technology to existing plants, in locations where no suitable sequestration site is close by. It is even
possible that coal corporations already know that the process is not viable, but continue promoting CCS in order to maintain
share prices and prolong the industry’s lifespan. Getting governments to subscribe to this would obviously be very effective
from a corporate viewpoint. If public funds were infinite, calling for such investment would not reduce governments’ ability to
concurrently support the development of genuinely sustainable generation options (geothermal, wind, waves, solar thermal,
solar-to-hydrogen, algae, whatever), but sadly this is not so. From finite funds, anything spent on the highly speculative CCS
venture is money filched forever from totally proven (or at least totally feasible) technologies just waiting to take up the energy
demand currently met by filthy fossil fuels. Then there is the philosophical investment I mentioned: governments hate to admit
they have gone down a blind alley (especially when they were warned before entering it). As they commit yet more public
funds to CCS ventures, it will become increasingly difficult for them to admit it was the wrong choice, even when it's plain to
the rest of us. And all this will be wasting yet more time, currently the scarcest commodity of all, as well as taxpayers' money.
The fossil fuel industries, especially coal, have been shown to run a very effective lobbying organisation which reached right to
the heart of the previous federal government, and probably the current one and state governments too. This explains, in large
part, the difficulty nascent alternative clean energy technologies experience in getting any traction with ministers (prime, sub-
prime or otherwise).
Clean coal not commercially viable – tested and proven.

Christopher Stimpson, board member of clean power now, Carles W. Kleekamp, president of clean power now, 7/9/08, “Clean or
dirty, coal is not our future,” http://www.cleanpowernow.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=783
This price disparity has led utilities to draw up plans for some 150 conventional coal plants nationwide, but rising construction costs
and resistance from all quarters — environmental groups, local communities, major banks and even state governors — have led to the
cancellation or delay of more than a third of them. So we find ourselves unwilling to continue down the dirty path of conventional coal
and unable to afford the only clean(er) alternative we have (natural gas) — a situation the government could have pre-empted, had it
invested in true alternatives and truly clean energy a generation ago.
And "clean coal" plants? Only two such plants have been built in the U.S., both experimental. Though neither incorporates the added,
and very expensive, step of burying ("sequestering") the carbon dioxide, they have not proved commercially viable in their 12 years of
existence. Plans for others have been shelved, even after having been permitted in some cases, because of escalating costs and
increasingly severe carbon-capture regulations.
173
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Impossible

Clean coal doesn’t exist – best case, it’s still years away.
Jeff Goodell, wrote the book Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future, 7/18/08, “How clean coal cooks your
brain,” http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain
The catch is that for now—and for years to come—"clean coal" will remain more a catchphrase than a reality. Despite the
eagerness of the coal and power industries to sanitize their image and the desire of U.S. politicians to push a healthy-sounding
alternative to expensive foreign oil and natural gas, clean coal is still a misnomer. Environmental legislation enacted in 1990
forced the operators of coal-fired power plants to reduce pollutants that cause acid-rain. But such plants, which provide half of
U.S. electricity, are the country's biggest source of greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming. No coal plant can
control its emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. "Clean coal' is like a healthy cigarette,'" says Blan Holman, an attorney
with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleston, S.C. "It doesn't exist."
Clean coal just an attempt to keep fossil fuels on top

Wall Street Journal, Keith Johnson – staff writer, 5/9/08, “Clean Coal: Black Gold or Fool’s Gold?”
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/09/clean-coal-black-gold-or-fools-gold/)
Greenpeace doesn’t think so. In a big report published this week, the environmental group says that carbon capture and storage
is an expensive, inefficient pipe dream that—if it ever does come to fruition—will arrive too late to save the planet.
Greenpeace (and plenty of folks in the industry) doubts clean coal plants will be a reality before 2030. For Greenpeace, which
also opposes nuclear power, the global push for “clean coal” is just a smokescreen to keep fossil fuels at the top of the heap for
decades to come.
174
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Far Away

Clean coal not coming soon – at least a decade
David Sassoon, writer at solveclimate – a blog about global warming, 2.1.08, “DOE timelines show ‘clean coal will be a long time
coming’” http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080201/doe-timelines-show-clean-coal-will-be-long-time-comin
With the cancellation of US Department of Energy Funding for FutureGen -- the "demonstration" zero-emissions coal plant
plagued by cost overruns -- it looks like the promise of clean coal has suffered a major setback.
But a look at the DOE's Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan (2007) reveals that the technology --
even with FutureGen -- was not going to be ready any time soon anyway. Certainly not before today's first graders finish high
school, probably college, and quite possibly graduate school.
20 year timeframe
Advanced clean-coal technologies now under development could be incorporated into new coal plants and many existing plants over
the next 20 years. The environmental benefits are expected to be significant. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that a 10
percent improvement in the efficiency of a conventional pulverized coal plant would increase the amount of electricity squeezed from
each ton of coal, and translate into a carbon reduction of 25 percent.
Clean coal is decades away

Business Week, Ben Elgin, 6/19/08, “The dirty truth about clean coal,”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090055452749.htm
That fact won't mute the marketing bluster. All the talk relates to the idea of separating CO2 from the coal-burning process and
burying it in liquid form so it won't contribute to climate change. "When [Obama] says clean coal,' he's talking about coming
up with a system to put carbon back into the ground from whence it came," says Jason Grumet, the candidate's principal
adviser on energy and the environment. Corporations and the federal government have tried for years to accomplish "carbon
capture and sequestration." So far they haven't had much luck. The method is widely viewed as being decades away from
commercial viability. Even then, the cost could be prohibitive: by a conservative estimate, several trillion dollars to switch to
clean coal in the U.S. alone.
175
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Far Away

Clean Coal tech will take to long to develop and tradesoff with renewables
Sydney Morning Herald, 3/14/07, Moronic to believe there is such a thing as clean coal, p. Lexis
If you repeat the mantra long enough, you will fool some of the people some of the time, or at least this is what the coal
industry and its sycophantic politician allies are hoping as they disingenuously promote the pernicious subterfuge of "clean
coal" technology ("Academic dishes the dirt on coal plan", March 13). We simply cannot afford to wait decades for the
industry to investigate whether this as yet non-existent technology is technically, let alone financially, feasible. Clean coal is the
mother of all oxymorons and should be exposed as an attempted con. S. Poyzer Warrawee Clean coal is an oxymoron, with an
emphasis on the "moron". What does this say about the major political parties? The most amazing aspect of this issue is that
both Labor and Liberal politicians can say the words "clean coal" with a straight face. Are the Greens the only party that has
any common sense? Even if the technology is feasible, the CSIRO has said it won't be available for 10 to 15 years, and this is
far too late to avoid catastrophic consequences due to global warming. Politicians are touting clean coal only because they
don't have the nerve to do that which needs doing, and the fantasy of clean coal allows them to postpone the political fallout of
climate change for a few more elections. Let's put the money into really clean energy sources and do it now. Bob Thomas
Bowral The granting of $200 million of taxpayer funds to a Kerry Stokes company to build a "clean brown coal" (the
equivalent of dirty black coal) power station is an outrage. The Greens have been right about climate change every step of the
way. This appalling decision demonstrates that the Government still refuses to listen and does not understand the "polluter
pays" principle. It is a kick in the teeth to renewable energy, and indirectly to our children. Carl Sparre Eastwood The Federal
Government is very focused. On one page of the Herald, Joe Hockey crows about driving the disabled off government support
("Hockey claims victory as welfare bill falls"). On another, Malcolm Turnbull slips a $100 million subsidy from taxpayer
funds to a coal company partly owned by a billionaire. No mixed messages there. We know exactly where these blokes are
coming from.
Two decades until clean coal can even be TESTED – not going to be usable for many decades
Hampton roads, online news source, 5/21/08, “Dirty Facts about Clean Coal,” http://hamptonroads.com/2008/05/dirty-facts-
about-clean-coal
Re 'Coming clean on clean coal,' letters, May 16: Dominion vice president James Martin defends as 'facts' the technology
behind the utility's proposed Virginia Energy Center 'clean coal' plant in southwestern Virginia.
Based on readily available research in books, magazines and on Web sites, I was able to find a few facts he neglected to
mention: The technology for truly 'clean coal' has not been successfully developed, and by industry estimates, it will be another
two decades before such technology can even be tested. Seventy percent of coal used to generate electricity is acquired via
mountaintop removal mining, a practice termed 'criminal' by Al Gore, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and reputable regulatory
authorities. In Appalachia, 2,500 tons of dynamite are detonated daily to remove mountains. More than 470 mountains are
gone. Resulting debris is pushed into the valleys, burying them and, thus far, 1,500 miles of streams. More than 1.5 million
acres are permanently affected. The processing of coal creates 90 million tons of toxic byproducts annually. These toxins are
stored in unlined liquid slurry impoundments, resulting in poisoned wells and communities. More than 600 impoundments
house up to several billion gallons of waste each.
In West Virginia alone, there have been more than 170 million gallons of toxic spills into waterways.
From extraction to consumption, there is nothing clean about coal. That is a fact.
176
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF AT: Clean Coal Solves Warming

Clean Coal can’t end global warming – too expensive, not economically
feasible, and won’t be adopted in developing countries where most coal plants
are
Diane Silver, writer at salon.com—website that provides news articles on breaking news, 5.15.08, “Celebrate clean coal, come on!”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/
The problem with the "trust us, we'll fix this" approach is that carbon capture and storage isn't close to being technically
perfected or to becoming economically feasible. "When they say 'clean coal,' the first question that comes to mind is have they
invented a new product that actually solves global warming, because right now that doesn't exist," says Bruce Nilles, director
of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "It is a figment of their imagination." The Clean Coal campaign, he says, "is the
latest example of trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge."
Achieving workable carbon capture and storage may be even more difficult than first thought. The New York Times recently
reported that many energy experts have likened it to putting a man on the moon. Among the many problems is the fact that this
moon shot has to be replicated at coal plants throughout the world. Many of those plants are in economically and
technologically poor countries. The task is so expensive that the federal government's only major project designed to
demonstrate the technology, a full-scale plant called FutureGen, is in danger of going under. The Department of Energy is
attempting to revamp the project, while the latest word from Congress is that it might be put on hold until a new president takes
over.
177
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Kills the Economy

Clean coal risks global shortages that can disrupt investment causing economic downfall
Barry Brook, Professor of climate change and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the
University of Adelaide, 7-18-08, The Age http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/reliance-on-coal-could-scuttle-us-20080717-
3gwe.html, Junaid
THE Rudd Government's green paper on a "carbon pollution reduction scheme", and the methods to achieve this reduction,
have some strongly innovative elements. But there is a continued emphasis on investment in offsets and abatement from large-
scale carbon capture projects to significantly extend the life of our coal industry. This poses three huge risks to the Australian
economy. Are we sure that we want our children to shoulder them? The first big risk is that carbon capture and storage isn't
proven. Experts believe it may take until 2015 or later to prove the technology, if then. The second big risk is that it may not
prove cost-effective. Evidence is accumulating that carbon capture and storage may prove uneconomic because renewables
such as solar, geothermal power and wind are falling in price very rapidly. But the biggest argument of all for caution — yet
hardly ever spoken — is that there simply may not be enough coal to go around. This could lead to global shortages, price
spikes, economic disruption and a rush to other energy sources — meaning billions of dollars of stranded investments.
178
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution

Clean Coal has a net negative impact on the environment
Washington Post, “Clean Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That,” 3/2/08, p. Lexis
Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia.
After 35 years underground, he struggled to conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a
whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up
his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down to his ankles. "My
grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal
buried in his face." "Coal tattoo," Burl wheezed. "Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean." Clean coal: Never was
there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential
candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress
toward a sustainable energy policy. Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for
more -- billions more -- in funds to reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly
a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy
efficiency. Meanwhile, leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy Department's recent decision to abandon the $1.8
billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois, planned as the first coal-fired plant to capture and store harmful carbon dioxide
emissions. Energy Department officials, unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of this fantasy. Orwellian
language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans,
as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth.
Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for the ruse of futuristic
science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our eyes. Here's the hog-
killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan out in
the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways
of making energy. Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly. More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900.
Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The
injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that
in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush
administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners
who were entombed underground in Utah last summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited,
torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States
today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip
mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of
hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area
the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of
explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year.
How can anyone call this clean?
179
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution

Clean coal is dirty – mining, transportation, and disposal
Ken Ward Jr., staff writer at the sludge safety project which consists of the coal river mountain watch, concerned citizens in mingo
county, and ohio valley environmental coalition, 12/14/05, “clean coal dirty, group says,”
http://www.sludgesafety.org/news/2005/12_14.html
More than 70 grass-roots groups from around the U.S. and 12 other countries are launching a crusade to end the use of the term
“clean coal.” Coal River Mountain Watch and other West Virginia groups say the phrase is misleading and hides the true effects
of mining and coal-related air pollution. “Coal is dirty when you mine it, dirty when you transport it, dirty when you burn it
and dirty when you dispose of the ash,” said Vivian Stockman, project coordinator for the Ohio Valley Environmental
Coalition. “And it sure dirties up politics.” This morning, the coalition and the Coal River group will join the West Virginia
Highlands Conservancy and others to announce their campaign at a state Capitol press conference. Over the last few months,
local environmental groups have become increasingly concerned about calls from state and national politicians for renewed
backing of various government “clean coal” programs.
Earlier this week, Gov. Joe Manchin held the first meeting of his own such effort — a plan to build a coal gasification plant
somewhere in West Virginia. Supporters say this can help make coal burn with less air pollution, and use an abundant domestic
energy to make the nation less dependent on foreign oil. “It’s something that I think is very doable for the state of West
Virginia,” Manchin said during the Public Energy Authority meeting. In a letter circulated internationally, Coal River Mountain
Watch also calls for an end to “destructive coal mining practices.”
Even if burning coal becomes clean, manufacturing clean coal still releases
emissions hazardous to the environment and health.
Kevin Bartoy, archaeologist and farmer, 06/09/08, “The dirty lie of clean coal,” http://www.orato.com/health-
science/2008/06/09/dirty-lie-quot-clean-coal-quot?page=1
So, with all of this "astroturf," where can we find some real grass? Well, the facts on coal-based energy prove that there is no
such thing as "clean coal." Coal-fired power plants account for 59 per cent of the total sulfur dioxide pollution in the United
States, 18 per cent of the total nitrogen oxide pollution, 40 per cent of the carbon dioxide pollution, and 50 per cent of the total
particulate pollution. Coal-fired plants are the largest source of toxic mercury pollution and the largest contributor of hazardous
air toxics. If these just sound like numbers to you, here is how these toxic pollutants affect your health: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2):
Gas emitted through burning coal and oil, that converts into acid gases (sulfuric acid) and sulfur particulate matter (pm). Health
effects include: airway irritation, heart rhythm destabilization, and asthma attacks. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx): General term for
NO/O2 hazes formed from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. It is a main ingredient in acid rain and ozone smog.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Gas layer that blankets the planet and traps heat in the lower atmosphere. Global warming affects
every ecosystem on the planet with drastic health, environmental, humanitarian, and economic consequences. Particulate
Matter (PM): Soil, soot, SO2, and NOx particles from power plants, cars, and factories that are tiny enough to penetrate
indoor spaces and deep into the lungs. They can trigger premature death from heart attacks, lung diseases, and cancer in adults;
and stunted lung growth, low birth weight, neurological impairment, and SIDS in children. Mercury (Hg): Toxic metal
particles settle in water, contaminate fish, and move up the food chain. Mercury ingestion can result in premature birth, low
birth weight, structural defects, learning disorders, heart and neurological defects.
The National Park Service (NPS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and several other federal agencies recently
released the results of a six year study focused on pollution in our most pristine lands, our national parks. The study found a
significant correlation between the presence of mercury and the location of national parks located downwind from coal-based
power plants. The mercury levels of some fish in supposedly "pristine" waters were so high as to pose a health risk to eat. And,
keep in mind that this study was conducted on lands that we consider "clean" and "untouched."
180

18 Generic Clark Coal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

18 Generic Clark Coal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coal Generic

DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal UQ and LX (For all 3 DAs)

Coal Prices soaring- demand

Despite drops, prices are high

Prices will rise due to soaring demand

Cost of coal has been shooting up

Demand is pushing prices

Demand for coal is coming back

Coal Demand boom likely to last

Demand is sky high

High demand in the future- Asian imports

Coal is in high demand in the US- low cost alternative

US coal consumption is high and growing

Alternative Energy shafts coal – World Energy Council Agrees

Coal will be relied upon until we develop large-scale alternative energy

Renewables tradeoff with Clean Coal

Other Renewables tradeoff with clean coal

RPS decreases coal prices

RPS reduces coal demand and prices

RPS trades off with coal – proven several states

• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.

Farmers would shift to wind

Wind would replace coal due to carbon dioxide emissions

Solar Power reduces reliance on coal and fossil fuels

Solar power replaces clean coal

Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal

Nuclear Power replaces coal –perceived as being more efficient

Nuclear Power replaces coal usage

AFF – Coal UQ and LX (For all 3 DAs)

Turn- RPS spurs coal technology

Carbon caps cause a shift to clean coal

D. Poor infrastructure causes radioactive catastrophe

Railroads revenue increasing

Railroad profits increasing

Coal for electricity is key to rail revenue

Coal is the most important commodity carried by rail

Coal key to railroad profitability and infrastructure

Major capital investments prevent derailment – empirically proven

<CONTINUED…no text removed>

Railroads are key to US competitiveness in a global economy

Railroads are key to US competitiveness

Railroads key to the economy – they move billions of tonw of freight

Railroads key to the economy – jobs

Unstable Pakistan leads to proliferation

High food prices are the biggest threat to consumer confidence

AFF AT: Railroads DA

AFF AT: Derailment Impact

AFF AT: Derailment Impact

B. Alternative Energy will replace coal – tops experts agree

E. US/Australia alliance prevents nuclear war

US/Australia Relations High Now

Recent meeting convey signal of Strong relations

Firm alliance in the status quo- security policy trust

US/Australia Relations High Now

Both countries committed to long-term alliance- similar foreign policy

Despite recent events, relations remain high

Australia Economy High Now

Australia is in better position than the rest of the world

Economy is stable and at a new high- export boom

Trade has reached a record high- much growth predicted

Australia Economy High Now

Australian Coal Exports High (Asia)