Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Michigan 2008DoD Starter 
DoD Procurement – Starter Packet – Index
***AFFIRMATIVE***DoD Procurement – Starter Packet – Index ..........................................................................................................................1DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................2DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................3DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................4DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................5DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................6DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................7DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................8DoD Procurement – 1AC ......................................................................................................................................................9DoD Procurement – 1AC ....................................................................................................................................................10DoD Procurement – 1AC ....................................................................................................................................................11Topicality – Incentives ........................................................................................................................................................12Inherency - DoD Energy Consumption Increasing .............................................................................................................13Inherency - Attitudes ...........................................................................................................................................................14Oil Hurts Readiness – Resupply Chains .............................................................................................................................15Oil Hurts Readiness – Military Budgets .............................................................................................................................16Oil Hurts Readiness – Supply Disruptions .........................................................................................................................17Extend – Hegemony Good ..................................................................................................................................................18Extend – Hegemony Good ..................................................................................................................................................20Extend – Hegemony Good ..................................................................................................................................................21Alternative Increase Readiness – Resupply ........................................................................................................................22Alternative Increase Readiness – Supply Disruptions .......................................................................................................23Alternative Increase Readiness – Military Budgets ...........................................................................................................24Solvency – Spillover ...........................................................................................................................................................25Solvency - Biofuels .............................................................................................................................................................26Solvency – Bases ................................................................................................................................................................27They Say “Green Procurement now” ..................................................................................................................................28They Say “Military will get Priority in a Crisis” ................................................................................................................30They Say “Small Percentage” .............................................................................................................................................31They Say “Solvency Long Term” .......................................................................................................................................32They Say “DoD can’t Change” ...........................................................................................................................................33They Say “Alternate Causalities” .......................................................................................................................................34****NEGATIVE**** .........................................................................................................................................................35Topicality – 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................36Inherency – 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................37Extend – DoD Green Procurement Increasing Now ...........................................................................................................38Hegemony Bad ...................................................................................................................................................................39Hegemony Bad ...................................................................................................................................................................40Hegemony Bad ...................................................................................................................................................................41Solvency – 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................42Solvency – 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................43Extend – No Spillover .........................................................................................................................................................44Extend – Small Percentages ................................................................................................................................................45Extend – Long Time Frame ................................................................................................................................................46Extend – Alternate Causalities ............................................................................................................................................47Extend – Procurement Fails ................................................................................................................................................48Biofuels Solvency Responses .............................................................................................................................................49Bases Solvency Responses .................................................................................................................................................50Political Capital Links ........................................................................................................................................................51Obama Good Links .............................................................................................................................................................521
 
Michigan 2008DoD Starter 
DoD Procurement – 1AC
Observation One – InherencyMilitary energy consumption will increase with expanding the War on Terror
Eileen Westervelt, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2005 [September Energy Trends andImplications for U.S. Army Installations, http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wcco/news/specialreports/projectenergy/06_0420_projectenergy_energytrendsreportfromarmycorps.pdf]Energy Trends Figure 1 and Table 1 show current demand, supply, and proportionate distribution of energy for theworld, nation, and Army. Table 2 lists world reserves. The Army and the nation’s heavy use of oil and natural gas isnot “in synch” with the nation’s or the earth’s supplies. The relative fuel shares of energy use vs. energy reservesunderscores our need to supplement oil and natural gas as our staple fuels. The domestic supply and demandimbalance would lessen if coal and/or nuclear energy were made more environmentally acceptable or if therenewable share of our energy portfolio were to increase. Worldwide energy consumption is expected to increase by2.1 percent/yr and domestic energy consumption by 1.4 percent per year. This will exacerbate global energycompetition for existing supplies. Army energy consumption is dominated by facilities consumption. Facilitiesconsumption may decrease in both total quantity and in intensity basis—but not without an aggressive energy program with careful planning, diligent monitoring, and prudent investment. The closure of European installationsand relocation of troops onto domestic installations will make this outcome especially challenging. The energyconsumption associated with Army mobility (tactical and nontactical vehicle consumption) is expected to remainconstant, but may potentially increase depending of future phases of the Global War on Terror and on geopoliticaltensions resulting from the world energy situation.
The Current DoD energy policy fails – it is uncoordinated and does not emphasize alternativeenergies
Gregory Lengyel, 21st Century Defense Initiative of the Brookings Institution 2007 [Department of Defense EnergyStrategy Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks August http://www.brookings.edu/~/media /Files/rc/papers/ 2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf Despite these trends there is no existing formal Department of Defense Energy Strategy and no single individual or organization responsible for energy issues within the Department. The DOD Annual Energy Management Report for FY 2006 lists the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) as the DODSenior Energy Official responsible for meeting the goals of Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and ExecutiveOrder (EO) 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management.22 However, this position has been vacant for several years and does not satisfy the need for a comprehensive Senior Energy Official for theDepartment. This is not to say the DOD is unconcerned with energy issues. The Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD) and the Services have recently conducted or sponsored numerous studies focusing on energy, many of whichhave been invaluable information sources for this paper: MITRE Corporation JASON Project, Reducing DODFossil Fuel Dependence (2006); Defense Science Board, More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden(2001), and soon to be released Energy Strategy (2006-2007); OSD Energy Security Integrated Product Team(2006); Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Technology Options for Improved Air Vehicle Fuel Efficiency (2006); Navy Research Advisory Council, Study on Future Fuels (2005); Army Corps of Engineers, Energy Trends andTheir Implications for US Army Installations (2005); and Defense Advanced Research Projects, Petroleum-FreeMilitary Workshop (2005), to name a few. Common recommendations include making fuel efficiency a moresignificant factor in determining new mobility platforms (e.g. miles per gallon for ground vehicles, nauticalmiles/pound (lb.) fuel/lb. payload for aircraft and ships) and creating incentives for energy efficiency throughout theDOD. However, none of the studies offered anything other than liquid hydrocarbons as the best fuel for DODmobility platforms for at least the next 25 years. Impressive groups of energy experts have produced many of thesestudies, but they are all either Service specific or temporary in nature, meaning the group of experts dispersed after writing the study’s final report. The lack of a full-time energy advocate within the DOD leaves a void in follow-upactions to study recommendations, or creation of directive guidance on energy issues within the Department.2
 
Michigan 2008DoD Starter 
DoD Procurement – 1AC
Observation Two – HegemonyDoD dependence on Fossil Fuels is increasing and that kills hegemony – it depends onunstable areas, makes long term planning difficult and holds our military hostage tofluctuating oil prices
Thomas Crowley Logistics Management Institute 2007 [april transforming the way dod looks at energy an approachto establishing an energy strategy http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/document_ 404_F T602T1 _Transformi ng%20the%20Way%20DoD%20Looks%20at%20Energy _Final%20 Report.pdf.]Over the past several decades, the United States has become increasingly reliant on imported energy, primarily from petroleum. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) forecasts that U.S. dependence on petroleum imports willincrease to 68 percent by 2025. DoD, the largest U.S. consumer of energy, also relies on foreign supplies of crude oiland the finished transportation fuels (such as military jet fuel) that are derived from it. Fuel represents more thanhalf of the DoD logistics tonnage and more than 70 percent of the tonnage required to put the U.S. Army into position for battle. The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every day to operate around the globe, and the Air Force—the largest DoD consumer of fuel— uses even more. DoD’s heavy operational dependence on traditionalfuel sources creates a number of decidedly negative effects: DoD shares the nation’s reliance on foreign energysources, which effec- tively forces the country to rely on potential adversaries to maintain its economy and nationalsecurity. DoD’s energy dependence exposes the department to price volatility, forc- ing it to consume unplannedresources that could be used to recapitalize an aging force structure and infrastructure. The availability of traditionalenergy supplies beyond 25 years is difficult to project. Because of the 8- to 20-year time frame of future operationalconcepts and a similarly long, or longer, capital asset replacement cycle for DoD platforms, DoD must begin now toaddress its uncertain energy future. The United States bears many costs associated with the stability of the global oilmarket and infrastructure. The cost of securing Persian Gulf sources alone comes to $44.4 billion annually. DoDreceives little support from other consuming nations to perform this mission although they share in the benefits dueto the global nature of the oil market. Through 2004, members of the Organization of the Petroleum ExportingCountries alone have earned $4 trillion in oil revenue. Some portion of that oil revenue has likely gone towardefforts inimical to U.S. national security interests.3
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more