267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff

DOE SPENDING TRADEOFF
DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................................................................1
STRATEGY SHEET..................................................................................................................................................................................3
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................4
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................5
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................6
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................7
ITER FUNDED NOW...............................................................................................................................................................................8
ITER FUNDED NOW...............................................................................................................................................................................9
ITER BRINK/WILL GET CUT.............................................................................................................................................................10
DOE BUDGET WILL GET CUT...........................................................................................................................................................17
NOW KEY................................................................................................................................................................................................18
LINK - RENEWABLE ENERGY..........................................................................................................................................................19
LINK – RENEWABLE ENERGY..........................................................................................................................................................23
LINK – CLIMATE POLICIES..............................................................................................................................................................24
LINK - NATIVES....................................................................................................................................................................................26
LINK - NUCLEAR..................................................................................................................................................................................27
LINK – REGULATIONS........................................................................................................................................................................28
LINK - REGULATIONS.........................................................................................................................................................................29
LINK – RPS..............................................................................................................................................................................................30
LINK – CAP AND TRADE.....................................................................................................................................................................31
LINK – REBATES...................................................................................................................................................................................32
LINK – TAX INCENTIVES...................................................................................................................................................................33
EVERY DOLLAR KEY..........................................................................................................................................................................34
IMPACT - US-INDIAN RELATIONS...................................................................................................................................................35
God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 1
DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
IMPACT- US-INDIAN RELATIONS....................................................................................................................................................39
IMPACT – US-FRENCH RELATIONS................................................................................................................................................40
IMPACT - HEGEMONY........................................................................................................................................................................43
IMPACT – SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION..............................................................................................................................................44
IMPACT – SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP.............................................................................................................................................45
IMPACT – SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION.........................................................................................................................................46
IMPACT – ENERGY...............................................................................................................................................................................47
IMPACT – ENERGY...............................................................................................................................................................................48
IMPACT – FUSION.................................................................................................................................................................................49
AT: ITER NOT SAFE..............................................................................................................................................................................50
AT: FUSION NOT SAFE........................................................................................................................................................................51
AT: NUKE POWER BAD.......................................................................................................................................................................52
NON-UNIQUE – NOT FUNDED...........................................................................................................................................................53
NO LINK – RPS.......................................................................................................................................................................................54
NO TRADE OFF......................................................................................................................................................................................55
GAS/OIL WOULD TRADE OFF...........................................................................................................................................................56
NO IMPACT – FUSION..........................................................................................................................................................................57
IMPACT TURN - ITER CONSUMES ENERGY................................................................................................................................58
IMPACT TURN - ITER LEADS TO PROLIF.....................................................................................................................................59
IMPACT TURN - ITER LEADS TO PROLIF.....................................................................................................................................60

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
STRATEGY SHEET
First, thank you to the generic for providing the beginnings of this file.
On that same note, I wish that whoever cut this had paid attention in the lecture on how to cite because I had to
recite/recut many cards in this file to get it in to the DDI format.
Nevertheless, it was a good start.
The Tradeoff scenario is about ITER, or what was formerly known as International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(the name was changed just to ITER because of political reservations to the term “thermonuclear”).
ITER’s purpose is to "demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes". It
works internationally to develop fusion.
It is low on funding now. For Fiscal Year 2007 it was cut originally after Bush proposed it, and in 2008 it was still on the
chopping block. It squeaks by with funding but congress usually supports short term policies like funding renewable
energy (or spin it that way).
ITER is sick because not only does it cause a lot of PhDs to work on shit in the United States rather than leave and go to
other countries, but it develops a lot of tech leadership and shit. The heg links are probably true – if we don’t develop this
shit other countries will and then we lose heg, insert Khalilzad.
You can also spin the nuclear fusion shit as the only solution to energy/environmental problems, which is another way that
it can turn cases that claim climate advantages and shit.
For more information, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER.
Thanks,
Taylor.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

ITER is funded now but on the chopping block.
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, Doctorate
Candidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department of
Physics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002, Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007,
Research Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of Physics and
Astronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U. Pacific Department of Physics, 2002,
DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research Fellowship, 2001, Dean’s Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) , 1/5/08
http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm
Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage of
the results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the best
overview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within Fusion Energy
Sciences, $162,910,000 is provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be used
to increase facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e., the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical Torus
Experiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of $1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S. contribution to
ITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER. Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $12,281,000 for
High Energy Density Physics. Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to
restore the U.S. contribution to ITER.
The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final line
stating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is to
completely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as “Enabling
R&D” though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receiving
their wage.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

Energy solutions like the plan trade off with ITER funding. This kills leadership and our
ability to solve future problems in the environment and energy, turning case.
Space Ref, 1/31/08 http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2
Energy Under Secretary Orbach: "We Are Now at a Perilous Moment in the History of Funding for Science in the United
States"
In remarks delivered yesterday to the Universities Research Association, Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond L. Orbach was clear: "Though you
have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United States."
Orbach's comments made it clear that legislative actions have real-world consequences: failure to enact the President's FY 2008
request for the Office of Science will be felt keenly in the research programs that the Office of Science supports. Reduced
budgets will result in the elimination of funding for more than 4,300 Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others from what was
envisioned in the FY 2008 request.
Selections from Orbach's presentation follow; his entire speech may be read at
http://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/speeches/speeches/08/SC08.htm Note that his presentation on this site includes two figures: the first, "Office of
Science; FY 2008 Appropriation", the other, with new information, entitled "Office of Science; FY 2006 - FY 2008;Impact on Scientific Employment"
Headings have been added to the below excerpts:
FY 2008 OUTCOME:
"Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United
States. I speak from the perspective of the Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science, and as Under Secretary for
Science, but I believe I also represent the views of other leaders of the federal agencies that support science.
"I refer you to the consequences for the funding for science of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Omnibus Bill, and the preceding year-
long FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. Both failed to provide adequate funding for the physical sciences in the United States
and for many other fields of science. The President's Budget Request for FY 2009, in the context of the American Competitive
Initiative, or ACI, will again be a vote of confidence for the three federal agencies that are the primary supporters of the
physical sciences: the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the core
research component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The President's commitment to support of long-term
basic research continues to be evident in this budget request, as it has been in previous requests. Indeed, in his State of the
Union Address on Monday, the President devoted some of his precious time to state:
"'To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of
tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This
funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure
America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth.'
"I have never heard before such support for the physical sciences from a President of the United States. But if the FY 09 enacted budget proves similar to FY
07 and FY 08, a "three-peat," the future of the physical sciences will be in jeopardy. Opportunities will be lost forever: for science, and our country."
[At this point, Orbach quoted an op-ed by Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]
"I needn't remind this group what happened in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill . . . . The President's request for the ACI, a trajectory that would have led to a
doubling of the budgets of the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, was, with a few exceptions, at best ignored. For the Office of Science, the budget
without earmarks was reduced by $500 million from the President's request, and is only 2.6% above FY 07, which itself was down by $300 million from the
President's FY 07 request. The loss of more than three quarters of a billion dollars for the physical sciences for the Office of Science will never be recovered.
Worse, specific areas of science within the physical sciences were marked for major reductions from the President's request. I speak of High Energy Physics
for which the enacted FY 08 budget was $63.5 million less than enacted in FY 07, and by $94 million from the President's request for FY 08. Fusion Energy
Sciences was reduced by $32.4 million from FY 07, and by $141 million from the President's request for FY 08, zeroing our Nation's contribution to ITER
construction. Nuclear Physics was slightly increased by $10 million from FY 07, but cut by $38.6 million from the President's request for FY 08. Finally, the
budget for Basic Energy Sciences was increased by $19.7 million from FY 07, but cut by $229 million from the President's request, eliminating funding for
basic research energy initiatives such as solar and electrical energy storage. To be fair, the budgets for Biological and Environmental Research and Advanced
Scientific Computing Research were augmented above the President's request.
"Nevertheless, the consequences of the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill for the U.S. scientific workforce are substantial. . . . Office of
Science funding for Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others was decreased from the President's Request by over 4,300. This at a
time when other nations around the world are increasing their scientific workforce.
"The budget decisions that led to these consequences were carefully drawn. They were not the result of hasty last-minute
actions. They represent the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives."
FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

<<CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE>>
"But enough of the past. What's done is done, and we need to move on. The President's request for FY 09 will be wonderful,
again, for the physical sciences. While I can't go into details here, I can say that it will continue the funding request consistent
with the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act. The problem for all of us is that, faced with
essentially flat funding for the physical sciences in FY 08, the President's Request for FY 09 will appear as a very large
percentage increase for the three ACI agencies. The danger is that basic research in the physical sciences will again be 'donors'
to other programs.
FAILED ATTITUDE: "Compounding this danger is that we scientists tend to regard the proposed increases for the physical
sciences under the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act as an entitlement. That attitude has
failed us. Our lawmakers have clearly signaled where they want to put taxpayer dollars. If we are to avoid a repeat in FY 09 of
what happened in FY 08, we need to actively make the case for the support of long-term basic research across those fields that
have historically represented U.S. world leadership. Our fellow citizens must understand that these investments in basic
research have held the key to America's prosperity and strength in modern times. As Vannevar Bush wrote to President Truman
more than half a century ago: '.without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health,
prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.' FURTHER DETAILS ON THE FY 2009 REQUEST: "The
President's FY 09 request for the Office of Science will continue to support the full spectrum of physical science basic research.
It will restore the ACI funding trajectory for High Energy Physics, for Nuclear Physics, for Basic Energy Sciences, and for
Fusion Energy Sciences, including major support for ITER construction. NEW APPROACH NEEDED THIS YEAR: "But the
President's vote of confidence in us will go for naught if we regard his Budget Request as 'a done deal' The final
congressional action on the FY 09 budget will not be a free ride. Our community must make clear to Congress why it is critical
for the Nation's future that the physical sciences be supported at least at the level of the President's request. Failure to do so will
yield more of the same we experienced in FY 07 and FY 08, and the 'three-peat' will have the potential of continuing the flat-
to-declining trajectory into the indefinite future. "The message of this year's appropriation is unmistakable. The American
public, through its duly elected Congress, has made its priorities clear: short-term applied research wins over the full spectrum
of long-term basic research. It is our job to make clear to the American people that our country will 'run out of gas' if the
latter is not supported. In the absence of breakthroughs in fundamental science, current technologies will simply not be
able to meet the energy and environmental challenges that loom ahead for our Nation. Progress in basic science is
essential to America's continued prosperity and strength in the twenty-first century.
Loss of ITER kills U.S. technological leadership.

David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy) , 1/5/08
The collection of circumstances now present do not bode well for ITER and they encourage renewed concern over U.S.
fusion and plasma research in general. It seems that history is repeating itself with regard to our role in ITER. An unwilling
Congress, the lack of powerful supporters, and economic pressures are aligned against a U.S. presence in ITER. The
Government Accountability Office has highlighted both the need for more fusion Ph.D.'s in the workforce and the fact that as
many of half of all plasma science and engineering Ph.D.'s leave the field (plain text, pdf). As a member of the group of
graduate students in this field I can positively state that our discussions focus on events like this ITER cut and the uncertainty
in funding for this type of research is a major motivation for moving to other sectors and very different careers. Supporting
ITER encourages a new generation of plasma scientists as much as cutting it leads these same people to other fields.
A broader issue remains: what happens if ITER is a rousing success and we were not involved? For a comparison, imagine
that the methods of AC and DC electricity generation and transmission had not been developed in the United States. The
negative impact on our industrialization and technological prowess is unimaginable. A successful ITER project with no U.S.
assistance will be very similar. The rest of the industrialized world will have a wealth of knowledge and ability in the field of
fusion driven electricity production@, along with the desire to feed their own national corporate interests with the first
commercial applications.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

LOSS OF SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP DESTROYS US HEGEMONY
(Adam Segal, November/December 2004, “Is America Losing its edge?” Foreign Affairs)
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than
anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's
economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal
computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for
granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment
in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are
improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and
science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly
becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other
types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of
computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as
lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although
the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable
pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst
of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from
developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be
easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Nuclear War
(Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Former Defense Analyst at RAND 1995, “Losing the Moment? The United
States and the World After the Cold War,” Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude
the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
ITER funded now

ITER WILL BE FUNDED NOW
(Peter Gwynne, A science writer based in Boston, MA, and US correspondent for Physics World, Jul 1, 2008, “Lay-offs at Fermilab
set to be reversed”, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34821)
Six months of lobbying brought some success for the American physics community yesterday when President George W Bush
signed a $186bn “supplemental” spending bill. The bill, which continues funding for military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,
also includes $338m for government agencies that support science research. The extra funds become available immediately and
will go part of the way to compensating for severe cuts in funding for US physics that were announced last December. In
particular, the new money could allow the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago to reverse a decision to lay off 140
staff. However, physicists think that serious problems with the US science budget remain. The new legislation provides $62.5m
apiece for the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science of the Department of Energy (DOE), and NASA. Although the DOE
has yet to decide how it will spend the fresh funds, it is expected to give the bulk to the Fermilab and the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Laboratory (SLAC) in California. Since the funds apply to the current financial year, which ends on 30 September, they can permit the
institutions to cancel or reverse layoffs planned as a result of last December’s budget. Fermilab’s director Pier Oddone, who was in
process of sacking 140 employees, has called a meeting of all his staff for tomorrow. “I expect to announce an end of involuntary
layoffs at the laboratory,” he said. SLAC, which laid off 125 people in April, is less certain of its course. “At this stage we don’t
really know what will happen,” said spokesman Lee Lyon. “We’re not anticipating that we would do a large rehiring at this point. But
as critical positions open up going forward, we would anticipate that people would be interested in reapplying.” Analysts expect that
any funds remaining after those efforts will support DOE’s fusion programmes. That should help the American contribution to the
ITER project, support for which was cut to zero in the 2008 budget signed last December.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
ITER funded now

ITER IS CURRENTLY FUNDED
(DOE, February 4, 2008, “President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. Department of Energy’s FY 2009 Budget”,
http://www.doe.gov/news/5920.htm)
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush’s $25 billion Fiscal Year
(FY) 2009 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. This
request will continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy;
support the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our nuclear
weapons stockpile. The President’s budget for DOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture and storage
technologies (CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st century challenges; and accelerates technological
breakthroughs to further the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and scientific leadership through the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). “This budget furthers President Bush’s comprehensive strategy to increase energy, economic, and
national security by focusing on accelerating technological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and renewable sources of energy, and
increasing investment in scientific discovery and development,” Secretary Bodman said. “From transforming the weapons complex to
maintain the utmost safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile, to issuing solicitations for loan guarantees to spur
innovation in advanced energy technologies, this budget enables the Department to continue to lay the foundation for a clean, safe,
secure and reliable energy future for all Americans.” Among the President’s priorities funded in the FY 2009 budget request includes
$1.4 billion to promote the expansion of safe, emissions free nuclear power. DOE continues to actively work with industry partners to
promote the near-term licensing and deployment of America’s first new nuclear plants in more than 30 years. This budget also
requests $648 million, the largest budget request in over 25 years, for increased research in clean coal technology and demonstration
of carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants, an important component of the Administration’s Climate Change
Technology Program. Another key priority in the Department’s budget includes support of its Loan Guarantee program, which
requests $19.9 million for administrative expenses, and would be offset by collections in the same amount as authorized under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). In addition, DOE requests an extension of its authorization to issue loan guarantees through FY
2010 and FY 2011, enabling commitments to guarantee loans under Title XVII of EPAct to total more than $38 billion from FY 2008
through FY 2011. These efforts, combined with plans to further expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to an ultimate capacity of 1.5
billion barrels by 2029, will help achieve a more secure and reliable energy future for the nation. The budget also continues to
significantly invest in the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), both
unveiled in President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address. Advancing the American Competitiveness Initiative ($4.7 billion) The
Department’s FY 2009 budget request of $4.7 billion for the President’s ACI, approximately $748.8 million above the FY 2008
appropriation, will increase basic research in the physical sciences that will have broad impacts on future energy technologies and
environmental solutions. ACI funding will also continue to support the construction and operation of world-class scientific facilities
and will support thousands of scientists and students, which are essential for the U.S. to maintain its world class, scientific leadership
and global competitiveness. Accelerating the Advanced Energy Initiative ($3.2 billion) At a request of $3.2 billion, $623 million
above the FY 2008 enacted appropriation of $2.5 billion, the President’s AEI will continue to improve the nation’s energy security and
aims to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. AEI supports a diverse energy portfolio designed to meet the energy
challenges of the 21st century by promoting the licensing of new nuclear power plants and conducting research on an advanced
nuclear fuel cycle; furthering a robust vehicle technology program by developing lithium-ion batteries, plug-in hybrids, and drive-train
electrification; and investing to make solar power cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity by 2015. Office of Science
($4.7 billion) The Office of Science is the single largest federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation, and
its $4.7 billion request will help ensure U.S. leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. DOE’s Office of Science
budget request, an increase of almost 20 percent over the enacted FY 2008 appropriation, includes $100 million for the Energy
Frontiers Research Initiative, a new initiative to leverage intellectual strength across the country by awarding several small
competitive grants annually to universities, labs, and leading non-profit organizations to advance energy research projects. This
budget request also supports the work of DOE’s world class national science laboratories in High Energy Physics ($805 million);
Fusion Energy Sciences ($493 million), including $214.5 million for the ITER project; and Basic Energy Science ($1.6 billion),
which supports research and operates facilities to provide the foundation for new and improved energy technologies.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

ITER is on the Brink now, any trade-off will cut its funding
Peter Fairley, Contributing Editor Peter Fairley has reported for IEEE Spectrum from Bolivia, Beijing, and Paris., 2/14/08
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5980
The 2004 report “Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth,” from the U.S. National Research Council, sold Washington on the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a massive R&D project that proponents predict will be the breakthrough
project for fusion energy. In its fiscal 2008 budget, however, Congress drove the United States’ role in ITER right into the ground,
slashing US $160 million promised for this year to $10.7 million. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officials are expected to provide
an update on how the United States plans to work around the budget shortfall at a meeting of the agency’s Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee next Tuesday. But the United States’ paltry participation has some wondering if fusion research, considered since
the 1960s one of the great long shots for a sustainable and relatively clean energy supply, has run out of time. ITER, set to begin
construction in Cadarache, near Marseilles in southern France, aspires to produce the first self-sustaining fusion reaction. Like most
fusion experiments to date, ITER will use formidable electric currents and magnetic fields to induce fusion in isotopes of hydrogen
(deuterium and tritium) and to contain the resulting burning plasma—akin to a tiny star and exceeding 100 million ˚C. But where
existing fusion reactors have produced heat equivalent to just a few megawatts of power for fractions of a second, ITER should put out
500 megawatts—10 times as much as the external power delivered—for several minutes. Getting there requires a scale of investment
that only international consortia can support. The 27-meter-high magnetic confinement chamber required will take a decade to build
and cost an estimated $2.76 billion. Including design, administration, and 20 years of operation, the project’s total expenses will be
nearly $15 billion. The European Union has agreed to cover half that cost, with the other half shared by the United States, China,
India, Japan, Russia, and the Republic of Korea. U.S. support has waxed and waned before. In 1998, Congress pulled the United
States out of ITER, judging the design too pricey. ITER got Congress back on board in 2005 with a redesign that cut the cost in half,
only to see the United States trim the cap on its contribution for ITER the next year from $1.4 billion to $1.1 billion. This year’s
budget cut will prevent the DOE from lining up contractors for the design and assembly of the hardware that it committed to supply,
which includes conductors for the magnets, a pellet injector to deliver solid deuterium fuel, and an exhaust system for tritium gas. The
$10.7 million provided by Congress will cover only U.S. personnel posted to ITER in France and a skeleton staff in the States. ITER
supporters say the setback is temporary. They note that congressional committees fully funded ITER in draft legislation last fall, only
to see the funds shed in the course of a larger budget battle between President Bush and Congress. At the last minute, Congress
slashed $22 billion to avoid a threatened veto, and ITER was an obvious target as a new and nondomestic project. “It’s just one of
those things that happen because of this financial mess we’re in,” says Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, a
nonprofit research and educational outfit based in Gaithersburg, Md. Dean says that slowdowns at ITER, as officials grapple with
more than 200 proposed design changes, will blunt the effect of U.S. delays. “The impact is going to be relatively small, provided that
it doesn’t happen again next year,” says Dean. But some observers say it could happen again if the “financial mess” endures, because
ITER—the core of the U.S. fusion program—appears to be low on Congress’s list of priorities. James Decker, a principal with
Alexandria, Va., lobbying firm Decker Garman Sullivan and former director of the DOE’s Office of Science, notes that Congress
instead provided extra funding for shorter-term energy solutions. For example, Congress gave a 23 percent raise to the DOE’s energy
R&D programs, covering such areas as carbon sequestration and solar energy. If the United States does drop out of ITER, that could
weaken support among other ITER players. Britain pulled its funding for another international R&D megaproject, the $6.7 billion
International Linear Collider, after Congress effectively froze U.S. participation in the project. The International Linear Collider is the
successor to the CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) Large Hadron Collider, which is to begin operations this year.
Proponents of renewable energy would shed no tears if ITER came apart. Ed Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, says governments today must determine if energy technologies—including fusion—are “going to be realistic large-scale
energy sources on a timeframe needed to mitigate global warming.” Lyman says fusion, which even supporters agree is still several
decades from fruition, flunks that test and has no place in tight budgets: “R&D resources just aren’t there to support projects that are
so expensive and have shown so little potential for promise in the near term.”

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

Normal Means for Bush is cutting programs – his history proves
Center For American Progress 2/8/08 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html
President Bush has repeatedly said in recent months that he would lead the United States in taking steps to reduce oil
consumption, combat global warming and expand the production of renewable fuels. Bush signed the Energy Independence
and Security Act in December, and in his State of the Union address just last week, he said that we must continue to invest in
renewable fuels and that the United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate
change. Yet a quick look at the president's FY 2009 budget proposals for the Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection Agency programs show cuts in critical areas, including climate protection, tribal energy, and solar energy,
while funding for fossil and nuclear energy was increased. And some programs, such as Weatherization Assistance Grants,
and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, were zeroed out entirely.
THE DOE BUDGET IS TIGHT- NEW PROGRAMS ENSURE TRADEOFFS
(Justin Blum, Monday, February 7, 2005, “2006 Budget Proposal: Agency Breakdown” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/interactives/budget06/budget06Agencies.html)
The Energy Department's budget would fall 2 percent to $23.4 billion. Under the administration's proposal, funding would be
reduced in a number of areas, including for cleanup at the Hanford site in Washington state, which was used for plutonium
production. Energy Department officials said cleanup is winding down and that less money needed to be spent. Also cut would be
funds given to oil and gas companies to study more efficient drilling techniques. Officials said the companies could afford to fund
such research on their own. More money would be spent on Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a site where the administration wants to
create a repository to store nuclear waste. Other areas that would receive more funding include research into the use of hydrogen
and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. In a budget presentation today, President Bush's new energy secretary, Samuel Bodman,
said the budget "required a lot of tough decisions and a lot of tradeoffs."

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

ITER is on the brink of getting funding, prominent scientists are pushing for it,
but a spending trade off could drain funds. It’s key to fusion.
Richard M. Jones (Media and Government Relations Division) 1/17/08

http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=2)
An unexpected outcome in the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act was the appropriators' decision to provide no money for the U.S.
contribution to ITER. In addition, the Explanatory Statement directed that "Funding may not be reprogrammed from other
activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to restore the U.S. contribution to ITER." The Administration requested $160.0
million. As reported in FYI #2, appropriators provided "$10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER."
Twenty leaders in the U.S. fusion community have sent a letter to OSTP Director John Marburger, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman,
Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and House Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Peter Visclosky (D-IN). (Visclosky and Dorgan have jurisdiction over funding for the
Office of Science.) "We most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation in ITER," the letter
states, continuing, "We also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of the Department of Energy's Office of Science."
The Administration sends its FY 2009 budget to Congress on February 4. Senior Department of Energy officials will describe their request
that day, and may comment on the FY 2008 outcome.
Copies of this letter were also sent to Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond Orbach, and the leadership and members of relevant
House and Senate appropriations and authorization committees. The full text of the January 4 letter follows:
"Dear Dr. Marburger, Secretary Bodman, Chairman Dorgan and Chairman Visclosky:
"Despite being fully funded in the President’s and in the House and Senate Appropriations measures, the Fiscal Year 2008 omnibus funding
measure contains $0 for the U.S. contribution to the ITER Project. ITER is the key breakthrough project for magnetic fusion
energy. The purpose of the ITER Project is to 'demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy
for peaceful purposes.' If the United States cannot participate in ITER, the U.S. will lose a centerpiece of its own fusion
program, a key scientific tool for understanding a fundamental process in the universe (burning plasmas like those in
the sun and stars) and the pathway to the future of fusion energy.
"ITER is a joint project of the China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. Congress authorized U.S.
participation in this project in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the President committed the United States to its approximately 10% share of
the ITER construction just a few months ago. Failure by the United States to sustain its international commitments to ITER
seems certain to establish the United States as an unreliable partner not only in the ITER project, but in many other
areas of science. This comes at a time when the expense and scope of many critically important scientific activities
suggest international partnership and cooperation.
"Therefore, for the sake of the international and domestic fusion effort and for the sake of the U.S. reputation in the
international scientific community, we most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation
in ITER.
"Finally, as scientists concerned about the whole U.S. scientific enterprise, we also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of the
Department of Energy’s Office of Science. There is no doubt that scientific progress on a broad variety of fronts is essential for our nation’s
future. These areas of science also represent essential fronts in our understanding of the universe and the basic functioning of the world
around us. We therefore urge that these budgets also be made whole.
"Thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter."

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

ITER currently has funding requested, but it could be cut
Alan Boyle (winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor
to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.) 2/4/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361&Itemid=2%3C/span%3E)
President Bush’s final budget proposal puts America’s biggest science projects back on track, as expected, but the big
question is whether Congress will gut those projects like it did last year.
For the scientific community, one of the biggest disappointments in the budget compromise rushed through Congress late last
year was the $400 million reduction in support for projects on the cutting edge of physics through the Energy Department's
Office of Science. Hundreds of physicists are facing layoffs, and America's promised contribution of $160 million for
international nuclear fusion research was cut to zero.
All this led the Energy Department's under secretary for science, Ray Orbach, to remark over the weekend that "we are now at
a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United States."
The Energy Department's newly proposed $4.7 billion science budget for the 2009 fiscal year, beginning in October, is in some
ways a case of "back to the future." The request represents an 18.8 percent increase over the current year's appropriation.
Support for the fusion project known as ITER is set at $214.5 million, with officials ruefully noting that last year's budget
reversal "will impact the schedule and increase the U.S. costs." Funding is restored as well for Fermilab's NOvA detector and
preparations for the International Linear Collider - two projects that went into limbo due to last year's congressional cuts.
Kei Koizumi, who analyzes science policy issues for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the broad
strokes appeared to follow through on Bush's State of the Union pledge to beef up support for the physical sciences. He
cautioned, however, that Fermilab and the Energy Department's other national laboratories will still have to weather some
tough months ahead..
"If those labs can get through this year, and appropriations follow the requests, then starting next year, those labs and those
physical programs will be in much better shape," Koizumi told me.
That's a big if. Over the past seven years, Bush has repeatedly faced criticism for his approach to scientific issues such as
global warming and stem cells - but on this issue, he's the one who looks like the champion of science, while members of
Congress come off looking like Neanderthals.
Big science could still lose out to congressional tinkering, driven by the desire to make up for cuts elsewhere. For
example, this Reuters story notes that while proposed spending on high-energy physics, nuclear physics and basic energy
sciences rose 19 percent to $1.57 billion, the budget for low-income energy assistance (through Health and Human Services)
was reduced 22 percent to $2 billion.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

Although ITER funding was cut last year, this year they have gained funding,
but the program will shut down if the funds are not received
American Institute of Physics, 2/11/08 http://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/019.html
In an attempt to get the Department of Energy's Office of Science budget back on track, the Administration has requested an 18.8
percent increase for the fiscal year starting November 1. Under this request, funding for the Office of Science would increase by
$748.8 million, from $3,973.1 million to $4,722.0 million. The Office of Science is one of the three components of the American
Competitiveness Initiative.
The Department of Energy's budget would see the largest increase in five years under this proposal. Departmental funding would
increase by $1.13 billion to $25.0 billion. Funding for all of the department's primary functions - science, energy, defense,
environment, and management - would increase. Of note is the final exhibit in a department-wide overview of the budget which
included the statement, "Budget Proposal is Focused on Our Priorities." Above other priorities, such as "expanding nuclear power" and
the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex was "Investing in American Competitiveness in the 21st century by continuing to
focus on the physical sciences."
Components of the FY 2009 request for the Office of Science follow, with additional comments from a briefing by Under Secretary
for Science Raymond Orbach. For detailed information on the request for each program see
http://www.science.doe.gov/obp/FY_09_Budget/FY_09_Budget.htm
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 23.5 percent, or $298.3 million, from the FY 2008 appropriation of $1,269.9 million to the FY
2009 request of $1,568.2 million. In commenting on this program, Orbach said "we listen to Congress," announcing a $100 million
request for a new program, "Energy Frontier Research Centers." The request fully funds the department's light sources.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 72.1% or $206.5 million, from $286.6 million to $493.1 million. Orbach commented on the
"bitter blow" to the program when ITER funding for this year was zeroed, adding that program officials were "doing our best to stay
alive." The request does not make-up for the loss of ITER funding this year, Orbach saying "the money is lost."
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Up 16.8 percent or $115.6 million, from $689.3 million to $805.0 million. Orbach spoke of this being a
"very difficult year" for the program with "significant layoffs" because of funding reductions. The proposed budget, he said, "gets us
back on track."

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

ITER is on the chopping block, elections and the current economic situation
make it likely to get cut
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy) , 1/5/08
Instead of honoring our international promises we have decided, through congressional action, to leave our partners millions of
dollars short. If we truly leave ITER completely, then we will keep over one billion dollars from the project. It should be noted
that Boehlert was not talking about earmarks and pork-barrel projects in his speech, he actually suggested that ITER might be
the unnecessary project. Still, even though not all earmarks have to be wasteful just a small percentage of the $10 billion set
aside for these projects could have fulfilled our role in something to which we have already agreed. In fact, in an era where the
U.S. does not always engender a favorable image in the international community we could have taken a slightly larger portion
of this pot and over-contributed to the project as a sign of our desire to participate in cooperative endeavors. This is an election
year, however, so no one should expect a politician to willingly divert funds away from their local districts.
The combined effects of a downward moving economy, incredible financial burden of multiple military exercises, and the
coming election leaves it incredibly unlikely that ITER will be funded. Congress is ending our involvement in the project as
they did previously.
Who Wants the U.S. to Support ITER?
In 2003 the Secretary of Energy was encouraged to bring the U.S. back to ITER. Representative Zach Wamp also encouraged
participation, along with most of Tennessee which stands to benefit through the involvement of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and its Fusion Energy Development program. Other endorsements remain enthusiastic but cautious. President Bush includes
fusion research, and ITER specifically, as part of the response to climate change and the quest for energy independence. His
administration expected this year's commitment to ITER to proceed as planned. The cooperation even extended to India as their
participation in ITER has been considered part of a welcome partnership between the U.S. and India with regard to energy
affairs.
An argument can be made that the Bush Administration is not entirely supportive of a true fusion research program. Their
Advanced Energy Initiative calls for the fusion research budget to be nearly equivalent to the amount spent on coal research
(pdf). The differences between a world powered entirely by coal and one powered entirely by fusion are dramatic. Coal,
however abundant, is still analogous to collecting a big pile of firewood for our national energy needs. Burning coal is never a
zero emissions process. Using coal for energy always produces carbon products, the claimed lack of emission comes from
capturing and storing these compounds. The method involves burying carbon products underground. Zero emissions coal
factories are simply underground garbage dumps. People of the late 21st century will surely come to view this type of plan with
the same disdain we presently exhibit towards the ignorant environmental practices of the early 20th century.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

The U.S. will probably desert ITER
Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage of
the results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the best
overview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within Fusion Energy
Sciences, $162,910,000 is provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be used
to increase facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e., the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical Torus
Experiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of $1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S. contribution to
ITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER. Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $12,281,000 for
High Energy Density Physics. Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to
restore the U.S. contribution to ITER.
The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final line
stating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is to
completely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as “Enabling
R&D” though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receiving
their wage.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
DOE Budget Will Get Cut

NEW ENERGY SPENDING IS ZERO-SUM WITHIN THE DOE – ENSURING SCIENCE PROGRAMS GET CUT
(Kei Koizumi , The American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 10th, 2008, “Department of Energy R&D in the FY
2009 Budget”, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch8.htm)
As always, congressional appropriators will tinker with the DOE request and will rearrange the mix of priorities, especially in
the energy area where DOE proposals to eliminate several programs are likely to run into resistance, but the overall outcome will
hinge on whether Congress will be any more successful than in the past two years in securing more money overall for domestic
appropriations. If not, then as in past years, Congress will most likely raid the large Science increase to shore up funding for
domestic programs proposed for steep cuts or elimination.
BUSH IS GOING TO KEEP DOE SPENDING FLAT- ANY NEW INITIATIVE ENSURES CUTS
(Rick Klein, Boston Globe Staff, February 8, 2006, “Energy gaps seen in Bush's budget”,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/08/energy_gaps_seen_in_bushs_budget/?page=2)
Craig Stevens, a Department of Energy spokesman, said the White House's emphasis on new energy sources over conservation
reflects the department's current priorities. When federal resources are scarce, Stevens said, the president believes that
supporting research into new clean-burning technologies will pay the largest long-term dividends. ''There are competing
priorities right now," he said. ''We can impact and help more people by introducing more renewable technologies to market."
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the Senate energy committee, said Bush's desire to hold total
Department of Energy spending flat next year could be the reason for the cuts. ''This budget is taking us backwards in
important programs in energy efficiency, clean coal, oil and gas, electricity reliability, and distributed energy, just to name a
few," he said.
SCIENCE PROGRAMS HAVE COME AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PROGRAMS WITHIN THE DOE
(DAVID L. HOBSON (R-OH), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-OH), March 29, 2006, “U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID HOBSON
(R-OH) HOLDS A HEARING ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY”,
Lexis)
In general, I'm a strong supporter of basic research and I give Secretary Bodman and Dr. Orbach credit for bringing about this
healthy increase in the science budget. The secretary deserves recognition for making some hard choices within an overall
budget for the Department of Energy that remains essentially flat for '07. I know that others may not be happy with the other
programs that the secretary chose to cut in order to provide for the Office of Science increase, but I respect the secretary's
willingness to make such tradeoffs with a constrained budget.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Now Key
ITER funding now is key or U.S. participation can disappear
Frank Munger, 7/3/08
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/03/175m-to-support-or-based-work/
About $15.5 million of a special midyear appropriations package for science will go to support Oak Ridge-
based work on an international fusion project, and another $2 million will supplement the funding at the
Spallation Neutron Source.
Jeff Sherwood, a Department of Energy spokesman in Washington, confirmed the numbers Wednesday and said
the money is part of the $62.5 million approved by Congress to ease a funding crunch in DOE's Office of
Science. "The intent is to eliminate the need for furloughs," Sherwood said.
Oak Ridge is home to the U.S. effort on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a huge project
that's being built in France. Besides the United States, the partners include Europe, China, Japan, Russia, Korea
and India.
The fiscal 2008 budget approved earlier by Congress slashed the spending for ITER - allotting only $10.7
million, instead of the proposed $160 million - and endangered U.S. participation in the project. U.S. Sen.
Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., called the budget cuts an "embarrassing mistake" by Congress.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason said Wednesday the supplemental funding will be used
to keep the U.S. team together and sustain operations until the 2009 budget is approved. More than $200 million
is being sought for the ITER project in 2009.
Additional funds for this year were particularly important because the government may operate under a
continuing budget resolution for the first six months of fiscal 2009 and freeze spending levels or impose other
restrictions.
The money for the SNS will support operations at the Oak Ridge science facility, which also had a funding shortfall in this year's
budget.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Renewable Energy

Increasing Alternative Energy incentives trades-off
John Stephen, Republican candidate for Congress, Union Leader, 7/18/08, “John Stephen: On energy costs, Washington offers no
real answers”,
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers
&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71
Actually, they wouldn't. The House of Representatives is prepared to let tax credits for these renewable energy sources
expire. These tax credits give businesses like Foss Manufacturing in Hampton the incentive to look for opportunities to
use wind power for 60 percent of their electricity. Foss has high energy needs as it transforms recycled water bottles into
high-end fabrics. Without these incentives, companies like Foss have a more difficult time making the transition to
cleaner energy. You would think that with the rising price of energy, the House would at least extend these tax credits to
give the appearance that it cares about doing something to increase supply. However, these credits are doomed by a
more powerful force than the need to cut energy costs: Washington's insatiable appetite for spending. You see,
extending the tax credits would mean that individuals and businesses would keep $19 billion more of their money,
instead of sending it to Washington. Under the House rules, that money "loss" would have to be offset by new taxes or
spending cuts. Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to keep these
incentives for renewable energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to meet the
rising costs of energy prices -- roll up its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Renewable Energy

Funding for renewable energy will be traded off with because they are already
losing funding to other areas
Green Car Congress, 2/4/08
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/proposed-depart.html
The proposed budget for the US Department of Energy (DOE) in the President’s 2009 Budget outlines discretionary program
spending of about $26 billion, up 3.2% from the estimated spending for FY 2008.
The proposed budget significantly boosts spending on coal and nuclear technologies and the DOE Science program, with a
smaller increase for biomass and biorefinery R&D. However, funding within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) program is cut by 28%, down to $1.256 billion, with the reductions coming mainly from funding for hydrogen
technology, solar energy, vehicle technologies, facilities and infrastructure, and the weatherization program.
Coal and carbon capture. Overall, the Fossil Energy Research and Development program’s funding jumps 25% to $997
million, the bulk of that coming from the President’s coal research initiative, which increases is funding by 41% to $818
million.
The budget allocates $400 million to research and $241 million to demonstrate technologies for cost-effective carbon capture
and storage for coal-fired power plants through a restructured carbon capture and storage program. This is the “restructured”
lower-cost FutureGen program. (Earlier post.)
Nuclear. The budget promotes licensing of new nuclear plants and researches an advanced nuclear fuel cycle. $242 million is
allocated for Nuclear Power 2010, an industry cost-shared effort to bring new nuclear plant technologies to market and
demonstrate streamlined regulatory processes. $302 million focuses the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative on innovative
transmutation and separations research and development.
Science. The overall Science budget increases 18% to $4.7 billion, with increases in all major program activities. The
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program within the Science budget funding increases 13.6% to $568 million.
BER funds research in global climate change; environmental remediation; molecular, cellular, and systemic studies on the
biological effects of radiation; structural biology; radiochemisty and instrumentation; and DNA sequencing. The program also
supports science related to carbon sequestration.
The program works in conjunction with the advanced scientific computing research program to accelerate progress in coupled
general circulation model development through use of enhanced computer simulation and modeling.
This program also includes the Genomics: GTL activity that is developing the science, technology, and knowledge base to
harness microbial and plant systems for cost-effective renewable energy production, carbon sequestration, and environmental
remediation. The request includes $75 million for Genomics: GTL Bioenergy Research Centers. Research at the Centers will
focus on developing the science underpinning biofuel production.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D. Funding for this program which is part of the EERE activities, increases 8% to $225
million. This program funds research, development, and technology validation on advanced technologies that could enable
future biorefineries to sustainably and economically convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemical, heat, and power. The
program’s goal is to help make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by 2012 using a wide array of regionally available biomass
sources.
Hydrogen technology. Funding for the EERE hydrogen technology program drops 31% in the 09 Budget to $146 million. The
hydrogen technology program is tasked with developing hydrogen production, storage, and delivery and fuel cell technologies.
Current research aims to enable industry to commercialize a hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2020.
Solar. Funding for the Solar America Initiative via EERE is cut 7.1% to $156 million in the 09 Budget.
Vehicle Technologies. Funding for the EERE Vehicle Technologies program is cut a slight 0.9% to $221 million. The Vehicle
Technologies program supports the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and the 21st Century Truck Partnership with industry.
Program activities encompass a suite of technologies needed for hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles, including
lightweight materials, electronic power control and electric drive motors, and advanced energy storage devices.
This program also supports research to improve the efficiency of advanced combustion engines, using fuels with formulations
developed for such engines, and incorporating non-petroleum based components.
The program also includes community-based outreach via Clean Cities coalitions, competitive awards, and other activities to
facilitate the market adoption of alternative fuels and highly efficient automotive technologies.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Renewable energy

Renewable energies will trade off with ITER
Space Ref, 1/31/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2
Energy Under Secretary Orbach: "We Are Now at a Perilous Moment in the History of Funding for Science in the United
States"
In remarks delivered yesterday to the Universities Research Association, Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond L.
Orbach was clear: "Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for
science in the United States."
rbach's comments made it clear that legislative actions have real-world consequences: failure to enact the President's FY 2008
request for the Office of Science will be felt keenly in the research programs that the Office of Science supports. Reduced
budgets will result in the elimination of funding for more than 4,300 Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others from what was
envisioned in the FY 2008 request.
Selections from Orbach's presentation follow; his entire speech may be read at
http://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/speeches/speeches/08/SC08.htm Note that his presentation on this site includes two
figures: the first, "Office of Science; FY 2008 Appropriation", the other, with new information, entitled "Office of Science; FY
2006 - FY 2008;Impact on Scientific Employment" Headings have been added to the below excerpts:
FY 2008 OUTCOME:
"Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United
States. I speak from the perspective of the Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science, and as Under Secretary for
Science, but I believe I also represent the views of other leaders of the federal agencies that support science.
"I refer you to the consequences for the funding for science of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Omnibus Bill, and the preceding year-
long FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. Both failed to provide adequate funding for the physical sciences in the United States
and for many other fields of science. The President's Budget Request for FY 2009, in the context of the American Competitive
Initiative, or ACI, will again be a vote of confidence for the three federal agencies that are the primary supporters of the
physical sciences: the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the core
research component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The President's commitment to support of long-term
basic research continues to be evident in this budget request, as it has been in previous requests. Indeed, in his State of the
Union Address on Monday, the President devoted some of his precious time to state:
"'To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to
pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness
Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask
Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most
dynamic nation on Earth.'
"I have never heard before such support for the physical sciences from a President of the United States. But if the FY 09
enacted budget proves similar to FY 07 and FY 08, a "three-peat," the future of the physical sciences will be in jeopardy.
Opportunities will be lost forever: for science, and our country."
[At this point, Orbach quoted an op-ed by Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]
"I needn't remind this group what happened in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill . . . . The President's request for the ACI, a trajectory
that would have led to a doubling of the budgets of the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, was, with a few exceptions,
at best ignored. For the Office of Science, the budget without earmarks was reduced by $500 million from the President's
request, and is only 2.6% above FY 07, which itself was down by $300 million from the President's FY 07 request. The loss of
more than three quarters of a billion dollars for the physical sciences for the Office of Science will never be recovered. Worse,
specific areas of science within the physical sciences were marked for major reductions from the President's request. I speak of
High Energy Physics for which the enacted FY 08 budget was $63.5 million less than enacted in FY 07, and by $94 million
from the President's request for FY 08. Fusion Energy Sciences was reduced by $32.4 million from FY 07, and by $141 million
from the President's request for FY 08, zeroing our Nation's contribution to ITER construction. Nuclear Physics was slightly
increased by $10 million from FY 07, but cut by $38.6 million from the President's request for FY 08. Finally, the budget for
Basic Energy
<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE>>

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Renewable energy

<<continued from last page>>
Space Ref, 1/31/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2
Sciences was increased by $19.7 million from FY 07, but cut by $229 million from the President's request, eliminating funding
for basic research energy initiatives such as solar and electrical energy storage. To be fair, the budgets for Biological and
Environmental Research and Advanced Scientific Computing Research were augmented above the President's request.
"Nevertheless, the consequences of the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill for the U.S. scientific workforce are substantial. . . . Office of
Science funding for Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others was decreased from the President's Request by over 4,300. This at a
time when other nations around the world are increasing their scientific workforce.
"The budget decisions that led to these consequences were carefully drawn. They were not the result of hasty last-minute
actions. They represent the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives."
FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:
"But enough of the past. What's done is done, and we need to move on. The President's request for FY 09 will be wonderful,
again, for the physical sciences. While I can't go into details here, I can say that it will continue the funding request consistent
with the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act. The problem for all of us is that, faced with
essentially flat funding for the physical sciences in FY 08, the President's Request for FY 09 will appear as a very large
percentage increase for the three ACI agencies. The danger is that basic research in the physical sciences will again be 'donors'
to other programs.
FAILED ATTITUDE:
"Compounding this danger is that we scientists tend to regard the proposed increases for the physical sciences under the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act as an entitlement. That attitude has failed us. Our
lawmakers have clearly signaled where they want to put taxpayer dollars. If we are to avoid a repeat in FY 09 of what
happened in FY 08, we need to actively make the case for the support of long-term basic research across those fields that have
historically represented U.S. world leadership. Our fellow citizens must understand that these investments in basic research
have held the key to America's prosperity and strength in modern times. As Vannevar Bush wrote to President Truman more
than half a century ago: '.without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health,
prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.'
FURTHER DETAILS ON THE FY 2009 REQUEST:
"The President's FY 09 request for the Office of Science will continue to support the full spectrum of physical science basic
research. It will restore the ACI funding trajectory for High Energy Physics, for Nuclear Physics, for Basic Energy Sciences,
and for Fusion Energy Sciences, including major support for ITER construction.
NEW APPROACH NEEDED THIS YEAR:
"But the President's vote of confidence in us will go for naught if we regard his Budget Request as 'a done deal' The final
congressional action on the FY 09 budget will not be a free ride. Our community must make clear to Congress why it is critical
for the Nation's future that the physical sciences be supported at least at the level of the President's request. Failure to do so will
yield more of the same we experienced in FY 07 and FY 08, and the 'three-peat' will have the potential of continuing the flat-
to-declining trajectory into the indefinite future.
"The message of this year's appropriation is unmistakable. The American public, through its duly elected Congress, has made
its priorities clear: short-term applied research wins over the full spectrum of long-term basic research. It is our job to make
clear to the American people that our country will 'run out of gas' if the latter is not supported. In the absence of breakthroughs
in fundamental science, current technologies will simply not be able to meet the energy and environmental challenges that
loom ahead for our Nation. Progress in basic science is essential to America's continued prosperity and strength in the twenty-
first century.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – Renewable Energy

Energy Incentives Involve Massive Administration Costs
UNEP ‘2 [Reforming Energy Subsidies, http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/pdfs/En-SubsidiesReform.pdf]
Practical considerations may mean that a subsidy that looks good on paper is, in fact, a bad idea. There are two aspects to this.
One, the country may simply not be able to afford the subsidy if it involves large financial transfers from the national treasury.
Two, it may not be feasible to administer the subsidy in a way that does not involve large administration costs including the
resources required to monitor, prevent and deal with abuse. Subsidy programmes involving cash payments to producers or
consumers are notoriously expensive to administer, since the authorities need to verify that each recipient is entitled to the
money. Cheating can be commonplace. For example, subsidized kerosene and LPG have been diverted to transport uses in
several countries, including Ecuador and India, depriving the poor of the fuel and causing safety problems.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – Climate Policies

SCIENCE RESEARCH TRADES OFF WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
(PETER J. VISCLOSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (D-IN), March 29, 2006, “U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID HOBSON (R-OH)
HOLDS A HEARING ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY”, Lexis)
I'll be one of those voices that is very concerned about where your money came from. I also am very pleased with the increase in your
budget's funding. It is long overdue. But I would point out that the increase in funding for physical science R&D essentially comes
at the expense of other programs. The R&D spending essentially is level across the government when one takes into account
inflation and the physical science increases, reductions that have taken place at the Department of Health and Human Services and
across the government in the climate change science program.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Natives
Funding for native Americans cuts into DOE funding
DOE, 9/14/07 http://www.doe.gov/news/5493.htm
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced the appointment of Steven J. Morello to be
Director of DOE’s newly formed Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. As Director of this office, Mr. Morello will
work to implement and manage energy planning, education and efficiency for American Indian tribes.
Also today, the Secretary announced that DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would make available a
total of up to $2 million for 15 Native American tribes and Alaskan villages that have been selected for negotiation of awards
that support the advancement of renewable energy technologies on tribal lands and rural Alaskan villages.
“The creation of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs will further assist the Department in reaching all Americans
in promoting clean, reliable and affordable energy,” Secretary Bodman said. “I look forward to working with Steve to advance
and promote clean energy, changing the way we power this nation.”
The Indian Energy Policy and Program Office will reside within DOE’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
where Mr. Morello will also continue to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and External Affairs. Most
recently, Mr. Morello founded Native Insurance Agency LLC (NIA), a Small Business Association-certified, minority-owned
small disadvantaged business, where he served as its Managing Member. Prior to NIA, Mr. Morello worked in his own law
firm, Native Law Group PC, representing his tribe, the Sault Saint Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, among others.
In 2001, Mr. Morello was nominated by President George W. Bush, and later confirmed by the Senate, to be the General
Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Army. In that position, he served as the legal advisor to the Secretary of the Army and
the Army’s Chief Legal Officer. A Georgetown University graduate, Mr. Morello received his law degree from the University
of Detroit Law School, and earned a Master of Science in Business Administration degree from Boston University. Mr.
Morello also earned a Master of Arts in Pastoral Studies from Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.
As part of DOE’s ongoing commitment to work with Native American tribes and Alaskan villages, the $2 million Secretary
Bodman announced today will be invested, subject to negotiations, in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on tribal
lands that support President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which challenges Americans to change the way we power our
homes, offices, and vehicles.
“The Department of Energy is committed to encouraging and helping groups develop and deploy clean energy sources,”
Secretary Bodman said. “Providing support for Native Americans to explore and employ clean, renewable energy technologies
will help increase efficiency and provide for a cleaner environment.”
Of the 15 Native American tribes and villages whose projects have been selected for negotiation, six will study the feasibility
of utilizing renewable energy technologies on tribal lands; and nine projects will take initial steps toward implementing
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on tribal lands. The selected projects will receive both financial and technical
assistance from DOE. Since 2001, DOE has provided $12.4 million for 76 tribal energy projects, with tribes contributing an
additional $3.6 million. Read more on DOE's Tribal Energy Program.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Nuclear
TRADEOFFS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN- THE DOE BUDGET FOR ALL NUCLEAR R&D HAS COME AT THE
EXPENSE OF OTHER PROGRAMS
(Kei Koizumi , The American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 10th, 2008, “Department of Energy R&D in the FY
2009 Budget”, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch8.htm)
Also proposed for a big increase is nuclear energy R&D, a renewable energy technology funded in a separate account, up a
stunning 43 percent to $630 million in 2009, partially from the inward transfer of programs from other DOE accounts and
partially from a dramatic proposed increase in advanced fuel cycle R&D because of its key role in the Administration's signature
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to promote spent nuclear fuel recycling

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – Regulations
REGULATION FOR NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS COST BILLIONS
(Robert H. Nelson, senior economist in the Office of Program Analysis in the Department of the Interior, March 24, 1992. “Does
Environmental Regulation Equal Environmental Protection? How Current Environmental Policy is Failing”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/HL376.cfm)
Congress and bureaucrats running around trying to do something, starting new programs with huge costs, and then it turns out that
there was a big misunder- standing in the first place. In an editorial in Sciewe magazine in September 1990, the deputy editor for
engineering and applied sciences wrote: Stringent regulations and attendant frightening publicity have led to public anxiety and
chemophobia. If current ill-based regulatory levels continue to be imposed, the cost of cleaning up phantom hazards will be in the
hundreds of billions of dollars with minimal benefit to human health. Panicky Public. One of these kinds of situations involved
asbestos. A panicky public started tearing up schools and all kinds of other buildings all across the United Statesto remove asbestos.
By some estimates we have been spending $3 billion a year on asbestos abatement, a lot of it on removals. It turns out, however, that
asbestos in place typically involves little risk. In fact, tearing it out creates a lot more risk, both for the workers and in terms of
particles that remain in the air. So in 1990, after at least tacitly encouraging billions in asbestos overreaction, the government issued a
new manual explaining: "Removal [of asbestos] is often not a building owner's best course of ac- tionto reduce asbestos exposure. In
fact, an improper removal can create a dangerous situation where none previously existed." Or take another example, the responseto
the Exxon Valdez off spill in Alaska. Right after the spill happened, one judge in the case said it was the worst thing to happen in the
world since Hi- roshima. Exxon reacted to these kinds of hysterical public pressures by going in and literally tying to clean the oil off
the rocks and beaches with steam and other crude methods. They did at least pump a couple of billion dollars into the Alaska economy.
But a year later, after the panic subsided, the verdict was that it was probably all a big mistake environmentally. After a visitto Alaska,
Democratic Representative Wayne Owens of Utah wrote, "I concluded that the value of the massive spill-cleanup effort lies primarily
in public relations, not just for Exxon but also for Alaskan and federal officials and for Congress." Premature Judgment& The alar
hoax and the resulting public hysteria created by the Natural Resources Defense Council is one more of these cases. And the whole
panic over dioxin is another. However, at least in the case of dioxin, it seems to have been a case of well-intentioned scientists
making premature judgments, and then only later realizing they were probably way off the mark. I have not had timeto got into
the whole area of what we are going to do with all the wastes- hazardous and otherwise-our society is going to continue to produce.
But in any case I would characterize this whole area of toxics and hazardous materials as beset by irrational policy making.To sum
up, what is going on here? Why am our environmental policies failing us so badly these days? I had actually planned to spend more of
this speech talking about this aspect. But I will at least list a few of what I see as the major sources of our problems. First of all, it
seemsto me that in the final analysis a lot of people do not really care very much about whether we have cleaner air, less cancer, more
parks, and so forth. That seemsto miss the point of what environmental policy is really all about for them. It is actually about feel- ing
a sense of moral righteousness, a desireto make a commitment to doing something good in the world. Twenty-five years ago such
idealism was directed to helping the poor; today it is directed to the environment. Children used to collect money at Halloween
for UNICEF; now they collect for whales.
Large Transaction and Administrative Costs for GHG Regulation
Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and

Methodologies, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUT26/$File/mervch4.pdf]
These problems point out the difficulty of establishing a credible baseline. One could broaden the monitoring domain to
include, for example, leakage and off-site baseline changes. Widening the system boundary, however, will most likely entail
greater MERV transaction costs. Transaction costs are the costs incurred by the people responsible for monitoring, reporting,
evaluating, and verifying climate change mitigation projects. These costs include not only out-of-pocket expenditures, but also
opportunity costs (e.g., the lost time (delay) and resources (e.g., money and managerial attention) that could have been
devoted to the next best opportunity for that participant (Dudek and Weiner 1996). We revisit these issues later in this paper
(Section 3.3.1), but warn the reader that these questions may have to be resolved through an international consensus, rather
than addressed through the guidelines or protocols.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link - Regulations
Large costs Involved in Creating New Emissions Regulation

In DOE’s Voluntary Reporting Program, the guidelines do not discuss institutional issues; however, in
the analysis of the results of the 1995 project data, DOE described some institutional barriers to the evaluation of projects,
such as limited expertise in emissions estimation and the limited availability of data within the reporting organization:
“Organizations rarely collect information on greenhouse gas emissions, and they have no reason to develop corporate expertise
in estimating emissions. Reporters must start from scratch in collecting underlying operating data and developing expertise in
estimating emissions on the basis of operating data.” (DOE 1996a)
Monitoring Involves Clear Costs

Conducting MERV activities is not inexpensive. For example, based on the experience of U.S. utilities and energy service
companies, monitoring and evaluation activities can easily account for 5- 10% of a project’s budget (see Meier and Solomon
1995; Raab and Violette 1994). Similarly, carbon monitoring efforts require specialized equipment, methods and trained
personnel that can be expensive for individual organizations to procure and maintain, and can result in similar percentage
expenditures (MacDicken 1996; Ravindranath and Bhat 1997). The cost will vary by size of area, scope of project, variation
within and between land use types, type of monitoring, and amount of training required.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – RPS
RPS Involves Large Administrative Oversight
Jan Hamrin et. al, @ Center For Research Solutions, ‘2 [June, Center for Renewable Energy Development, Renewable Energy Policy

Options for China: A Comparison of Renewable Portfolio Standards, Feedin Tariffs, and Tendering Policies, http://www.resource
solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicyFeedin_LawsandRPS.pdf]
An RPS is highly compatible with both regulated and competitive electricity markets; whereas feed-in laws are more
appropriate in a regulated setting where absolute competitive parity is not required. Under a competitive electricity market,
feed-in laws are only competitively neutral if applied to regulated elements of the industry or if a cost recovery and sharing
mechanism is developed. Concerns over the compatibility of feed-in tariffs with electricity liberalization has led several
European nations to consider abandoning or phasing out such systems over time in favor of an RPS. On the other hand, a fully
implemented RPS requires a strong and effective administration and enforcement mechanism to validate trades in
renewable energy credits and enforce compliance. Without such an advanced administrative mechanism, a fully implemented
RPS cannot function appropriately. Feed-in tariffs do not require as complex and sophisticated administration.
RPS Difficulties Requires Complex System For Montioring/Enforcement

The design, administration, and enforcement of feed-in tariffs are relatively simple, and significant experience exists in other
nations from which to garner useful experience. The RPS is a much younger concept. While experience in the design and
administration of an RPS is increasing rapidly throughout the world, there are only a few successful examples that have more
than one year’s experience, making the design, administration, and enforcement task a more difficult one for countries now
developing an RPS. From a contractual and transaction cost perspective, fixed feed-in tariffs with standardized interconnection
requirements, contract terms, and conditions can also simplify negotiations and speed the development and contracting process
for renewable generators relative to an RPS strategy. Tendering policies can be relatively simple in design, but are usually
accompanied by a separate system to collect monies to pay for the incremental costs of the renewable energy. In addition,
tendering policies need to be regularly reviewed and modified to ensure that they are achieving goals. Overall, tendering and
RPS strategies are more complex to implement than feed-in tariffs.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – Cap and Trade

Cap and Trade Involves Substantial Administration Costs
ITS Global ‘7 [August, Australian APEC Study Centre, The Development Costs of the Stern Review Findings,
http://www.apec.org.au/docs/07_SR.pdf]
In the case of the SO 2 program, every large emitter has to install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). The
CEMS provides nearly continuous data (every 15 minutes) on the SO 2 emissions at each emitting facility to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The data are transmitted to the EPA automatically in electronic format. Smaller
emitters are allowed to install cheaper monitoring systems but they are less accurate. Their estimated emissions have to be
reported to the EPA via additional equipment and specific software and are subsequently evaluated by the EPA for accuracy and
non-compliance. In both cases the EPA carries out site inspections and annual performance audits. In the light of this
experience, we can be confident that the costs of administration and compliance for a carbon tax or emissions permit regime
are likely to be very substantial compared to the income transfers that will be generated for governments via carbon tax
revenues or sales of emission permits. These costs are likely to be even more substantial for developing countries that have
relatively immature or underdeveloped systems of public administration, particularly in the areas of environmental monitoring,
accounting and enforcement (Greenspan Bell 2006). . For these reasons, our estimates of the relevant income transfers are
likely to underestimate their associated deadweight losses due to the combination of tax interaction effects, public
administration costs and private compliance costs.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – Rebates
Rebates Involve Substantial Costs
DOE ‘8 [Feb 29, State Energy Alternatives, http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/rebates.cfm]
Depending on the size of the rebate program, administrative costs usually run 10%-20%. Public awareness and advertising
expenses tend to be a significant budget item in rebate programs.
Monitoring and evaluation are important in rebate programs. Tracking the number of appliance purchases and the number of
old appliances recycled helps program personnel total the emissions reduced and energy saved. Allowing consumers the
flexibility to use the installers they choose makes the program easier to administer. Creating a list of approved contractors can
be time-consuming and perceived by consumers as restrictive.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Link – Tax Incentives

Tax Incentives Involve High Administrative Costs - Tracking
David Clement et al., Consultant to the Center for Resource Solutions, ‘5 [June 17, International Tax Incentives for Renewable
Energy, http://www.resource-solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy-Renewable_Tax_Incentives.pdf]
Investment tax incentives also often apply to smaller, customer-sited applications of renewable energy. These incentives are
typically awarded for renewable energy systems or equipment installed onsite to supply residential or commercial buildings.
Often, the cost of installing the equipment (in addition to the equipment cost itself) is included in the calculation of the tax
incentive. Since installation costs for these systems can be a significant percentage of the total costs, including installation in
the tax credit provides a stronger incentive to consumers and businesses to purchase these systems. Though some states and
countries have considered applying production-based tax incentives for these smaller systems, it is generally recognized that
the administrative costs of tracking production are significant; as a result, most income tax incentives offered for customer-
sited systems have remained investment-based. Tax incentives are offered for the purchase of renewable energy systems and
equipment by many states and countries.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Every dollar Key

New ITER funding will only keep it going for 2008, new funding in 2009 is key
Frank Munger, 7/2/08
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/munger/2008/07/sustenance_for_iter.html
A Dept. of Energy spokesman confirmed today that $15.5 million of the supplemental appropriations for the
Office of Science will support the U.S. ITER office (based in Oak Ridge).
The money, of course, will help sustain activities for ITER after the U.S. effort got mangled in the fiscal 2008
budget, raising doubts about the continued participation in the international fusion project. I've written on this
topic on multiple occasions, including a late-April post based on a talk with U.S. project chief Ned Sauthoff.
Jeff Sherwood of DOE also said there's $2 million to boost spending levels for the Spallation Neutron Souce.
I talked earlier in the day to ORNL Director Thom Mason, who at the time said he didn't know how much
money was coming for ITER but indicated some amount was likely to keep the team intact and help bridge the
project until the 2009 budget is in place. More than $200 million is proposed for U.S. spending on ITER in '09,
although that's uncertain to say the least.
Mason said it was particularly important to get some additional funding this year because of the likelihood that
a continuing resolution could be in effect for the first six months of fiscal 2009.
Here's what the legislation said about the supplemental funding for DOE's Office of Science: "The Department of Energy is instructed
to utilize this funding to eliminate all furloughs and reductions in force which are a direct result of budgetary constraints. Workforce
reductions which are a result of completed work or realignment of mission should proceed as planned. This funding is intended to
maintain technical expertise and capability at the Office of Science, and may be used for National Laboratory Research and
Development including research related to new neutrino initiatives. Funding for research efforts shall not be allocated until the Office
of Science has fully funded all personnel requirements."

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact - US-INDIAN Relations

ITER is key to U.S. Indian relations
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi-based think tank aims to inform, analyze, and nurture debates on crucial
strategic choices affecting South Asia., Special Report 19, May 2006
“INDO-US RELATIONS”, www.ipcs.org/countSpecialReport.jsp?x=19)
Experimental Reactor (ITER) energy project

India’s inclusion as a full partner in the ambitious multinational ‘International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor’ (ITER)
energy project was an acknowledgement of being a responsible nuclear state with advanced nuclear technology. The decision
was taken by six partner countries -US, European Union, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. "The decision recognizes that
India can significantly contribute to such endeavours and also is recognition that India is a country with advanced nuclear technology,
including in the field of fusion research," said a spokesman for the External Affairs Ministry. ITER is the experimental step between the latest studies of
plasma physics and future electricity – producing fusion power plants. The main ITER facility will be built in Cadarache in France by 2016 and all partners
will participate in its construction, development and research. 13
Bush visit to India and the Nuclear agreement of March 2006
The Indo-US relationship proceeded at a furious pace in President Bush’s second term. It started with Condoleezza Rice's visit to New Delhi in March 2005,
when she expressed the American desire to help India achieve major world power status and stressed the need for an energy dialogue. This was followed by the
new framework for the US-India defense relationship agreement signed on June 28 2005, the completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP),
and the finalization of the George Bush-Manmohan Singh joint agreement on July 18 2005. The joint pact included the nuclear deal that is now the focus of
controversy in both countries. This was followed by India's surprise vote in the IAEA where, along with western nations, it envisaged that Iran would be
referred to the Security Council if it did not satisfactorily account for its suspect nuclear activities. The US Administration was determined to implement the
July 2005 civilian nuclear deal it had entered into with India. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear, once again, that the US was committed to
helping India with advanced technology and equipment to produce sufficient nuclear energy for its fast growing economy. She obviously 13 Editorial “India
becomes partner in nuclear reactor project” Daily Times, 8 December 2005 wanted to tell the skeptics in the US that India's search for nuclear energy, which is
cheaper and cleaner, deserved all-out American support as India has had a clean track record so far, as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned, despite not being
a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. What Dr Rice said in Washington, while interacting with journalists, was also aimed at convincing the
detractors of the Indo- US nuclear agreement, in India , that there was nothing sinister about the deal. 14 India and the United States remained engaged in
intensive negotiations to try and clinch a civilian nuclear deal, even as U.S. President George.W.Bush landed in New Delhi on March 1st.It was the fifth visit
by an American President to India. Interestingly, during a stop over in Kabul, Mr. Bush said that officials had been talking to the Indians even from his special
aircraft, and these discussions would continue in New Delhi. Reiterating that it was a difficult issue for both governments, the President said that the two sides
would continue to have a dialogue and work towards an agreement.15 President Bush andPrime Minister Manmohan Singh were involved in lengthy
discussions, shortly after the arrival of President Bush. The meetings revolved around
the common values that bind India and the United States together: the commitment to democracy, to the institutions of freedom -- free press, freedom of
religion, independent judiciary, and the like -- and the important message that the United States and India had to stand together as advocates for these
institutions, and subsequently provide the world with a living example of the strength of such institutions. The discussion also included issues like the War on
Terror, trade issues especially the impending entry of Indian mangoes in to American markets, the Doha round conclusions and the agriculture knowledge
initiative.16 The special emphasis, though, lay on energy issues. The discussion largely concentrated around India's need for energy, its plans to dramatically
enhance its ability to provide secure energy to its people, and its desire to do so in a way that avoided proliferation risks and did not create environmental
problems. The American President talked about his advanced energy initiative and his hope that technologies arising from
initiative could be shared with India and other countries. The meeting of the two leaders with the CEO forum, soon after, once
again reemphasised to them that energy issues were the crucial cog in the wheel of relations between the two countries.
President Bush’s visit to India also included visits to an American funded agricultural institute and the business school in
Hyderabad. He cleverly avoided any visits to American outsourcing multi national companies, a topic of hot debate and controversy back in the US.17 Under
the historic nuclear agreement signed on March 2, 2006, India has agreed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as civilian, and put these under the
permanent supervision of the IAEA. This should, then end a 30- year long moratorium on the sale of nuclear fuel and reactor components by the US to India.
The export of nuclear material, reactors, and their major components from the US, would require a Section 123 amendment of the Atomic Energy Act.
Technically, India is a nonnuclear weapon state and does not have the full scope of safeguards. Under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has to
approve an agreement for cooperation and needs to pass a joint resolution of approval. The Administration, alternatively, may seek to amend certain portions of
the Atomic Energy Act, in particular Sections 128 and 129, both of which includes non proliferation criteria. 18 The nuclear deal, though, accords acceptance
to the military and the security component of the Indian nuclear program, by the sole superpower and torchbearer of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the
US. The Indo-US deal also makes India's nuclear weapons program acceptable, legitimate and nonthreatening to the existing nuclear order unlike those of Iraq,
North Korea and Iran. The nuclear deal envisages an alliance, albeit informal, between the US and India deriving from a real convergence of mutual security
interests. The nuclear deal also seeks to enhance India's nuclear security via nuclear arms control. By agreeing to separate its large
civilian and small military nuclear programs, India has acknowledged its commitment to minimum nuclear deterrence, which provides for its nuclear
security interests vis-à-vis China and Pakistan. India has readily agreed to continue its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and agreed to participate in
future negotiations on the FMCT. India has also committed to prevent the spread of nuclear technologies by strict export control laws, which are already in
place.19

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi-based think tank aims to inform, analyze, and nurture debates on crucial strategic
choices affecting South Asia., Special Report 19, May 2006
“INDO-US RELATIONS”, www.ipcs.org/countSpecialReport.jsp?x=19)
Space Launch Agreement in the Offing

India and United States are also poised to take their strategic relationship a notch higher. They will soon sign a crucial space
launch agreement to allow India to launch US-made satellites, not just from US, but from other countries that use American
components in their satellites. The understanding will help the country's premier space body, Indian Space Research
Organization (ISRO), boost its earnings. It will also help the once estranged democracies get into a tighter strategic partnership.
Some last-minute refinements in the agreement, relating to the pre-launch treatment of US satellites on Indian rockets are being
worked out. But, these are procedural issues which both sides expect to be sorted out at the next meeting of the space working
group. India has already accepted two US payloads for the ‘Chandrayaan’ mission. Many such joint endeavours are now expected, and together
with these, a closer exchange of strategic space technologies.20
Conclusion
One of the major objectives of the United States in entering into the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement is to bring about an early freezing of the Indian
weapon-usable nuclear materials stock at the minimum possible level. India, in turn, obviously wants to retain all the accumulated inventory of such materials,
as well as the facilities to produce the additional material we consider essential for a minimum credible deterrence, in compliance with IAEA safeguards.
Obviously, each country wants to maneuver the separation plan to suit its specific objective. Despite the façade that the deal is progressing well, it is clear that
most of the originally perceived differences between the two sides are very much present even now. It appears that the US side feels that certain facilities,
especially reactors, which India has proposed to retain in the strategic group, really belong to the civilian list. In addition, it is clear that the US considers
India's time schedule for bringing these facilities in phases into the civilian list as too stretched out, and that India should indeed place them under safeguards
at a more rapid pace. The nuclear deal, though, will improve India's global standing. India's deal with the US for transfer of nuclear technology will help it in a
big way. As non-NPT states, or nonnuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan and Israel – a strange trio, indeed - have much to defend to
the rest of the world. They have no choice but to stick together whenever questions of comprehensive safeguards come up. There was even an occasion when
Pakistan changed its vote to join India and Israel. When the Arab world gangs up every year to call upon states to accept comprehensive safeguards, essentially
to focus attention on Israel, it has to contend with Indian diplomatic skills as Israel hides behind us. These strange maneuvers could stop if the India-US
nuclear deal is approved by the US Congress, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and comes to fruition. India will then cross over from the group of nuclear
mavericks to join the designated nuclear weapon states in its new capacity as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
ITER is key to U.S. India relations
Victor M. Gobarev, security policy analyst and former scholar at GWU, September 11, 2000, “India as a World Power” CATO
Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1240)
American interest in and concerns about India rose sharply after that country carried out underground nuclear tests in May
1998. Clinton administration officials belatedly acknowledged that developing a good working relationship with India should
be one of America's top foreign policy priorities. President Clinton's visit to South Asia in March 2000 was an important
symbolic step.
That initiative, however, does not constitute a major breakthrough in relations between India and the United States. Paying
greater attention to India, although long overdue, cannot by itself dramatically improve uneasy U.S.-Indian relations and turn
India into a de facto strategic partner. The fundamental mistake made by U.S. leaders has been to underestimate India and its
economic and military potential. How India uses its growing power can either enhance or seriously undermine U.S. interests.
Continued insistence by the United States that India liquidate its nuclear arsenal will only cause major problems in relations
between Washington and New Delhi.
Washington's overemphasis on the proliferation issue illustrates the tendency of U.S. policymakers to treat India as a potential
adversary rather than a potential friend. U.S. leaders should not insist on improvement in New Delhi's human rights record in
Kashmir, or set other preconditions, for the U.S.-Indian relationship. Pursuing the current course may well extend the impasse
in relations to the point of irrevocably "losing" India.
Mistakes in U.S. policy have contributed to India's drifting toward a Russia-India-China nexus aimed at preventing U.S. global
domination. The likelihood of India's participation in an anti-U.S. alliance will depend on what New Delhi thinks about
American geopolitical designs toward India and its national security interests.
A long-range strategy needs to be based on Washington's willingness to accept India's world power status. That means
accepting India into the club of nuclear weapons states and enthusiastically endorsing New Delhi's bid for permanent
membership in the UN Security Council. The main benefit to the United States of such a breakthrough in U.S.-Indian relations
would be to prevent a dramatic adverse change in the current global geopolitical situation, which currently favors the United
States. An assertive India could help stabilize the Persian Gulf and Central Asian regions. Even more important, India could
become a strategic counterweight to China and a crucial part of a stable balance of power in both East Asia and South Asia.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
U.S. india relations can solve for terrorism and the conflict over Kashmir
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, 12/18/2006, “India and the United
States: A New Era,” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm
Now that President Bush has built on this foundation, he should use the new strategic partnership to move beyond crisis management
between India and Pakistan to try to help the two countries resolve the underlying issue that has brought them repeatedly to conflict:
Kashmir. America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue for decades, both because of its complexities and because India
opposed outside involvement, preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan. This approach has not worked; the problem has gotten worse
and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster.
Now is the time for quiet American diplomacy to exploit our stronger ties with India and our improved relations with Pakistan since
9/11 to try to resolve the Kashmir quarrel. It is in the self interest of all three nations to do so. The timing is particularly fortuitous
since India and Pakistan have begun their own bilateral dialogue to improve relations since they were last at the brink of war in 2003.
That dialogue has already produced some modest confidence-building measures in Kashmir but has not really engaged the underlying
issues.
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says he is ready to engage India on Kashmir and has put some interesting ideas on the table. He
should be tested now by both the U.S. and India. Helping him resolve Kashmir would also help him end Pakistan's long relationship
with jihadist terror groups which have dangerous relationships with al-Qaeda. If Kashmir moved toward peace, Pakistan could more
easily put those groups out of business and isolate al-Qaeda. A deal should not threaten India's territorial integrity; rather it should
focus on improving the Kashmiri's lives.
Now that the nuclear deal is done, President Bush should make Kashmir a major part of his dialogue with India and Pakistan. Nudging
them both toward a deal on Kashmir will not be easy, but the time may be ripe to try. Preventive diplomacy in South Asia in the next
two years would be an enduring legacy for George W. Bush.
U.S. Indian nuclear co-operation improves relations
Bruce Riedel, 12/18/2006, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, “India and the United
States: A New Era,” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm
President George W. Bush has signed legislation allowing the U.S. to sell civilian nuclear technology to India. In July, the relationship
between the U.S. and India was bolstered when President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the framework for
this landmark deal. The new year offers an opportunity for a new era in U.S. relations with India and a new agenda in the "strategic
dialogue" that has been underway between Washington and Delhi for nearly nine years. While the agreement has its downside—it
could prompt other countries to seek similar exceptions to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—it helps remove a 25-year-old obstacle
to furthering U.S.-Indian relations: disagreement over India's decision to become a nuclear-weapons state. For decades this one issue
has dominated U.S. and Indian diplomacy and prevented the world's oldest and largest democracies from dealing adequately with a
range of bilateral, regional, and global issues.
Ironically, it was the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 that began the process of change. Following India's tests, President Clinton initiated
an intensive dialogue—led by then-deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott—to restrain its nuclear program. Talbott's discussions with
then-foreign minister Jaswant Singh began with a limited focus on proliferation, but expanded to crisis management during the 1999
Kargil war and then into a broad opening of the relationship that culminated in Clinton's watershed visit to India in 2000.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact- US-INDIAN Relations

KASHMIR WAR CAUSES EXTINCTION
(Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director of the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council, 2001, “India Pakistan Summit and
the Issue of Kashmir,” Washington Times, http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/2001/July/13/05.html)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a
unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed
territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and
Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear
volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is
no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place
Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear
arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations.
Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to
ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.
DESTROYING RELATIONS COLLAPSES US HEGEMONY AND ENSURES POWER WARS
(Victor M. Gobarev, security policy analyst and former scholar at GWU, September 11, 2000, “India as a World Power” CATO Policy
Report, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1240)
With regard to liberal and democratic values, America can be proud of its role in the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe. Making India, a country three times as populous as all the countries that emerged from the Soviet empire taken
together, a friend of the United States would be another significant achievement. Turning this nuclear-armed giant into an
adversary of the United States would severely weaken American positions not only in Asia but also in the rest of the world.
Conversely, making India an informal strategic partner would enormously strengthen them. India bears directly on several important
U.S. national security interests. For example, India’s joining ranks with China and possibly Russia in an anti-U.S. alliance would
be a disaster for America’s global position, since over time U.S. and NATO military dominance will erode. No one can predict
how a confrontation between the U.S.-led West and nations accounting for half of the planet’s population would end. But the
dangers flowing from such bipolar rivalry would be considerable, and in contrast with the Cold War, this time the Western
powers might not prevail—much less prevail without a catastrophic war.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – US-French Relations

ITER IS KEY TO RELATIONS WITH FRANCE
(Energy & Enviro Finland, 13 July 2007, “ITER collaboration is taking the first steps to fruition” http://www.energy-
enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=891&NODE_ID=891&LANG=1
The IIC recognized the progress being made and gave direction on a number of specific points, including the plans and detailed
staffing and cost estimates for the construction phase, specific aspects of the management system and proposed agreements on
relations with French authorities and with other international organizations, the IAEA, and CERN. The IIC also endorsed a
proposed partnership arrangement with the Principality of Monaco. The Chairman, Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith summed up:
“The progress reported and the constructive discussions that took place during the meeting bode well for the future. The
important and unprecedented international ITER collaboration is now taking the first steps to fruition.” The meeting came
about half a year after its first meeting held immediately after the signature in Paris, 21 November 2006, of the Agreement on the Joint
Implementation of ITER, the world’s largest fusion energy experiment that is aimed at establishing the scientific and technological
feasibility of fusion as an energy source for peaceful purposes.
ITER IS CRUCIAL TO US RELATIONS WITH FRANCE

(Embassy of France, No Date Given, “Nuclear Energy in France”, http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article949)
Nuclear energy is the cornerstone of french energy policy. In the ‘70s France chose to develop nuclear as its base load
electricity source as a response to the oil crisis and assure its energy independence. Nuclear Electricity Production: France
currently counts 58 commercial nuclear reactors in operation responsible for producing 80% of French domestic electricity. As a
comparison, the 104 US reactors produces 20% of US electricity.Despite scarce natural resources, France has reached an energy
independence of 50% thanks to its strategic choice for nuclear energy. Environment: As well as providing safe and reliable energy,
nuclear helps to reduce French greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding the release of 31 billions tones of carbon dioxide (contrary to
coal or gas generation) and making France the less carbon emitting country within the OECD. As a leader in nuclear energy, France
has developed clean technology for radioactive waste disposal. Reprocessing currently allows France to recover valuable elements
from spent fuels and permit a significant reduction of high level waste and lead to safer and optimized containment, for final
radioactive waste disposition. French nuclear power plants produces only 10 g/year/inhabitant of highly radioactive waste.
International Cooperation and research: France is one of the forerunner in nuclear research and participates in numerous
international cooperation programs alongside the United States such as the development of the next generation of nuclear power
plants (Gen IV) and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) that will be built in Cadarache, South of
France.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR

US-French Relations key to solve terrorism
Marc Perelman, Fri. Feb 13, 2004, “French Judge Sees Growing Cooperation With U.S. Against Terrorism”
http://www.forward.com/articles/6303/
Despite their public sparring over Iraq and other issues, America and France have stepped up their cooperation against
terrorism during the past three years.
French and American police, intelligence and judicial officials involved in tracking radical Muslim groups and individuals have
been exchanging information and tips on an unprecedented scale since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials say.
Even President Bush, who has expressed frustration over France’s prominent role in opposing the American-led war in Iraq,
has praised the anti-terrorism cooperation with France.
France’s top judge investigating terrorism for the past 20 years, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, in an exclusive interview with the
Forward last month, pointed to the recent spate of flight cancellations and to the 40% jump in the number of judicial aid
requests between both countries since the 9/11 attacks as evidence of the trend.
“The bilateral cooperation is excellent,” he said.
The French authorities have been dealing with Islamic terrorism since the 1990s, when the civil war in Algeria spilled over the
Mediterranean in a series of deadly bombings and a plane hijacking foreshadowing the 9/11 plot.
In response, the French accumulated a trove of information that Washington was eager to tap after the September 11 attacks
made fighting radical Islamic groups the top American priority. By all accounts, Paris has obliged.
“I am not saying we are smarter than others, I am just saying we have more experience,” said Bruguiere, who started his
terrorist-hunting career investigating a fatal 1982 machine-gun attack on a famous Jewish restaurant in Paris and has since
handled high-profile cases involving Iran, Libya, “Carlos the Jackal” and Al Qaeda. “We feel we have to cooperate with the
U.S. because the threat is global and the response has to be global,” he said.
Bruguiere is widely respected for his intimate knowledge of Islamic networks. He also enjoys privileged access to sensitive
information thanks to the creation of investigative teams mixing judicial, police and intelligence officers that report to the
centralized pool of anti-terrorist judges he heads.
After suffering a series of Iranian and Libyan-backed terrorist strikes in the 1980s, France faced terrorism from the so-called
Algerian Armed Islamic Group a decade later. The group, known by its French acronym, GIA, is the most radical of the Islamic
factions locked in a vicious war with the Algerian army after the military suspended the electoral process in 1991, just as the
main Islamic party was on the cusp of a major victory.
The ensuing war claimed more than 30,000 lives and still is not over, even though the army seems to have gained the upper
hand in recent years. In the early 1990s, the GIA accused France of backing the Algerian military and decided to expand its
fight to the former colonial power.
“We were the first European country to invest itself totally to the fight against Islamic radicalism,” Bruguiere recalled. “When I
spoke of the Islamic threat in 1994, people from other countries were smiling. They saw it as a political problem between
France and Algeria and believed France was paying the price of colonization. But the GIA was a detonator for Al Qaeda.”
A watershed event took place in December 1994, when GIA militants hijacked an Air France plane in Algiers and forced it to
land in Marseilles. After a tense standoff, a French elite police force stormed the plane and killed all the hostage-takers without
incurring any casualties among the passengers.
Investigators quickly realized that this was not just a standard hijacking by a group trying to make a point. It was, in retrospect,
a chilling preview of the September 11 plot.
“The Airbus affair is important because it was the first clear signal of the exportation of violence outside Algeria and of the
globalization of the terrorist threat,” said Bruguiere, who handled the investigation and contends he was able to establish that
the ringleader had planned to plow the plane into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. “It was also the first time a civil jetliner was being
used as a terrorist weapon…. So there was a big precedent.”
A few months later, the GIA planted bombs in the Paris subway and several other public places.
Bruguiere said those events did not only prompt investigations to catch the immediate culprits. They also marked the beginning
of an in-depth plunge into the complicated web of Islamist terrorist networks.
DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Marc Perelman, Fri. Feb 13, 2004, “French Judge Sees Growing Cooperation With U.S. Against Terrorism”
http://www.forward.com/articles/6303/
The best example is the investigation of an Algerian man named Ahmed Ressam. He was arrested by chance in December 1999
at the United States-Canada border near Seattle with a cache of explosives in his car. Investigators then said he was planning to
bomb the Los Angeles airport to mark the millennium.
Bruguiere had opened an investigation on Ressam back in 1996 because of his role in a group trafficking false Moroccan
passports. The judge discovered that the main members of the group were actually involved in much more serious operations.
The investigation eventually linked the men, who were mostly North African immigrants, to Al Qaeda leaders such as Abu
Zubaydah.
“This helped us understand Al Qaeda and realize the United States [including U.S. territory] was their prime target,” Bruguiere
said, noting that many of his probes started with a simple discovery of false passports. “This analysis was not shared by others,
including the United States and the United Kingdom.”
But after Ressam was arrested on his way from Canada and his plot was uncovered, American officials realized the threat was
real, their knowledge was poor and border controls were largely ineffective.
The French authorities provided the prosecution team with tons of documents. The Justice Department even took the highly
unusual step of asking Bruguiere to testify as an expert witness.
Although the Seattle judge in charge of Ressam’s case eventually decided against having Bruguiere testify in public because he
was himself conducting an investigation of Ressam, the French expert nevertheless briefed the parties and helped land a guilty
verdict and a life sentence.
Ressam entered a plea bargain and has provided a wealth of intelligence on terrorist networks operating in the United States
and in Canada. French officials were allowed to attend his debriefing sessions as a reward for their assistance.
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONS WITH FRANCE DESTROYS US HEG
(Immanuel Wallerstein, Feb. 1, 2003 “France is the Key, http://fbc.binghamton.edu/106en.ht)
It may however well be the case that it is in fact the U.S. that needs France badly. Whatever France's decision, the ultimate
consequences may in part be determined by the actual war. A war easily won will tend to reward all those who went along with the
U.S. A war that drags out will no doubt punish all those who went along with the U.S. However, a war unilaterally won, even if won
quickly, may hurt as much as help the U.S. A war "multilaterally" will do less damage to the U.S. position. Nelson Mandela warns the
U.S. it is heading the world towards a holocaust. The hawks are absolutely deaf. The fact is that, as a result of its Gaullism, France is
the only country in the world today that can have any significant impact on the U.S. geopolitical position - not Great Britain,
not Russia, not even China. This is not because France is so strong, but because she pushes consistently for a multipolar world
and thereby incarnates a strong world force. That France would herself be a direct beneficiary of such a geopolitical transformation
is far less important to most people in most countries than the fact that France might succeed to some degree to create something they
all want. We shall soon know how France plays its cards. And the whole world will feel the difference.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact - Hegemony
Loss of ITER kills U.S. heg
The collection of circumstances now present do not bode well for ITER and they encourage renewed concern over U.S. fusion
and plasma research in general. It seems that history is repeating itself with regard to our role in ITER. An unwilling Congress,
the lack of powerful supporters, and economic pressures are aligned against a U.S. presence in ITER. The Government
Accountability Office has highlighted both the need for more fusion Ph.D.'s in the workforce and the fact that as many of half
of all plasma science and engineering Ph.D.'s leave the field (plain text, pdf). As a member of the group of graduate students in
this field I can positively state that our discussions focus on events like this ITER cut and the uncertainty in funding for this
type of research is a major motivation for moving to other sectors and very different careers. Supporting ITER encourages a
new generation of plasma scientists as much as cutting it leads these same people to other fields.
A broader issue remains: what happens if ITER is a rousing success and we were not involved? For a comparison, imagine that
the methods of AC and DC electricity generation and transmission had not been developed in the United States. The negative
impact on our industrialization and technological prowess is unimaginable. A successful ITER project with no U.S. assistance
will be very similar. The rest of the industrialized world will have a wealth of knowledge and ability in the field of fusion
driven electricity production@, along with the desire to feed their own national corporate interests with the first commercial
applications.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – Scientific Innovation

Pulling ITER funding kills U.S. soft power and scientific innovation
American Physical Society, December 19, 2007, Press Release, “APS Urges Congress and White House to
Revisit Fiscal Year 2008 Science Funding in January”, http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/funding-
fy08.cfm
Finally, apart from its failings on global competitiveness and energy, the omnibus legislation also places at
grave risk committed U.S. participation in two large international scientific collaborations. Just one year ago,
the United States made a major commitment to the construction of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER). Today, Congress has pulled the plug. In so doing, it critically damages American
credibility as a reliable scientific partner throughout the world and compromises the nation's standing as a host
of future international scientific facilities. Congress has also cut the lifeline of the International Linear Collider,
which represents the future of American high- energy physics. This action sends a strong message to the world:
The U.S. is prepared to jettison support for one of our flagship areas of science that probes fundamental laws of
the universe.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – Scientific Leadership

WHEN CONGRESS CUT FUNDING ITER IS DESTROYED US SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY- FUNDING IT WAS
CRUCIAL
(American Physical Society, December 19, 2007, Press Release, “APS Urges Congress and White House to Revisit Fiscal Year 2008
Science Funding in January”, http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/funding-fy08.cfm)
The American Physical Society, representing more than 46,000 physicists in universities, industry and national laboratories, regards
the fiscal year 2008 omnibus spending bill as extraordinarily damaging to the nation's science and technology enterprise. The bill fails
to fund appropriately the research and education programs authorized in the bipartisan America COMPETES Act, which President
Bush signed into law only four months ago. The consequential layoffs of scientists and engineers throughout the nation will
discourage American youth from pursuing these fields, just as the country needs their participation to sustain economic growth and
national security. While other nations are aggressively challenging American leadership in physical sciences and technology, the
omnibus bill sets our country on the wrong course. It fails to provide the necessary resources for long- term research in the physical
sciences and engineering. It fails to provide the requisite resources for developing new cutting-edge scientific laboratories and even
for operating existing national user facilities. It fails to provide adequate funding for university- based research that is so essential for
educating the next generation of scientists and engineers. It also fails to provide the appropriate incentives for American industry to
innovate at an accelerated pace. Furthermore, as we as a nation strive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, mitigate global
warming and put a lid on escalating energy costs, the omnibus bill abandons the long- term transformational research that is necessary
to achieve all these essential goals. The bill is bad for our energy future and economic future. Finally, apart from its failings on global
competitiveness and energy, the omnibus legislation also places at grave risk committed U.S. participation in two large international
scientific collaborations. Just one year ago, the United States made a major commitment to the construction of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Today, Congress has pulled the plug. In so doing, it critically damages
American credibility as a reliable scientific partner throughout the world and compromises the nation's standing as a host of
future international scientific facilities. Congress has also cut the lifeline of the International Linear Collider, which represents the
future of American high- energy physics. This action sends a strong message to the world: The U.S. is prepared to jettison support for
one of our flagship areas of science that probes fundamental laws of the universe. The APS notes with some dismay that had Congress
applied the same discipline to earmarking as it did last year, the damage to the science and technology enterprise could have been
avoided. For these reasons, the American Physical Society strongly urges Congress and the White House to revisit Fiscal Year
2008 science funding after Congress convenes in January with an eye to reflecting better the nation's long term needs and
obligations.
FAILURE TO FUND ITER KILLS US SCIENCE COMPETITIVENESS

(Andrew Stern, Fri Feb 1, 2008, “Funding shortfalls threaten science research”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/sphereNews/idUSN2962787420080201?sp=true&view=sphere)
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which will help determine whether nuclear fusion can be
substituted for fission, got no funding even though the United States pledged $160 million to the project. "Science today is by
and large an international activity. Will people want to partner with us?" said Robert Rosner, the director at Argonne. Rosner
called the budget cuts "devastating" and said they sent a message that will deter young researchers from around the world from
coming to the United States, as he did from Germany. He predicted multinational companies that rely on the U.S.
laboratories' facilities would go to Europe and elsewhere to meet their needs. "There is a clear role for government to do the
basic research, the private sector just can't do it," Biggert said.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – Scientific Cooperation

ITER IS CRUCIAL FOR INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COOPERATION
(Environmental News Service, May 24, 2006 , Seven Governments Sign Nuclear Fusion Agreement, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-04.asp)
A project to demonstrate the potential of nuclear fusion as an energy source moved a step closer to realization today as the seven
governments involved in the research initialed an agreement on the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a research
facility. Known as ITER, the project will attempt to harness the same type of energy which powers the Sun and other stars. This
morning, ministers representing China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States of America met
in the European Commissions Berlaymont Building in Brussels to initial the agreement they have been negotiating over the past year.
They have selected a site for the construction and operation of ITER at Cadarache in southern France. Their initials on the document
opens the way to its signature by the governments concerned, expected to take place before the end of 2006, followed where needed
by its ratification. signing Representatives of seven governments initial the ITER agreement today in Brussels. (Photo courtesy EU)
"This is a truly crucial moment, for the ITER project and for global scientific co-operation in general," said European Science
and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik, who hosted the meeting. "Together we are forging a new model for large-scale global
scientific and technical co-operation. We are sending an important message about seeing the value in working together to
address our common challenges," Potocnik said.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – Energy
ITER solves for all energy demands

China Daily, May 26, 2006, “Scientists to play key role in global fusion reactor”,
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184&Itemid=2)
China will be involved in the development of all the core technologies needed to build the world's biggest experimental nuclear
fusion reactor.
On Wednesday China signed a historic deal with the European Union, the United States, Russia, India, Japan and the Republic
of Korea to build the US$14 billion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
The project is believed to be the most expensive science experiment ever, with China contributing 10 per cent of the funding.
Scientists hope ITER will unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion, which could solve the world's energy crisis and bring an end to
global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.
Last night Yang Changchun, an engineer with China's ITER office, told China Daily that Chinese scientists will be involved in
12 of the project's key programmes, including manufacturing superconductors and power supply sets.
"China will take part in the research and development of all core technologies in this project," said Yang.
All participants are expected to ratify the agreement to build ITER by the end of the year, with construction beginning in
Cadarache, France, in 2007, said the Xinhua News Agency.
Under the new accord, which was signed in Brussels on Wednesday after three years of talks, the EU will pay 50 per cent of
ITER's total cost with the rest divided amongst the other participants.
The entire project is expected to last 30 years, with the first 10 years spent constructing the facilities.
The finished reactor will have a power capacity of 500 megawatts.
Experts predict that by the end of the century 10 to 20 per cent of the world's energy could come from nuclear fusion.
Huo Yuping, the leading scientist in China's ITER Office, said it was ITER's significance in solving the energy problems
confronted by all humanity that had encouraged China to lend it's scientists to the project.
He added that the nation could also take advantage of ITER to develop related advanced technologies.
Although fusion experiments have only taken place in a few countries around the world, they could hold the key to unlocking
vast untapped supplies of energy.
Theoretically, a fusion power plant could generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity from only 1 kilogram of deuterium and 10
kilograms of lithium.
A conventional nuclear fission power station would need 500 kilograms of highly radioactive uranium to generate the same
amount of power, while a coal power station would need 10,000 tons of coal.
As scientists are able to extract deuterium from sea water, with fusion power the world's oceans would contain enough energy
to meet human use for the next 6 billion years.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – Energy
ITER WILL CREATE UNLIMITED SAFE POWER TO COMPLETELY SOLVE THE ENERGY CRISIS
"As partners in ITER," said U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman today, "we are pursuing the promise of unlimited, clean,
safe, renewable and commercially available energy from nuclear fusion, which has the potential to significantly strengthen
energy security at home and abroad." Raymond Orbach, who signed the agreement as director of the DOE Office of Science, said,
"Initialing this agreement brings us one step closer to a viable source of fusion power, with the potential to free the quickly
growing global economy and population from the looming constraints of conventional energy supplies and their associated
environmental effects." Orbach called ITER "the first stand-alone, truly international, large-scale scientific research effort in
the history of the world." The seven parties to the agreement represent more than half of the world's population, he notes.
ITER SOLVES THE ENERGY CRISIS WITHOUT ANY DRAWBACKS
(Daniel Clery, Octoboer 13th, 2006, “FUSION REACTOR:ITER's $12 Billion Gamble, Science, Vol. 314. no. 5797, pp. 238 – 242)
In November, politicians representing more than half the world's population will sign an agreement that fires the starting
pistol for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Although first mooted in 1985, ITER has so far existed
only on paper. The governments of China, the European Union (E.U.), India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the United States are
now ready to hand over a $6 billion check for ITER's construction, followed by a similarly sized one for 20 years' operation. Then it is
up to an international team of scientists and engineers to show that the thing will work. If it does, the rewards could be huge. With
the global population due to climb from 6.5 billion to 8.1 billion by 2030 and the economies of China, India, and others hungry
for power, many new generating plants will have to be built. The choices are stark: Burn more coal, with the inevitable impact
on climate; build new nuclear fission plants and deal with the radioactive waste and risk of terrorism; or try alternative
sources such as solar power, although this option remains expensive and lacks efficiency. But there is an outside bet: fusion. If
it can be built, a fusion power station would emit no greenhouse gases and produce little radioactive waste, it cannot explode in
a runaway reaction, and its fuel is found in seawater in virtually limitless quantities. Such a plant, unlike alternative sources,
would produce the steady, reliable base-load power that cities need. And the economics are astounding: A 1-gigawatt coal-fired
plant burns about 10,000 tonnes of coal per day, whereas a 1-gigawatt fusion plant would need roughly 1 kilogram of
deuterium-tritium fuel.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact – Fusion
ITER IS CRUCIAL FOR FUSION
(Abdou Et. al, Jan 17, 2008, Mohamed Abdou; University of California, Los Angeles, Charles Baker; University of California, San
Diego, Michael Brown; Swarthmore College, John Cary; University of Colorado, Steven Cowley; University of California, Los
Angeles, Stephen Dean; Fusion Power Associates, Robert Goldston; Princeton University, Adil Hassam; University of Maryland,
College Park, Richard Hazeltine; University of Texas at Austin, Thomas Jarboe; University of Washington, Arnold Kritz; Lehigh
University, Stanley Milora; Fellow, American Physical Society, Gerald Navatril; Columbia University, Miklos Porkolab; MIT, Stewart
Prager; University of Wisconsin, Ned Sauthoff, Ron Stambaugh; General Atomics, George Tynan; University of California, San
Diego, James Van Dam; University of Texas at Austin, Glen Wurden; Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Letter Seeks U.S. Funding
for ITER”, http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=2)
ITER is the key breakthrough project for magnetic fusion energy. The purpose of the ITER Project is to 'demonstrate the
scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes.' If the United States cannot participate in ITER,
the U.S. will lose a centerpiece of its own fusion program, a key scientific tool for understanding a fundamental process in the
universe (burning plasmas like those in the sun and stars) and the pathway to the future of fusion energy.
FUSION WILL COME IN TIME
Some plasma physicists are skeptical that fusion will ever be a power source on Earth and argue that we shouldn't be wasting our
money on ITER. After 50 years of research, even fusion's flag-wavers concede that it may still be another half-century until we
have a workable fusion power plant, but ITER researchers are undaunted. "By the middle of the century, we'll know how to
do it. Then it's up to the world community to decide if they want it," says Zohm. Soviet fusion pioneer Lev Artsimovich,
speaking more than 3 decades ago, had the same message. Asked when fusion power would be available, he answered, "Fusion
will be ready when society needs it." That time may be fast approaching.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
AT: ITER Not Safe
ITER is feasible and entirely safe

Environmental News Service, May 24, 2006 , Seven Governments Sign Nuclear Fusion Agreement, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-04.asp</span>)
Coming after the designation in November 2005 of Ambassador Kaname Ikeda of Japan as the nominee director-general, this
means that the core of the management team of the prospective ITER organization is now in place.
ITER is an experimental reactor which will reproduce the physical reaction of fusing the nuclei of atoms that occurs in the Sun
and stars. Existing experiments have shown that it is possible to replicate this process on Earth. ITER aims to do this at a scale
and in conditions that will demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion as a practical energy source.
All of today's nuclear power plants split heavy uranium atoms to generate power. ITER will use fusion, which involves heating
very lightweight atoms to above 100 million degrees Celsius - or 10 times the temperature of the Sun.
This creates a plasma gas in which particles that usually repel one another combine, and thereby yield enormous quantities of
energy. By caging the hot plasma with powerful magnets, scientists aim to keep the process going in much the same way that
the Sun, confined by gravity, burns on and on.
The development of the science and technology involved in this process is the basis of the European fusion program.
ITER scientists explain that nuclear fusion is safe for workers and for the population surrounding the ITER facility in France's
Cadarache forest.
A fusion reactor is like a gas burner, they say, the fuel which is injected into the system is burned off. There is very little fuel in
the reaction chamber at any given moment (about 1g in a volume of 1000 m3) and if the fuel supply is interrupted, the
reactions only continue for a few seconds.
Any malfunction of the device would cause the reactor to cool and the reactions would stop, they say.
The basic fuels - deuterium and lithium – and the reaction product - helium - are not radioactive.
The intermediate fuel – tritium – is radioactive and decays very quickly, producing a very low energy electron - Beta radiation.
In air, this electron can only travel a few millimeters and does not have the power to penetrate a piece of paper.
Nevertheless, the scientists explain, tritium would be harmful if it entered the body, so the facility will have very thorough
safety facilities and procedures for the handling and storage of tritium.
As the tritium is produced in the reactor chamber itself, there are no issues regarding the transport of radioactive materials.
Extensive safety and environmental studies have led to the conclusion that a fusion reactor could be designed in such a way to
ensure that any in-plant incident would not require the evacuation of the local population.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
AT: Fusion Not Safe

Fusion is entirely safe
ITER, 10/14/04
http://www.iter.org/safety_process.htm
The following explanation focusses on magnetic confinement of deuterium-tritium-fuelled plasmas, such as those in ITER, but
similar or even stronger arguments apply also to other fuel combinations and to laser fusion.
The fusion process is inherently safe.
Leak-tight confinement barriers are essential to produce fusion reactions. Equipment failure quickly leads to plasma
extinguishment.
No chain reaction is involved and the reaction is thermally self-limiting.
There is no danger of a large jump in plasma power output, since normal operation is close to pressure limits which already
maximise the number of fusion reactions that will occur. In ITER, because of experimental uncertainty, it is possible for the
plasma to operate at somewhat (<1.2) higher power levels than planned, but these can be easily brought under control in a
matter of seconds.
The fusion process is limited to a few seconds burn, without continuous refuelling.
Achieving low loss burn conditions is a delicate matter and requires many conditions to be satisfied - the failure or change of a
single one enhances plasma energy losses and terminates the burn. Halting the fuelling quickly extinguishes the plasma. In
ITER about 0.5 g of fuel is in the machine at any time, and the fuelling/exhaust rate is also about 0.5 g/s. Even if the exhaust
fails, the plasma is quickly poisoned by impurities, and extinguishes.
The power and energy densities in the reactor and plasma are low.
The main sources of energy which can damage ITER are pressurised coolant, chemical reactions (e.g. of leaking coolant and
hot materials, or of hydrogen and air), heat from the fusion reaction in the plasma, and magnetic energy in the coils. There are
no large stores of chemicals or other energy sources able to cause powerful explosions. ITER is designed such that its hardware
avoids the unexpected release from energy sources or mitigates the consequences of any such release to acceptable levels not
only for the general public, to ensure the ultimate safety of the plant, but also for plant operators, to protect their investment. To
help in these respects, ITER has large heat transfer surfaces and heat sinks which transfer and absorb energy, maintaining low
temperatures and avoiding melting of components. The same will be true in a power reactor, but the margins needed for ITER
should be able to be reduced, and the overall power density should be able to be increased.
The reaction products are either absorbed in surrounding structural or tritium-breeding materials (neutrons), or are
non-radioactive (helium).
In ITER nearly all materials around the plasma are to shield the surrounding equipment, whereas in a power reactor the bulk
will breed tritium from lithium-containing materials, ready to burn it in the plasma.
Activated structural materials from neutron irradiation are not mobile except dust and corrosion products which form
only a small fraction.
The neutrons produce activated waste materials. Dust is formed by sputtering from high energy particles in the plasma hitting
the surrounding material surfaces. Although not necessarily a problem itself, this dust can become contaminated with tritium.
Coolant channels can become corroded, especially in high nuclear radiation fields, and the corrosion can dislodge and be freed
if a coolant pipe breaks. In ITER the coolant chemical control system is capable of maintaining coatings of activated corrosion
products well below 10 kg per loop, with less than 60 g as loose material or ions in the coolant (these limits are used in
accident analysis). In a power reactor this aspect will be further optimised.
Negligible operational environmental impact.
The potential risk to the local environment is limited and is reduced as low as judged reasonably achievable by the independent
nuclear regulator in the country concerned.
Negligible long term environmental impact.
Neither the provision of fuel or plant hardware, nor its removal after use, places an intolerable and uncertain burden on current
or future generations.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
AT: Nuke Power Bad

ITER HAS NONE OF THE PROBLEMS OF FISSION NUCLEAR POWER
Fusion has several attractions as an energy source - its basic fuels are abundant and available everywhere, and there are no
greenhouse gas emissions. As compared to nuclear fission, universally used today to generate nuclear power, there is no
transportation of radioactive materials, no possibility of meltdown or runaway reactions, no long-lasting radioactive waste to
be passed on to future generations.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Non-Unique – Not Funded

ITER WON’T BE FUNDED NOW
(Daniel Clery, 13 June 2008, Science Vol. 320. no. 5882, p. 1405, “FUSION RESEARCH:Design Changes Will Increase ITER
Reactor's Cost”)
ITER council members will also be eager to hear about the U.S. budget situation. The decision by Congress last December to remove
the $149 million ITER funding from the fiscal year 2008 budget was considered unfortunate but not catastrophic by ITER insiders. "In
2009, we'll be ready to get running," says Ned Sauthoff, head of the U.S. ITER effort, adding: "We're a family. We'll figure out how to
get through this." Last month, the U.S. Senate approved spending $55 million on ITER this year as part of a bill now before
Congress to fund the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill's fate is uncertain, however, as the Bush Administration
opposes any additional domestic spending. The talk in Washington is that, with a presidential election looming, Congress will
simply extend the current budget for another 6 months, leaving ITER out in the cold until April 2009. This could prompt some
ITER members to query the United States's commitment to the project. Says ITER project construction leader Norbert Holtkamp:
"If the U.S. doesn't restore funding in 2009, then we have a very tricky problem. We have to ensure that 2009 is okay."
THE DOE IS MASSIVELY FUNDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NOW
(Angela Hill, DOE press secretary June 30, 2008, “DOE Announces Solicitations for $30.5 Billion in Loan Guarantees”
http://www.ne.doe.gov/newsroom/2008PRs/nePR063008.html)
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced three solicitations for a total of up to $30.5 billion in federal loan
guarantees for projects that employ advanced energy technologies that avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse
gas emissions. The three solicitations are in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy and advanced transmission and
distribution technologies; nuclear power facilities; and advanced nuclear facilities for the ‘front-end’ of the nuclear fuel cycle. This
marks the second round of solicitations for DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program, which encourages the commercial use of new or
significantly improved energy technologies, and is an important step in paving the way for clean energy projects. In a Fiscal
Year (FY) 2008 loan guarantee implementation plan sent to Congress in April, DOE outlined plans to issue its second round of
solicitations concurrently no later than June 2008 for energy efficiency, renewable energy and advanced transmission and distribution
projects (up to $10 billion); nuclear power facilities (up to $18.5 billion); and advanced nuclear facilities for the “front-end” of the
nuclear fuel cycle (up to $2 billion). Later this summer, DOE intends to issue a solicitation for loan guarantee applications for
advanced fossil energy projects (up to $8 billion). The authority to issue loan guarantees in the amounts specified in these
solicitations was provided to DOE in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 and is consistent with the Department’s FY
2009 Congressional Budget Request.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
No Link – RPS
RPS Involves Minimal Administrative Costs - Texas Proves

Twelve U.S. states have now adopted an RPS. What is evident from experience in Maine, Texas, Arizona, and Wisconsin is that
the design is critical to the success of the policy. Where designed appropriately, as in Texas, an RPS can create a large and
vibrant market for renewable energy and integrate renewable energy supply into the overall competitive electricity system. An
RPS can provide support for the least-cost eligible renewable energy sources and ensure the maximum degree of competition
among renewable generators. Overall diversity among renewable energy sources will be limited, because of the intense
competition between project developers. This competition will tend to favor the most experienced industry participants,
including foreign companies. One additional successful feature of the Texas RPS that is worth noting here is the use of a
certificate based tracking system that greatly reduces the administrative costs of implementing the policy, spreads the costs of
the program equitably among market participants, and has the ancillary benefit of helping to bring buyers and sellers
together
Minimal RPS Administrative Costs

From the limited experience to date, there are several design factors that seem to dictate the success of an RPS in spurring new
renewable development. Some of the key factors present in a successful RPS include appropriate target levels, renewable
targets that are long lasting and increase over time, strong and effective enforcement with appropriate penalty levels, and
output-based generation targets. It is also important to have credit-worthy buyers in place to allow long-term contracts and
renewable energy financing. If credit-worthy buyers are not in place, the presence of merchant renewables and/or low-cost
renewables, combined with sufficient lead-time and buyers with long-term obligations, can help overcome this problem.
Finally, the creation of a certificate-based trading platform to assist liable parties in finding eligible renewable generation helps
lower the administrative costs of compliance and helps parties meet their compliance targets.
RPS Involves Minimal Administrative Costs

A second factor influencing political viability is the cost to implement the policy or to achieve goals. Feed-in tariffs and RPS
policies generally have lower administrative costs than tendering policies, largely because with the latter, there are ongoing
costs to the government of adjusting the policy, overseeing each offer, raising the money to pay for the incremental costs of
renewables and administering the funds. Usually, the funds for tendering policies are paid through a tax or fee on electricity.
The addition of new taxes and fees can be politically sensitive and can reduce the political viability of tendering policies. RPS
and feed-in laws also have costs,
except in these two cases, the incremental costs of the renewable generation is a direct part of the electricity rates, which may
be more politically viable from the government’s perspective.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
No trade off
Renewable Energy and Nuclear power comes from new funding.
Department of Energy, 2/4/08 http://www.doe.gov/news/5920.htm

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush’s $25 billion Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget
request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. This request will
continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy;
support the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our
nuclear weapons stockpile. The President’s budget for DOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture
and storage technologies (CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st century challenges; and accelerates
technological breakthroughs to further the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and scientific leadership through the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
“This budget furthers President Bush’s comprehensive strategy to increase energy, economic, and national security by focusing
on accelerating technological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and renewable sources of energy, and increasing investment
in scientific discovery and development,” Secretary Bodman said. “From transforming the weapons complex to maintain the
utmost safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile, to issuing solicitations for loan guarantees to spur innovation in
advanced energy technologies, this budget enables the Department to continue to lay the foundation for a clean, safe, secure
and reliable energy future for all Americans.”
Among the President’s priorities funded in the FY 2009 budget request includes $1.4 billion to promote the expansion of safe,
emissions free nuclear power. DOE continues to actively work with industry partners to promote the near-term licensing and
deployment of America’s first new nuclear plants in more than 30 years. This budget also requests $648 million, the largest
budget request in over 25 years, for increased research in clean coal technology and demonstration of carbon capture and
storage for coal-fired power plants, an important component of the Administration’s Climate Change Technology Program.
Another key priority in the Department’s budget includes support of its Loan Guarantee program, which requests $19.9 million
for administrative expenses, and would be offset by collections in the same amount as authorized under the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct). In addition, DOE requests an extension of its authorization to issue loan guarantees through FY 2010 and FY
2011, enabling commitments to guarantee loans under Title XVII of EPAct to total more than $38 billion from FY 2008
through FY 2011. These efforts, combined with plans to further expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to an ultimate
capacity of 1.5 billion barrels by 2029, will help achieve a more secure and reliable energy future for the nation.
The budget also continues to significantly invest in the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), both unveiled in President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Gas/Oil would Trade off

Gas and oil are on the bottom of the docket – competitiveness issues will
always get the most funding.
Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), M.A. from the Center for International Science, Technology, and Public Policy program at George Washington University
and received his B.A. from Boston University in Political Science and Economics, American Association for the Advancement of
Science 2008, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rd09main.htm
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science would be a clear winner in the 2009 budget among R&D agencies
because of its key role in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). R&D in DOE Science would climb 21
percent from the final 2008 appropriation to $4.3 billion, the largest percentage increase among the R&D funding agencies, in
an effort to keep the office on track to double its budget between 2006 and 2016 after appropriations setbacks the last two years
(see Table II-11). Most Science programs would receive substantial increases to hit historic highs, but these gains depend
crucially on the outcomes of 2009 appropriations.
- The total DOE R&D portfolio would soar 8.9 percent or $858 million to $10.5 billion because of the large Science increase,
and smaller increases for DOE's energy and defense R&D portfolios.
- DOE's energy-related R&D would total $2.4 billion, a slight increase after enormous increases in 2007 and 2008. Investments
in renewables such as biomass and nuclear energy would show strong gains. In fossil fuels, coal R&D would soar 26 percent to
$624 million, including a 25 percent boost to $149 million for carbon sequestration research and a doubling of funding for the
recently restructured FutureGen project to $156 million. But DOE once again proposes to eliminate funding for gas and oil
technology R&D, and to cancel $50 million in mandatory funding for a deepwater oil and gas exploration R&D program.
DOE R&D IN THE FY 2009 BUDGET
President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), both set for their third
years in 2009, have made the Department of Energy's (DOE) R&D programs a high priority within an increasingly tight
domestic budget. DOE's Office of Science is the largest federal sponsor of physical sciences research and is thus one of three
federal agencies (the other two are the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
laboratories) that would receive substantial increases to fulfill the ACI's goal of increasing federal investments in basic physical
sciences research. DOE's energy R&D portfolio is a key Administration and congressional priority that received enormous
increases in 2007 and 2008.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
No Impact – Fusion
ITER WON’T SOLVE FUSION
We're not even close yet, however. Indeed, skeptics joke that "Fusion is the power of the future and always will be." The sun is
a gigantic fusion reactor, but recreating the conditions here on Earth in which atomic nuclei collide with such force that they
fuse together has proved fiendishly difficult. A few dozen examples of the currently favored reactor design--a doughnut-shaped
vessel known as a tokamak--have been built since the 1950s, but only a handful have managed to get fusion in their plasma. In 1997,
the Joint European Torus (JET) in Abingdon, U.K., the biggest existing tokamak, managed to produce 16 megawatts, but that was only
65% of the power used to keep the reaction running. By studying those earlier reactors, plasma physicists have derived scaling laws
that predict that a bigger tokamak (ITER is twice the size of JET in linear dimensions) would overcome many of the problems. But
ITER is not a prototype power plant; it is an experiment designed to finally decide whether taming the sun's energy to
generate electricity is even viable. ITER aims to produce 500 megawatts of power, 10 times the amount needed to keep it
running. But a moneymaking energy utility would need several times that amount, and it would have to keep on doing it
steadily for years without a break. ITER needs to show such performance is at least possible. But it faces many challenges:
Scientists and engineers need to find a lining for its inner walls that can withstand the intense heat; they must tame the plasma
instabilities that plague existing reactors; and they must find a way to run the reactor in a steady state rather than the short
pulses of existing reactors. ITER must do all of this and, for the first time, maintain the plasma temperature with heat from
the fusion reaction itself rather than an external source.

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact Turn - ITER consumes energy

ITER will use more energy than it provides
Environmental News Service, May 24, 2006 , Seven Governments Sign Nuclear Fusion Agreement, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-04.asp</span>)
Still, critics are uneasy. Some say ITER will draw more power from the French electricity grid than it will produce. Others say
it discourages conservation.
The French group Sortir du Nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear) is the main French antinuclear coalition with a membership of over
700 organizations and more than 14,000 individuals. Spokesman Stéphane Lhomme told the "International Herald Tribune" last
August, "There's a hidden message behind the ITER project. That message is, 'Don't change any of your consumption patterns
because you'll soon have unlimited amounts of free power.' That's a big gamble."
Hermann of Friends of the Earth Europe sayd, "Even if fusion does come through as an option, it will still carry risks of
proliferation and radioactive contamination."
Friends of the Earth Europe is calling upon the European Commission to withdraw from the fusion project. The group says
funding should be channeled into EU research and development programs to develop sustainable and environmentally-friendly
energy technologies, like solar, wind and biomass.
This proposal has yet to be approved by the European Council and the European Parliament, and Friends of the Earth Europe is
calling on these institutions to reject the Euratom budget proposal.
In fiscal year 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) allocated $25 million to ITER. President George W. Bush has
requested $60 million for the project in fiscal year 2007.
"As partners in ITER," said U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman today, "we are pursuing the promise of unlimited, clean,
safe, renewable and commercially available energy from nuclear fusion, which has the potential to significantly strengthen
energy security at home and abroad."
Raymond Orbach, who signed the agreement as director of the DOE Office of Science, said, "Initialing this agreement brings
us one step closer to a viable source of fusion power, with the potential to free the quickly growing global economy and
population from the looming constraints of conventional energy supplies and their associated environmental effects."
Orbach called ITER "the first stand-alone, truly international, large-scale scientific research effort in the history of the world."
The seven parties to the agreement represent more than half of the world's population, he notes.
Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service based in Washington, DC, has said,
"The ITER fusion reactor is a big-science boondoggle that has no energy payback. ITER will divert billions of dollars away
from real green energy solutions to the world's climate change crisis."

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact Turn - ITER leads to Prolif

ITER would create large amounts of waste that could be used for nuclear
weapons
Green Peace 6/28/05
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance
Greenpeace deplores the agreement by the Representatives of the Parties to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) (1) to construct one of the world's largest nuclear fusion experiments in Cadarache, Southern France. The project, estimated to
cost 10bn euros, will not generate any electricity, instead it will need massive amounts of energy to heat up.
"With 10 billion, we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European
households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Advocates of fusion research predict that the
first commercial fusion electricity might be delivered in 50 to 80 years from now. But most likely, it will lead to
a dead end, as the technical barriers to be overcome are enormous.
Today, the nuclear industry presents itself as the solution to climate change in a massive green-washing drive.
Far from being a solution, the nuclear option stalls real action to combat dangerous climate change. It is taking
away the money for real solutions that are ready and economically available at a large scale, such as wind
energy.
Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of
radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear
risks would thus be created.
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said
Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is
abundantly available, not in 2080 but today"

DDI 2008 SS
TAYLOR
Impact Turn - ITER leads to Prolif
ITER would create large amounts of waste that could be used for nuclear
weapons
Green Peace 6/28/05
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance
Greenpeace deplores the agreement by the Representatives of the Parties to the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) (1) to construct one of the world's largest nuclear fusion experiments in Cadarache, Southern France. The
project, estimated to cost 10bn euros, will not generate any electricity, instead it will need massive amounts of energy to heat
up.
"With 10 billion, we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households,"
said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Advocates of fusion research predict that the first commercial fusion
electricity might be delivered in 50 to 80 years from now. But most likely, it will lead to a dead end, as the technical barriers to
be overcome are enormous.
Today, the nuclear industry presents itself as the solution to climate change in a massive green-washing drive. Far from being a
solution, the nuclear option stalls real action to combat dangerous climate change. It is taking away the money for real
solutions that are ready and economically available at a large scale, such as wind energy.
Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive
material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande
Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080
but today"

267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOE SPENDING TRADEOFF

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 2

Nevertheless, it was a good start.

For more information, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER.

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 3

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 4

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 5

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

Loss of ITER kills U.S. technological leadership.

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 6

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 7

ITER funded now

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 8

ITER funded now

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 9

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 10

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

Center For American Progress 2/8/08 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html

THE DOE BUDGET IS TIGHT- NEW PROGRAMS ENSURE TRADEOFFS

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 11

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

Richard M. Jones (Media and Government Relations Division) 1/17/08

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 12

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 13

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 14

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 15

ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 16

DOE Budget Will Get Cut

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 17

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 18

Link - Renewable Energy

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 19

Link - Renewable Energy

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 20

Link - Renewable energy

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 21

Link - Renewable energy

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 22

Link – Renewable Energy

UNEP ‘2 [Reforming Energy Subsidies, http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/pdfs/En-SubsidiesReform.pdf]

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 23

Link – Climate Policies

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 24

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 25

DOE, 9/14/07 http://www.doe.gov/news/5493.htm

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 26

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 27

Large Transaction and Administrative Costs for GHG Regulation

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program ­ @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 28

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program ­ @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and

Monitoring Involves Clear Costs

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program ­ @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and

God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 29

Jan Hamrin et. al, @ Center For Research Solutions, ‘2 [June, Center for Renewable Energy Development, Renewable Energy Policy

RPS Difficulties Requires Complex System For Montioring/Enforcement

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and