Coal, Solar, and Wind Energy DISADVANTAGES Cheyenne,

Maggie, and Kelsi

Loss of Coal may cause businesses to collapse and workers to be out of jobs.

A) Uniqueness:

The Federal Government is already taking care of CO2 Emissions (via the Cap-
and-Trade act) , as well as other companies that are trying other ways to go
green.

CNBC's Wendy Furrer “Companies going green with energy alternatives.” CNBC and
MSNBC March. 29, 2006 MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/

As CNBC reports this week, companies are finding new ways to save money and expand
their markets by looking for ways to use less fossil fuel. The potential savings are huge.
Industrial use accounts for about a third of energy consumed in the U.S., according to Energy
Dept. estimates. And by cutting back on just 20 percent of that consumption, American
businesses could save close to $19 billion a year at 2004 energy prices, according to a recent
report by the National Association of Manufacturers. About 30 percent of those savings can be
achieved with no capital investment, the report said. Company managers are apparently
already looking hard for savings. Last fall, some 30 percent of those surveyed by the Alliance
to Save Energy said they had made energy management a critical part of their business plan. A
third said that were undertaking major capital projects to cut energy costs. And a quarter said
they were at least working on low-cost, one-time fixes to try to cut energy bills. With energy
prices trending higher, the threat to the bottom line continues to grow. That’s made the
motivation for conserving fuel more compelling. Some 65 percent of U.S. companies think that
escalating energy prices pose a potential roadblock to their company's growth over the next 12
months, according to a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the fourth quarter of 2005.
 B) Link

If the Mandate plan is passed, The Oil and Coal companies will collapse.

Bergerson, Joule and Lave Lester “Energy Policy; Dec2007” Vol. 35 Issue 12, p6225-6234,
10p GREENfile

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=14&sid=b8a8ee3f-28ca-4479-920e-
7573b57c5f37%40sessionmgr7

Using four times as much coal in 2050 for electricity production need not degrade air quality or
increase greenhouse gas emissions. Current SO and emissions from the power sector could be
reduced from 12 to less than 1 and from 5 to 2 million tons annually, respectively, using
advanced technology. While direct CO2 emissions from new power plants could be reduced by
over 87%, life cycle emissions could increase by over 25% due to the additional coal that is
required to be mined and transported to compensate for the energy penalty of the carbon
capture and storage technology. Strict environmental controls push capital costs of pulverized
coal (PC) and integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants to $1500–1700/kW and
$1600–2000/kW, respectively. Adding carbon capture and storage (CCS) increases costs to
$2400–2700/kW and $2100–3000/kW (2005 dollars), respectively. Adding CCS reduces the 40–
43% efficiency of the ultra-supercritical PC plant to 31–34%; adding CCS reduces the 32–38%
efficiency of the GE IGCC plant to 27–33%. For IGCC, PC, and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
plants, the carbon dioxide tax would have to be $53, $74, and $61, respectively, to make
electricity from a plant with CCS cheaper. Capturing and storing 90% of the CO2 emissions
increases life cycle costs from 5.4 to 11.6cents/kWh. This analysis shows that 90% CCS removal
efficiency, although being a large improvement over current electricity generation emissions,
results in life cycle emissions that are large enough that additional effort is required to achieve
significant economy-wide reductions in the US for this large increase in electricity generation
using either coal or natural gas. [Copyright 2007 Elsevier]

C) Internal Link
The Federal Government is already working on new ways to make the workers
financially safe.

Westin, Richard A. Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis; Jun2007, Vol. 37 Issue
6, p10431-10471, GREENfile
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=21&hid=14&sid=b8a8ee3f-28ca-4479-
920e-7573b57c5f37%40sessionmgr7

The article discusses the new U.S. federal tax legislation intended for more domestic production
to meet the growing demand of oil and gas, for independence from foreign oil and gas sources,
and for the reduction of pollution from hydrocarbon usage. The legislation also includes the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005, the 2005
Transportation Act, the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005 and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The Energy Policy Act
of 2005 offers benefits for consumers, realty business, automobile, oil and gas, electric power,
nuclear electrical energy, coal-based electric energy, biodiesel and ethanol, transportation,
mining, timber and energy industries.

D) Impact

DiPeso, Jim Environmental Quality Management; Summer2005, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p107-113

http://excelsior.sdstate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=8gh&AN=17403897&site=ehost-live

This article focuses on the emission trading. The Kyoto Protocol, which took effect on February
16, 2005, includes emissions trading as one of three market-oriented strategies for reducing the
buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Competing bills to revise the Clean Air Act,
including U.S. President George W. Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation, are vying for congressional
favor. Both Clear Skies and its rival, the Clean Power Act, rely on marketable allowances as a
strategy to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. The chief difference between the two
involves carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. Clear Skies does not regulate carbon dioxide
emissions, while the Clean Power Act does. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman also
have reintroduced the Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a cap-and-trade program
of marketable allowances to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
from power plants, refineries, and other large commercial and industrial facilities. President Bush
sees cap-and-trade as a business-friendly approach to environmental management.