Coal - Da - Fellows

KENTUCKY FELLOWS COAL DISADS
2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL DAS—THE TRUTH

COAL DAS—THE TRUTH.......................................................................................................... 1
CITES PAGE..................................................................................................................... ......3
STRATEGY SHEET/ABBREVIATIONS GUIDE...............................................................................5
STRATEGY SHEET/ABBREVIATIONS GUIDE...............................................................................7
CLEAN COAL DA 1NC.............................................................................................................8
CLEAN COAL DA 1NC...........................................................................................................10
OVERVIEW (NORMAL)..........................................................................................................11
OVERVIEW (IF THEY DROP CONSUMPTION)...........................................................................12
IMPACT ANALYSIS CARDS TO ADD IN TO THE OVERVIEW IF YOU WANT...................................13
COAL DA—IMPACT TERMINAL UNIQUENESS: COAL SUSTAINABLE/A2 FINITE.............................14
CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL COMING NOW...................................................15
CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL COMING NOW...................................................17
CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: A2 FUTUREGEN....................................................................18
CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: GLOBAL WARMING..........................................................................19
CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: RENEWABLES...................................................................................20
CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: RPS.................................................................................................21
CLEAN COAL DA—BRINK...................................................................................................... 22
CLEAN COAL DA—INTERNAL LINK: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS KEY....................................23
CLEAN COAL DA—INTERNAL LINK: R&D KEY..........................................................................25
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: AFFORDABLE ENERGY 2NC............................................................26
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: AFFORDABLE ENERGY (A2 ALTERNATIVES CHEAPER)......................27
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: AFFORDABLE ENERGY (SUSTAINABLE)...........................................28
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA ENERGY COOPERATION 2NC................................................29
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA ENERGY COOPERATION.......................................................30
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA MODELLING (ECON) 2NC.....................................................31
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA MODELLING (POLLUTION) 2NC............................................32
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHIAN MODELLING (POLLUTION) 2NC............................................33
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA MODELLING (POLLUTION)...................................................34
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (ENVIORNMENTAL PERCEPTION)...........................35
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (ENVIORNMENTAL PERCEPTION CARBON TAX
SPEIFIC).............................................................................................. ...............................36
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (MARKET COMPETITION)......................................37
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (PUBLIC RELATIONS)............................................38
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: ECONOMIC/ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS 2NC...................................40
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: ECONOMIC/ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS..........................................42
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: INDUSTRIES (COAL/AUTO/OIL/UTILITIES/RAILROADS)......................43
Zavell I hid your man card here 1

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: POLLUTION..................................................................................44

CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (ELECTRICITY AFFS).......................................................45
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVSE THE CASE (HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS AFFS).......................................46
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVSE THE CASE (HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS AFFS).......................................48
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (NATURAL GAS AFFS) ....................................................49
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (OIL ADVANTAGES)........................................................50
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (WARMING ADVANTAGES)..............................................51
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—UNIQUENESS: COAL DEMAND HIGH................................................52
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: A2 LINK NON-UNIQUE (ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NOW) ..............53
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: RENEWABLES......................................................................54
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: NUCLEAR POWER.................................................................55
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: RPS....................................................................................56
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: WIND POWER......................................................................57
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: CLEAN COAL....................................................................58
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: ECONOMY.......................................................................59
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: ECONOMY.......................................................................60
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: ECONOMY (A2 OFFENSE-COAL INEVITABLE).......................61
CHINA COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: COAL DEMAND HIGH.............................................................62
CHINA COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA COAL INDUSTRY 2NC..........................................................63
CHINA COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA COAL INDUSTRY (SAFETY IMPACT).......................................64
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL/HYDROGEN FUEL CELL FAR OFF...65
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—UNIQUENESS: NO CLEAN COAL NOW...................................66
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—LINK: CARBON TAX LINK TURN.............................................67
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—LINK: NO TRADE-OFF..........................................................68
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: ALT ENERGY SOLVES BETTER..................................69
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: RENEWABLES GOOD...............................................70
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: A2 CHINA COOPERATION........................................71
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: A2 SOLVES WARMING/CO2 EMITIONS.......................72
COAL CONSUMPTION DA AFF ANSWERS—LINK: RPS NO LINK................................................74
COAL CONSUMPTION DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT TERMINAL UNIQUENESS: COAL WILL PEAK. . .75
CHINA COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: WON’T USE CLEAN COAL.........................................76
CHINA COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: CHINA COAL INDUSTRY GOOD.................................77
“People don't like coal because it's black

If it were white, all our problems would be solved”
—Former Public Relations Manager who was promoted to be the Vice President
of one of the largest coal companies in the United States. AKA HUGE SCHMUCK
And you will never find it 2

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CITES PAGE
SOME OF THE CITES FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL COMITTEES WHERE TO LONG TO PUT ON
EVERY PAGE THEY WERE NEEDED—SO I PUT THEM HERE
Bingaman et al—2007 (JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman, DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V.
DOMENICI, New Mexico, BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, MARY L. LANDRIEU,
Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina, MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee, KEN
SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama,
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING,
Kentucky, JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida, Robert M. Simon, Staff Director, Sam E. Fowler,
Chief Counsel, Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director, and Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief
Counsel Comprise the COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES in a Hearing before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th Congress, United States Senate, in the First
Session, “CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY”, 8/1/07, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE)
Byrd and Dorgan et al—2007 (ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman, DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii,
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, TOM HARKIN, Iowa, BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, HERB KOHL, Wisconsin,
PATTY MURRAY, Washington, BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, RICHARD J.
DURBIN, Illinois, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, JACK REED, Rhode Island,
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, BEN NELSON, Nebraska, THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, TED STEVENS,
Alaska, ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri,
MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, ROBERT F.
BENNETT, Utah, LARRY CRAIG, Idaho, KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, WAYNE
ALLARD, Colorado, LEMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, CHARLES KIEFFER, Staff Director, BRUCE EVANS,
Minority Staff Directo comprise the COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, and BYRON L. DORGAN, North
Dakota, Chairman, ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, PATTY MURRAY, Washington, DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
California, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, JACK
REED, Rhode Island, FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, THAD COCHRAN,
Mississippi, MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, LARRY CRAIG, Idaho, CHRISTOPHER
S. BOND, Missouri, KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Professional Staff, DOUG
CLAPP, ROGER COCKRELL, FRANZ WUERFMANNSDOBLER, SCOTT O’MALIA (Minority), BRAD FULLER
(Minority), ROBERT RICH, Administrative Support, comprise the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER
DEVELOPMENT, in a HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, for the
110th Congress, United States Senate, in the First Session, “CLEAN COAL, OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT,
NEW ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE”, 8/13/07, U.S. GOVERNMENT
PRINTING OFFICE, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110%5Fsenate%5Fhearings&docid=f:38423.pdf)
Katzer et al—2007 (DR. JAMES KATZER is the Executive Director, PROFESSOR STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE,
Department of Political Science, MIT, PROFESSOR JANOS BEER, Department of Chemical Engineering, MIT,
PROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH – CO-CHAIR, Institute Professor. Department of Chemistry, MIT, DR. A. DENNY
ELLERMAN, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT, DR. S. JULIO FRIEDMANN, Visiting Scientist,
Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, MIT, Carbon Management Program, Energy & Environment
Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, HOWARD HERZOG, Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment, MIT, PROFESSOR HENRY D. JACOBY, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT, PROFESSOR
PAUL L. JOSKOW, Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management, Department of
Economics and Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT, Director, Center for Energy and Environmental

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
Policy Research, PROFESSOR GREGORY MCRAE, Department of Chemical Engineering, MIT, PROFESSOR
RICHARD LESTER, Director, Industrial Performance Center, Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT,
PROFESSOR ERNEST J. MONIZ – CO-CHAIR, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering
Systems, Department of Physics, MIT, Director, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, PROFESSOR
EDWARD STEINFELD, Department of Political Science, MIT, “The Future of Coal: An Interdisciplinary MIT
Study”, 07)

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
STRATEGY SHEET/ABBREVIATIONS GUIDE

This Disad is potentially devastating, but if you have to much pride to read strategy sheets
you will make yourself look a jerk trying to pull off some “chep shots”. Here are a few strategy
tricks with this disad, I gave those tricks funny names because otherwise this would even bore
me to a point where I wouldn’t even be able to write this at 3:30 in the morning. I haven’t
checked yet, but I am pretty sure that this disad will be eventually put out at every major
camp, DHeidt’s lab alone will probably put a 9000 page file out on this like everything else, so
I recommend the mixing and incorporating of files after the summer so you are as prepared on
this disad as you can be, this is especially true with the China Coal DA because I started it
around 2 hours ago, so theres not a lot of stuff on it in this file, but you can defiantly find
more stuff
First—Monster In the Shadow
This disad is actually two disads hidden in one that is meant to screw the 2ac over by making
them think they answered the disad, when they are actually conceding half the offense, which
means they will probably loose the round. The two disads are:
1. Clean Coal Good
A. Uniqueness—We are developing clean coal now—coal companies want to do it
for public relations and profits, McCain and Obama like it, the DOE likes, yada
yada special intrest groups, whatever.
B. Link
i. Necessity—The aff makes an alternative to coal, which undercuts the
need to clean coal because we have alternatives that are emit the same
small amount of greenhouse gasses
ii. Profitability—This is probably the biggest inhibitor to the development of
clean coal now, by moving towards alternatives the aff decreases the
dependence on coal. This makes it no longer profitable to develop the coal
also these profits are key to further conduct R&D
C. Internal Impacts—How we solve the case/we make coal a lot better
i. Warming—Clean Coal takes carbon dioxide out of the coal and allows it to
burn without emitting greenhouse gasses into the air. It solves all their coal
bad arguments that are not predicated off of mining.
ii. Electricity—Coal is literally the best thing we have in the US to produce
electricity; our evidence indicates that only by cleaning coal can we make
the use of coal sustainable in the long run so we can use it for electricity
iii. Hydrogen Fuel Cells—Clean Coal technologies are very similar to
hydrogen fuel cell technologies so in the process of making Clean Coal
technologies we would also develop hydrogen fuel cells, this is done
through a project called Futuregen. Now tell me if that isn’t just freaking
awesome. And there is definitely evidence that indicates that hydrogen fuel
cells solve oil dependence and stuff.
vi. Natural Gas—Natural Gas is the alternative to coal because its so dang
cheap, clean coal is the only way to stop the inevitable reintroduction of
natural gasses into the market
v. Oil—Clean Coal technologies help make an alternative to oil by converting
coal into liquid forms that are similar to oil. HMMM SOLVES THE AFF, I
THINK SOOOO.
D. External Impacts
i. Affordable Energy—Coal is very freaking cheap, and its only sustainable
in the world in which we can make it clean. The unsustainability of
energy/electricity causes price spikes in energy kills the economy, and wah,
wah, wah, lalala Bearden.
ii. China Energy Cooperation—China wants to cooperate to clean their coal,
I didn’t quite find an impact to this, but if you really wanna run this go cut
it yourself.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
iii. China Modeling—China would model our clean coal—this is key to

initiating clean coal in China which is key to solve pollution in China so the
dragon doesn’t cry, and sustain their economy.
iv. Coal Industry—This is your bread and butter. Clean Coal is key for the
Coal Industry to maintain strong public relations and environmental
credibility, which is key for them to maintain competitiveness in the market
and profits. This kills the national economy, you should actually read
through these cards because they are amazing.
v. Competitiveness—Clean Coal would provide a market that the US could
lead innovation which makes us competitive in the market.
2. Coal Industry
A. Uniqueness—The coal industry is maintaining mad profitability now
B. Link—Alternative Energy X would push coal out of the market do to competition
C. Impact—Lack of coal profits the Coal Industry dies

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
STRATEGY SHEET/ABBREVIATIONS GUIDE

3. China Coal Industry—This arg is not in the 1nc
A. Uniqueness—China is importing tons of oil and mining only a little themselves
B. Link—The plan would effectively destroy the U.S. Coal Market killing the ability
for them to sustain China’s energy dependence, which causes China to have to
produce their own coal
C. Impact—China’s Coal Industry is pure freaking evil…I mean no joke
Second—Welcome to the pit of doom!!!!!!!!!!!! (doom)!!!!!!!!!! (doom)!!!!!!!!! (doom)!!!!

One of the stronger things about this disad is that you don’t need to defend a lot and the few
things that you do have to defend—the aff can’t straight turn
A. Link Turn—If they link turn, they take the affs solvency out because the link is off of
decreasing the consumption of coal
B. Impact turn—The disad doesn’t actually have to defend a specific type of clean coal,
which means that when they read clean coal bad—you can say that you don’t use the
technology that their evidence talks about (i.e. IGCC) or that you cause R&D for a new
technology that’s better ect.
ARD&D = Analysis, Research, Development, and LPG = Liquified Petroleum Gas

Demonstration MDEA = Methyl-Diethanol Amine
ASU = Air Separation Unit MEA = Mono Ethanol Amine
BACT = Best Available Control Technology MMV = Measurement, Monitoring, and
BAU = Business As Usual Verification
CAIR = Clean Air Interstate Rule NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAMR = Clean Air Mercury Rule NG = Natural Gas
CCS = Carbon Capture and Storage NGCC = Natural Gas Combined Cycle
CCT = Clean Coal Technology NPV = Net Present Value
CFB = Circulating Fluid Bed O&M = Operating and Maintenance Costs,
CGE = Computable General Equilibrium ¢/kWe-h
COE = Cost of Electricity, ¢/kWe-h PC = Pulverized Coal
CSLF = Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum PDF = Probability-Density Function
EOR = Enhanced Oil Recovery PDU = Process Demonstration Unit
EPPA = Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis PM = Particulate Matter
Model (MIT) PRB = Powder River Basin
EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute RD&D = Research, Development, and
ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator or Precipitation Demonstration
FGD = Flue Gas Desulfurization SC = Supercritical
F-T = Fischer-Tropsch SCPC = Supercritical Pulverized Coal
GHG = Greenhouse Gas SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction
HHV = Higher Heating Value, kJ/kg SFC = Synthetic Fuel Corporation
HRSG = Heat Recovery Steam Generator SIP = State Implementation Plan
ICE = Injectivity, Capacity and Effectiveness SNCR = Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
IECM = Integrated Environmental Control Model SNG = Synthetic Natural Gas
(Carnegie Mellon University) SUBC = Subcritical
IGCC = Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle TCR = Total Capital Required, $/kWe
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate TPC = Total Plant Cost, $/kWe
Change UIC = Underground Injection Control
LAER = Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate USC = Ultra-Supercritical
LLV = Lower Heating Value, kJ/kg USGS = US Geological Survey
LNG = Liquified Natural Gas

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA 1NC

THE TRANSITION TO CLEAN COAL IS UNDERWAY—COAL INDUSTRIES AND PRESIDENTIAL
CANDITIDATES ARE PUSHING IT—BUT NOT COMPLETE. HIGH PRICES OF THE TRANSITION AND
THE INCREASING ABILITY TO RELY ON ALTERNATIVE ENRGIES, FROM INITIATIVE LIKE THE PLAN,
WILL PREVENT THE TRANSITION. A TRANSITION TO CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO PREVENT ACID RAIN,
DECREASE CO2 EMITIONS, AND SAVE THE COAL INDUSTRY
CBS—2008 (Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?: Coal Industry Launches Ad Campaign To Support
Energy Alternative, But Some Say Technology Hasn't Caught Up Yet”, 6/20/08,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_4
199506)
(CBS) Much has been made about the skyrocketing price of oil lately, with some saying that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is a possible solution.
utilities are testing technology to make one of America's most abundant fuel
But, as CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports,
source - coal - a cleaner alternative.

Coal is, by far, the dirtiest way America makes its electric power, but a new ad campaign funded by the
industry promises a future where clean coal is a viable option.
And it's not just the industry. Both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, are pushing clean coal.
But exactly what is the technology?
The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean
because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.
According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and
soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

"And you can do it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil.
That's the good news. But here's the problem.
"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse
gas.
"There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.
But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution.
They believe it's possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground.
The idea is called "capture and sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves
beneath the North Sea. America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund
a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.
"They took seven years just to decide where they were going to make a pilot plant - and then they decided to cancel it," says Hansen.
And now, the failure to solve the carbon dioxide problem is a threat to coal itself. In the last five years, at
least 63 coal-fired power plants have been scrapped or defeated by public opposition.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist helped pull the plug on the two clean coal plants because he says without a carbon
solution, clean coal is not an option.

"Until that time comes, we want to develop more solar, more nuclear, more wind," says Crist.
Which is why the industry needs an ad campaign. Until the federal government funds the research on carbon dioxide, America's
reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.
PRODUCING CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO EFFECTIVE PR AND GROWTH OF THE COAL INDUSTRY
WHICH IS KEY TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
National Coal Council—1993 (2/93,” THE ROLE OF U.S. COAL IN ENERGY, ECONOMY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT – SPECIAL REPORT”, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uu96-
hfv3JAJ:nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE%2520ROLE%2520OF%2520U.S.%2520COAL%2520IN%252
0ENERGY,%2520ECONOMY.PDF)
The future of the U.S. coal industry is inextricably bound to public policies concerning energy, the economy
and the environment. The purpose of this paper is to:
• Discuss the status of the U.S. coal industry; and
• Review the implications of coal’s role in U.S. energy, economic, and environmental policies.
The potential of clean coal technology provides an enormous future opportunity for the United States.
Energy efficiency can be improved and the environment protected while coal use expands to generate
electricity, promote growth, and improve the nation’s balance of payments. Coal, the nation’s largest
source of domestic energy, contributes both directly and indirectly to the U.S. economy.
Direct Economic Contribution. The $21 billion in current value of annual coal production yields an impact of $81 billion on
the economy. While many U.S. industries have declined over the past two decades, the U.S. coal industry has increased its export position. The abundant coal resources
of the U.S. provide opportunities to improve the nation’s balance of trade in the 1990s, strengthen basic
infrastructure, and employ advanced technologies in the U.S. and overseas.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
The U.S. economy and the standard of living it supports depend on coal, primarily in the
Indirect Economic Contribution.
form of electricity. Electric power is the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy. Coal is the
principal fuel used to generate electricity. Availability of low-cost coal has enhanced the electrification of
the U.S. economy.
FINDINGS
The economic well-being of the United States depends substantially on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Coal has
been the nation’s largest domestic source of energy for nearly a decade. Electric power, the largest and fastest
growing end-use sector in energy, is the primary market for coal. Accounting for 56% of total generation, low-cost coal contributed to the
electrification of the economy over the past twenty years. If coal had not been available to meet the growth in electric demand, consumers would have incurred over $190 billion in additional fuel costs since 1971.
Coal contributes over $80 billion annually to the economy and stimulates over one million jobs. Coal also
contributes to the economy in terms of tax revenue, exports, and infrastructure and technology
development. Further development of coal production, combustion, and emissions technologies can ensure
that coal continues to contribute to energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA 1NC

U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE ENSURES GLOBAL COLLAPSE
Bolton—2006 (Peter J. Bolton is a Science Consultant, “Global Economic Collapse - A New Global Dark
Age,” 8/1/06, http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/2006/07/global-economic-collapse-new-global.html)
The economy of the United States of America (USA) is about to collapse; and will do so within the next few months unless dire and drastic corrective steps are taken by the USA White House Administration and or
As a direct result of this US economic collapse, Europe’s economy will shortly thereafter follow suit
the Federal Reserve.
– with a resultant global aftermath that will cause the whole world to enter into an extended period of
severe deflation and depression – a new global dark age is now appearing on the event horizon. The indicators are now that these necessary “dire and drastic corrective
steps” will not be initiated; some ineffective measures will indubitably be introduced but merely to appease popular sentiment; but too late and with little corrective effect. Mr. Ben
Benanke of the Federal Reserve is outweighed by his legacy of the impending Greenspan spawned economic meltdown by a most obvious lack of expertise,
lack of experience, lack of nerve (courage) and by policy directions emanating from his ideological oriented
political superiors in the White House, IMF, World Bank and elsewhere. There can now be no doubt at all, that those
institutions responsible for the stewardship of the world’s economy are not dictating nor controlling US and
global economic events and the darkness of this new age will depend on what is done now, prior to this
pending event.
EXTINCTION
Bearden—2000 (Lieutenant Corporal T.E. Bearden is the Director at the Association of Distinguished
American Scientists, a Fellow Emeritus at the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study, the Director
of the Association of Distinguished Scientists, and was a Lieutenant Corporal in the US Army, “The
Unnecessary Energy Crisis”, 6/24/00,
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on
nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North
Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a
desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties
involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic
nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential
adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD
concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all,
is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and
massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many
decades.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
OVERVIEW (NORMAL)
CLEAN COAL IS ON THE BRINK NOW—ONLY CONTINUED FOCUS CAN ENSURE A TRANSITION—
THIS IS KEY TO THE PROTECTION OF THE U.S. COAL INDUSTRY AND INDEPENDENTLY THE PLAN
UNDERCUTS THE PROFITS OF THE COAL INDUSTRY BY DECREASING DEPENDENCE THIS
COLLAPSES THE US ECONOMY, THIS KILLS THE GLOBAL ECONOMY—THAT’S CBS ‘8, NATIONAL
COAL COUNCIL ’93, BOLTON ‘06
THIS O/W AND TURNS THE CASE—OUR BEARDEN EVIDENCE MAKES SEVERAL CLAIMS
A. MAGNITUDE
1. HORIZONTAL ESCALATION—MUTUAL TREATIES WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE
PRE-EMPTIVE NATURE OF THE CONFLICTS, THIS DRAWS IN GLOBAL POWERS,
2. VERTICAL ESCALATION— DESPERATE NATIONS TAKE DESPERATE ACTIONS
ENSURING NUCLEAR ESCALATION ENSUREING COLLAPSE OF THE BIOSPHERE AND
EXTINCTION
B. TIMEFRAME—IMPACTS OCCUR AS SOON AS SOLVENCY DOES DUE TO THE ZERO SUM
NATURE OF PROFITABILITY
C. PROBABILITY—PERCEPTION AND HAIRTRIGGER NATURE OF OUR IMPACT MAKES
NATIONS ENGAGE THE WAR EVEN BEFORE THE ECONOMY COLLAPSES SO THEY CAN
PROTSECT THEIRSELVES
D. TURNS CASE—<INSERT HERE>
E. SOLVES CASE--<INSERT HERE>

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
OVERVIEW (IF THEY DROP CONSUMPTION)

THEY CONCEDE OUR SECOND INTERNAL LINK—THE COAL INDUSTRY IS STRONG NOW—
DECREASED DEMAND BY THE PLAN WOULD COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRY KILLING THE DOMESTIC
ECONOMY THIS MEANS WE HAVE 100% RISK OF OUR IMPACT—THAT’S CBS ‘8, NATIONAL COAL
COUNCIL ’93, BOLTON ‘06
THIS O/W AND TURNS THE CASE—OUR BEARDEN EVIDENCE MAKES SEVERAL CLAIMS
A. MAGNITUDE
1. HORIZONTAL ESCALATION—MUTUAL TREATIES WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE
PRE-EMPTIVE NATURE OF THE CONFLICTS, THIS DRAWS IN GLOBAL POWERS
2. VERTICAL ESCALATION— DESPERATE NATIONS TAKE DESPERATE ACTIONS
ENSURING NUCLEAR ESCALATION ENSUREING COLLAPSE OF THE BIOSPHERE AND
EXTINCTION
B. TIMEFRAME—IMPACTS OCCUR AS SOON AS SOLVENCY DOES DUE TO THE ZERO SUM
NATURE OF PROFITABILITY
C. PROBABILITY—PERCEPTION AND HAIRTRIGGER NATURE OF OUR IMPACT MAKES
NATIONS ENGAGE THE WAR EVEN BEFORE THE ECONOMY COLLAPSES SO THEY CAN
PROTECT THEIRSELVES
D. TURNS CASE—<INSERT HERE>
E. SOLVES CASE--<INSERT HERE>

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
IMPACT ANALYSIS CARDS TO ADD IN TO THE OVERVIEW IF YOU

WANT
AND THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS SEEN LONG BEFORE IT FULLY OCCURS
of the Association of Distinguished Scientists, and was a Lieutenant Corporal in the US Army, “Zero-Point
Energy”, 12/29/00, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm)
So about a year or two ahead of the "full economic collapse", we will be in a period of such increased
conflicts between nations, and with those conflicts increasing in intensity and sophistication. According to Defense
Secretary Cohen, some 25 nations now have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as nuclear missiles, nuclear bombers and submarines, and/or chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc. and more nations
are acquiring them. The Secretary also alluded to electromagnetic weapons of great power, being used to engineer the weather, initiate earthquakes, etc.—almost certainly referring to the longitudinal EM wave
interferometry weapons now possessed by seven or eight nations. Here is his exact statement:
ECON COLLAPSE HAS A 99% CHANCE OF CAUSING AN ARMAGEDDON

of the Association of Distinguished Scientists, and was a Lieutenant Corporal in the US Army, “Zero-Point
Energy”, 12/29/00, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm)
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of
the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then—
as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived
enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to
desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic
unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as
they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain
to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great
Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have
about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL DA—IMPACT TERMINAL UNIQUENESS: COAL SUSTAINABLE/A2

FINITE
COAL PRODUCTION IS KEY TO AMERICAN ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY AND WE HAVE ENOUGH
COAL TO MAINTAIN THE PRODUCTION FOR ANOTHER 250 YEARS DESPITE GROWING DEMAND
Bauer—2007 (CARL O. BAUER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENERGY,TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY in a Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th Congress,
United States Senate, in the First Session, “CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY”, 8/1/07, U.S. GOVERNMENT
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_senate_hearings&docid=f:38602.wais)
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on the Department of Energy’s advanced clean coal technologies and the
program for carbon capture and storage.
The economic prosperity of the United States over the past century has been built upon an abundance of
fossil fuels in North America. The United States’ fossil fuel resources represent a tremendous national
asset. Making full use of this domestic asset in a responsible manner enables the country to fulfill its
energy requirements, minimize detrimental environmental impacts, and positively contribute to national
security.
Given current technologies, coal prices, and rates of consumption, the United States has approximately a
250-year supply of coal available. Coal-fired power plants supply about half of our electricity and are expected to continue to do so through mid-century. Because
electricity production increases at a rate of about 2 percent per year, the rate of coal use will increase
proportionally. However, the continued use of this secure domestic resource will be dependent on the
development of cost-effective technology options to meet both economic and environmental goals,
including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
THE SOONEST TIME OF COAL PEAK IS ANOTHER 100 YEARS

Minqi—2007 (Li Minqi is a Staff Writer for the Journal of Contemporary Asia “Peak oil, the rise of China and
India, and the global energy crisis” 11/1/07, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7248586/Peak-oil-
the-rise-of.html)
Among the fossil fuels, coal is relatively abundant. The world's total identified coal resource is said to be 35
trillion tonnes (Cui, 2006: 16). Much of it, however, may never be recovered due to declining net energy returns (the net energy output that can be produced for each unit of energy input) and
environmental constraints (Heinberg, 2003: 129-32). The world's economically recoverable coal is estimated to be about 750 billion tonnes of coal equivalent. At the current rate of
production, it is sufficient to last more than 200 years (Boyle et al., 2003: 167). Trainer (2006a) used a high estimate of the world's potentially recoverable coal,
at two trillion tonnes of coal equivalent. At the current rate of production, this would be sufficient to last more than 600 years.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
However, with economic growth, coal could be depleted much faster. If coal consumption grows at 2% a
year, then the world's total recoverable coal would be completely depleted before the end of this century
(based on the lower estimate) or by the mid-twenty-second century (based on the higher estimate).

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL COMING NOW

NEW COAL PLANTS WON’T EMIT CO2
Goodell—2008 (Jeff Goodell is the Author of Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future,
“How Clean Coal Cooks Your Brain”, 6/16/08, http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008131.html)
Big Coal insists they have solution for CO2. It's called carbon capture and storage. In most scenarios,
capturing and storing CO2 from coal involves building a new kind of power plant that uses heat and
pressure to gasify the coal, instead of burning it. In these new plants, the CO2 can be removed,
compressed into an oil-like fluid, then injected underground in abandoned gas and oil wells or deep saline
aquifers.
THE US IS LEADING ON DEVELOPING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY—THEY WILL DEVELOP IT NOW,

AND IT WILL SOLVE
Bingaman—2007 (JEFF BINGAMAN is a Senator from New Mexico in a Hearing before the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th Congress, United States Senate, in the First Session, “CLEAN
COAL TECHNOLOGY”, 8/1/07, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
The United States, largely through the good works of the National Laboratories, has been a leader in the development of clean coal
technology. Over the last few decades technologies have been produced and policies have been
implemented, to significantly reduce emissions of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
and mercury. The next challenge is to deal with the issue of carbon dioxide emissions from coal generation.
Today, those emissions are roughly double the emissions produced from burning natural gas.
WE CONTROL THE DIRECTION OF UNIQUENESS—THE DOE HAS BEEN PURSUITING CLEAN COAL
SINCE THE 80’S—THEY HAVE BEEN EMPIRICALLY SUCESSFUL
In 1985, the Congress authorized DOE to initiate the clean coal technology demonstration program to provide
additional impetus to move technologies from the laboratories to the marketplace. This program evolved into the power plant improvement initiative
and then to the clean coal power initiative at present. The purpose of this cost-shared program was to
develop and demonstrate at commercial scale, innovative technologies that would help industry to meet
the strict environmental requirements, and yet not impinge on the economy of the United States.
More than 20 technologies from the program have achieved commercial success in technologies that are
related to low-NOX burners, selective catalytic reduction, flue gas desulphurization, fluid-bed combustion,
and now mercury. The National Research Council estimated that these technologies have yielded sales totaling more than $27 billion.
CARBON CATCHING WILL BE INITIATED—PUTTING CLEAN COAL IS ON THE BRINK OF

DEVELOPMENT
Announcements of the third solicitation under CCPI is planned in this year. The focus is on carbon capture and storage
technologies. Fossil Energies core R&D program provides for the development of new cloth and
environmentally effective approaches to use coal at predemonstration scale. These include advanced
research, advanced turbines and hydrogen turbines, carbon sequestration and capture, fuel cells
gasification, hydrogen and fuels production, and innovation for existing plants. Details on these programs are in my written testimony.
Today, nearly three out of every four coal- burning power plants in this country, is equipped with technologies
that can trace their roots back to the clean coal technology program.
For example, the current generation of low-NO burners alone, is a major clean coal story. Nearly $1.5 billion of these burners have
X
been sold and installed. Selective catalytic reduction now costs half what it did in the 1980's and systems are on order or under construction for 30 percent of the coal-fired power plants. Flue gas
scrubbers are a third of their cost compared to the 1970's and are more reliable, less costly, and more efficient. Fluidized- bed technology development in the core

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
coal R&D program was first demonstrated in that program and has recorded global sales of over $10
billion. In Tampa, Florida and West Terra Haute, Indiana, the first pioneering full-size coal gasification power
plants, IGCCs, have opened a new pathway for the next generation of clean fuel flexible power plants.
More recently within the coal R&D program, the carbon sequestration regional partnerships have brought
an enormous amount of capability and experience together to work on the challenge of both infrastructure
development and storing huge volumes of CO2 underground permanently. Together with DOE, the partnerships secure the active
participation of more than 500 entities representing more than 350 industrial companies, engineering firms, State agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other supporting organizations.
The partnerships are conducting field tests to validate the efficacy of carbon capture and storage
technologies and a variety of geologic and terrestrial storage sites throughout the United States and Canada. Extensive data information gathered during
the initial stages of the project, of the seven partnerships, identified the most promising opportunities for carbon
sequestration in their regions and are performing 25 geologic field sites and 11 terrestrial field tests.
In conclusion, DOEs clean coal R&D program has a successful track record and a promising future that will
ultimately lead to pollution-free coal plants.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL COMING NOW

GLASIFICATION AND CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY IS ON THE BRINK OF CREATING CLEAN
COAL NOW—CONTINUTED DEVELOPMENT IS KEY
Dorgan—2007 (BYRON L. DORGAN is a Senator from North Dakota in a HEARING BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, for the 110th Congress, United States Senate, in
the First Session, “CLEAN COAL, OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT, NEW ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE”, 8/13/07, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110%5Fsenate%5Fhearings&docid=f:38423.pdf)
Gasification is a pre-combustion pathway to convert coal or other carbon-containing feedstocks into synthesis gas, a mixture composed
primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen; the synthesis gas, in turn, can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steam, or as a
basic raw material to produce hydrogen, high-value chemicals, and liquid transportation fuels. DOE is
developing advanced gasification technologies to meet the most stringent environmental regulations in
any State and facilitate the efficient capture of CO2 for subsequent sequestration—a pathway to ‘‘near-
zero atmospheric emissions’’ coal-based energy. Gasification plants are complex systems that rely on a
large number of interconnected processes and technologies. Advances in the current state-of-the-art, as
well as development of novel approaches, could help reveal the technical pathways enabling gasification
to meet the demands of future markets while contributing to energy security.
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE PUSHING CLEAN COAL FOR POLITICAL BENIFITS

Mieszkowski—2004 (Katharine Mieszkowski is a Senior Writer for Salon Premium Media Group “Coal:
Clean, green power machine?; Forget about that nasty oil or radioactive nuclear waste: If you want to
breathe fresh air, says the coal industry, burn, baby, burn!”, 10/5/04,
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/10/05/clean_coal/index.html)
Environmental and corporate watchdog groups have taken pains to debunk the nonprofit front group's
trumped-up "Don't worry, love coal" claims, but in an election year where coal-loving swing states such as
West Virginia and Pennsylvania are very much in play, both presidential candidates have embraced the
"clean coal" mantra. That's easy enough for them to do even if their positions on global warming differ,
because "clean coal" is one of those catchphrases that mean less the closer you look at them. Ultimately,
"clean coal" is an umbrella term for many technologies, everything from widely available scrubbers that
reduce sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, to cutting-edge carbon-sequestration technologies that hold
out the hope of capturing greenhouse gases and storing them under the earth in vast geologic reserves.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: A2 FUTUREGEN

THE COLLAPSE OF FUTUREGEN DIDN’T KILL CLEAN COAL BUT RATHER WILL SPEED
PRODUCTION UP
Montague—2008 (Peter Montague is a Staff Writer for Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, “A Rocky Start
for 'Clean Coal'”, 2/7/08, http://www.celsias.com/article/a-rocky-start-for-clean-coal/)
So it seems apparent that the Department of Energy beheaded the Mattoon Futuregen project not to derail so-called
"clean coal" but to accelerate its development, aiming to get CCS demonstration projects going more
quickly in more places simultaneously. Like the mythical Hydra, a giant many-headed serpent with poisonous breath, Futuregen and its progeny will be hard to kill.
CLEAN COAL IS INEVITABLE—INDUSTRIAL PUSH AND BIPARTISAN POLITICAL SUPPORT, THIS

OVERWHELMS THE RECENT COLLAPSE OF FUTUREGEN
Naturally, with the coal, oil, automobile, mining and railroad industries depending upon it, carbon capture and
storage will not be easily derailed. Both political parties enthusiastically endorse the coal industry's "clean
coal" campaign. In his 2008 State of the Union address Jan. 28, President Bush said, "Let us fund new technologies that can generate
coal power while capturing carbon emissions." And, as noted above, both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary
Clinton support carbon capture and storage.
So Futuregen may be dead, but carbon capture and storage is anything but.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: GLOBAL WARMING

COAL DEPENDENCE WILL RAMAIN HIGH—CLEAN COAL COULD REDUCE EMISSIONS—BUT SHORT
TERM GLOBAL WARMING IS KEY TO CREATE MOTIVATION FOR INNOVATION
Coal Industry Advisory Board—2008 (The Coal Industry Advisory Board is a group of high-level
executives from coal-related industrial enterprises, under the International Energy Agency, “Clean Coal
Technologies: Accelerating Commercial and Policy Drivers for Deployment”, 08,
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:an3800g0z3MJ:www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2008/Clean_Coal_CIAB
_2008.pdf+https://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2008/Clean_Coal_CIAB_2008.pdf)
Coal is and will remain the world’s most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel. Burning coal, however, can
pollute and it produces carbon dioxide. Clean coal technologies address this problem. The widespread
deployment of pollution-control equipment to reduce sulphur dioxide, NOx and dust emissions from industry is just one
example which has brought cleaner air to many countries. Since the 1970s, various policy and regulatory measures have created a growing commercial market for these clean coal technologies, with the result that
the need to tackle rising CO2 emissions to address climate change means
costs have fallen and performance has improved. More recently,
that clean coal technologies now extend to include those for CO2 capture and storage (CCS).

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: RENEWABLES

REPLACEMENT OF OLD COAL PLANTS MAKE NOW KEY—ITS ONLY A QUESTION IF WE USE CLEAN
COAL OR A RENEWABLE
WNA—2008 (World Nuclear Association“"Clean Coal" Technologies”, 2/08, http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/inf83.html)
New "clean coal" technologies are addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal
can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in
commercialising the technology so that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of
achieving "zero emissions".
As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner'
electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one hope for this is via
"clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: RPS

RPS WOULDN’T EXCLUDE COAL WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION ALSO KNOWN AS
CLEAN COAL—THIS CREATES A DISINCENTIVE FOR CLEAN COAL
Montgomery—2007 (W. David Montgomery is a Reporter for CRA International and a Writer for the
American Enterprise Institute, “California's Climate Law: Boon or Boondoggle?—Transcript”, 6/28/07,
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1516/transcript.asp)
The idea of Renewable Portfolio Standard is to create a set of more or less market-based instruments; you
actually create something you can trade. But it only includes what are classified as “renewables,” and renewables generally mean wind, solar, and biomass.
I'm in a little trouble of being sure about wind, biomass as renewable. Pennsylvania includes waste coal as
a renewable resource so there is a certain amount of the politically correct resource, but coal with carbon
capture and sequestration, which effectively removes 90 percent of emissions. Nuclear power, which has
no emissions, are almost never included as part of the Renewable Portfolio Standard.
So it is a little hard to see what the policy problem is that the Renewable Portfolio Standard is trying to address other than creating a market for people who produce wind, solar, and a couple of other kinds of
The difficulty is that, when that Renewable Portfolio Standard is binding and forces, for example, a lot of wind
energy.
in the market and there is also an emission cap, the Renewable Portfolio Standard drives out in our
modeling coal with carbon capture and sequestration. So something that costs 50 percent more is forced into the market and replaces what would otherwise
have been chosen under the motivation of the emission cap, which is a much cheaper way of getting to exactly the same result for greenhouse gas emissions. And I would be more broad about it; I would say, “We
have sulfur regulations, we have mercury regulations, we have NOx regulations.” And all of those set up the incentive to choose the cost minimizing fuel and the RPS as kind of looking for a problem to solve, but
forcing a particular way of meeting all of our environmental aspirations.
THE PLAN WOULD EXCLUDE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES WHICH DISINCENTIVISES THEIR USE
AND DEVELOPMENT
Josten—2007 (Brus Josten is the Executive Vice President for the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America in a Letter to Rep. John Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15/07
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007
.pdf)
One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy
sources are “renewable.” Clean, safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and
clean coal technology have typically been excluded from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes
precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline
renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to
encourage energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are
left standing at the door while others benefit.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—BRINK

WERE ARE ON THE BRINK OF CREATING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY CONTINUED EFFORTS ARE
KEY—THESE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES WOULD SOVLE
Today, nearly three out of every four coal-burning power plants in this country are equipped with technologies
that can trace their roots back to the Clean Coal Technology Program. Approaches demonstrated through
the program include coal processing to produce clean fuels, combustion modification to control emissions,
post-combustion cleanup of flue gas, and repowering with advanced power generation systems. These
efforts helped accelerate production of cost-effective compliance options to address environmental issues
associated with coal use. Relative to carbon capture and storage, DOE is making significant progress in
developing the technologies and infrastructure needed for deployment of these technologies in a future
carbon-constrained world. Evidence of this progress includes:
—The Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, developed by NETL, the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (Partnerships), and the National Carbon Sequestration Database and
Geographical Information System, contains information on stationary sources for CO2 emissions, geologic formations with sequestration potential, and terrestrial ecosystems with potential for enhanced carbon
uptake, all referenced to their geographic location to enable matching sources and sequestration sites.
—Carbon dioxide capture technology is being developed for solvent, sorbent, membrane, and oxy-
combustion systems that, if successfully developed, would be capable of capturing greater than 90 percent
of the flue gas carbon dioxide at a significant cost reduction when compared to state-of-the-art, amine-
based capture systems. Research and systems analysis have identified potential cost reductions of 30–45
percent for the capture of CO2. In addition, ionic liquid membranes and absorbents are being developed for capture of CO2 from power plants. Ionic liquid membranes have been
developed at NETL for pre-combustion applications that surpass polymers in terms of CO2 selectivity and permeability at elevated temperatures.
—Field projects have demonstrated the ability to ‘‘map’’ CO2 injected into an underground formation at a much higher resolution than previously anticipated and confirmed the ability of perfluorocarbon tracers to
track CO2 movement through a reservoir.
—The Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships have brought an enormous amount of capability and experience together to work on the challenge of infrastructure development. Together with DOE, the
Partnerships secured the active participation of more than 500 individuals representing more than 350 industrial companies, engineering firms, state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other supporting
organizations.
—The Partnerships are conducting field tests to validate the efficacy of carbon capture and storage technologies in a variety of geologic storage sites throughout the United States and Canada. Using the extensive
data and information gathered during the initial stages of the project, the 7 Partnerships identified the most promising opportunities for carbon sequestration in their Regions and are performing 25 geologic field
tests.
Developing the technologies needed to support a widespread expansion of CO2– EOR could substantially
increase existing U.S. reserves and production. The DOE efforts listed above are providing the elements needed to enable this expansion by advancing capture
technologies to ensure a reliable low-cost supply of CO2 and improved EOR technologies to optimize for carbon sequestration co-benefits.
WERE ON THE BRINK OF DEVELOPMENT NOW—CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT IS KEY

Harper—2007 (Ronald R. Harper is the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager for Basin Electric
Power Cooperative in a Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th
Congress, United States Senate, in the First Session, “CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY”, 8/1/07, U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
Basin believes that we are on the threshold of tremendous opportunity with respect to continuing the use of fossil
fuels in this country. Technology must, however, be developed to use this resource much more wisely and
efficiently, including addressing how to capture carbon dioxide. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a step in the right direction by providing tax
incentives, loan guarantees and other programs to encourage the commercial development of the next generation of clean coal technologies.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—INTERNAL LINK: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

KEY
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY’S ARE ON THE BRINK OF BEING DEVELOPED NOW MAKING
MAINTAINACE OF ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS THE ONLY BARRIER TO ADOPTION—THIS
SOLVES CLIMATE CHANGE AND WOULD SUBSTITUE OIL
Science Daily—2006 (“Ultra-clean Coal: Could The Price Now Be Right To Help Fight Climate Change?”,
3/14/06, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060314085423.htm)
ScienceDaily (Mar. 14, 2006) — A new chemical process for removing unwanted minerals from coal could lead to
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations.

There is already a way of burning coal in a cleaner, more efficient fashion that would reduce carbon dioxide
emissions: this is where the coal is turned into a gas and used to drive a turbine. However, problems with cleaning the coal before it is burnt
have made generating electricity in this way very expensive. This new chemical process could make it
more commercially viable.
Under development by a University of Nottingham team with EPSRC funding, the new approach involves using chemicals to dissolve unwanted
minerals in the coal and then regenerating the chemicals again for re-use. This avoids the expense of using fresh chemicals each time, as
well as the need to dispose of them, which can have an environmental impact. By removing unwanted minerals before the coal enters the power plant the new process helps protect the turbines from corrosive
particles.
The aim is to cut unwanted minerals in coal from around 10% to below 0.05%, making the coal 'ultra
clean'. Removing these minerals before using the coal to generate power prevents the formation of harmful particles during electricity production. To do this, the team is using specific chemicals to react with
the minerals to form soluble products which can be separated from the coal by filtration. This process is known as 'leaching'. Hydrofluoric acid is the main chemical being tested. The chemicals not only dissolve the
minerals but are also easy to regenerate from the reaction products, so they are constantly recycled. It is this aspect that has largely been overlooked in past research, but is virtually essential if chemical coal-
cleaning is to be environmentally and commercially viable.
"A lot of research took place in the 1970s and 1980s to

Dr Karen Steel of the School of Chemical, Environmental and Mining Engineering is leading the project.
see if coal-cleaning was viable," she says. "The conclusion was that it was too expensive. With the environment
high on the global agenda and coal certain to remain a key energy source for decades, it makes sense to
see if the perception is still justified today."
If it proves technically viable and economically competitive, the new process could help ensure that world
coal reserves are harnessed with less impact on climate change.
Background information
The new process could also help ensure commercial take-up of high-efficiency "combined cycle" power technologies, which have potential to deliver significant carbon dioxide reductions. A combined cycle uses both
gas and steam turbines to produce electricity, with the waste heat from the gas turbines used to heat the steam turbines. By increasing generating efficiency, this reduces both the amount of fuel required and the
emissions produced per unit of electricity generated.
In combined cycles where coal is gasified ('coal gasification'), mineral matter in mined coal gives rise to corrosive particles in the gas, causing severe damage to the turbine that generates electricity. There are two
ways of protecting the turbine -- removing the particles from the gas before it reaches the turbine, or removing unwanted minerals before the coal enters the power plant. The new process focuses on the second
option.
Coal gasification involves the use of steam to turn coal into the gases carbon monoxide and hydrogen. These are then combusted in a gas turbine, offering efficiency gains that reduce the amount of carbon dioxide
produced by 30-50%, compared with conventional coal combustion.
The University of Nottingham research project "Development of a Process for Production of Ultra-Clean Coal" began in June 2005 and will run until October 2007. It is receiving EPSRC funding of just over £126,000.
This is one of many initiatives worldwide looking into ways of using coal to generate electricity more cleanly.
Coal currently meets one-third of the UK's electricity needs and will play a key role in meeting growing global energy demand in the decades ahead. Identifying and deploying effective ways of harnessing it at
acceptable environmental and economic cost is an urgent priority for the global energy industry.
There are two ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants -- (i) increase the thermal efficiency of the power generation process and so produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity
generated, and (ii) capture the carbon dioxide for long-term storage in secure geological structures. Both are necessary for fighting climate change.
At present, natural gas is the preferred fossil fuel for UK electricity generation as it gives a high thermal efficiency on combustion. However, gas resources are becoming scarcer than coal, so efforts are now focusing
on increasing the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power stations to match the thermal efficiency of natural gas-fired power stations.
Carbon dioxide has been identified as the main gas contributing to climate change. Climate change is now
accepted as a fact by an overwhelming majority of the global scientific community.
Potential uses for ultra-clean coal, apart from power generation, include production of heavy fuel oil,
graphite and carbon fibres. Dr Steel's research has further benefits. As the chemicals are being regenerated, valuable
additional products are made, e.g. pure silica -- a raw material used in the manufacture of a huge range of products such as silicon chips and solar cells. The ultra-clean
coal itself also has non-fuel uses. As a raw material for manufacturing high purity carbon-based products,
e.g. electrodes for the aluminium industry, it could act as a substitute for oil.
THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN PROFITABLITY AND SUCESSFUL DEPLOYMENT IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL

CLEAN COAL
The success of the clean coal R&D will ultimately be judged by the extent to which emerging technologies
get deployed in domestic and international marketplaces. Deploying technologies into the international
marketplace requires that the technologies address environmental and operational performance
requirements, as well as financial challenges relative to the ability of plants to dispatch or sell its electricity
at an acceptable place in the auction, which characterizes the access to the market needed to gain adequate return on investment for the utilities.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
This includes, in the regulated market, the ability to recover cost in the rate-base, the technical and financial risks
associated with the deployment of new coal technologies are key factors in determining whether they will
achieve success in the marketplace, and are often difficult to overcome for new technologies seeking to make entry.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—INTERNAL LINK: R&D KEY

COAL USE IS INEVITABLE—WERE ON THE BRINK OF CLEAN COAL BUT CONTINUED R&D IS KEY—
SUCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT IS KEY TO THE ENERGY SECTOR AND THE OVERALL U.S. ECONOMY
Phillips—2007 (Jeff Phillips is a Program Manager for Advanced Coal Generation for the Electric Power
Research Institute, in a Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th
Coal is the energy source for half of the electricity generated in the United States. Even with the
aggressive development and deployment of alternative energy sources, numerous forecasts of energy use
predict that coal will continue to provide a major share of our electric power generation throughout the
21st century. Coal is a stably priced, affordable, domestic fuel that can be used in an environmentally
responsible manner. Criteria air pollutants from all types of new coal power plants have been reduced by more
than 90 percent compared with plants built 40 years ago. Through the development and deployment of
advanced coal plants with integrated CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technologies, coal power will become part of the solution
to satisfying both our energy needs and our global climate change concerns.
However, a sustained RD&D program at heightened levels of investment and resolution of legal and regulatory unknowns for long-term geologic CO2 storage will be required
to achieve the promise of clean coal technologies. The members of EPRI’s CoalFleet for Tomorrow® program—a research collaborative comprising more than 60
organizations representing international power generators, equipment suppliers, government research organizations, coal and oil companies, and a railroad— see crucial roles for both industry and governments
worldwide in aggressively pursuing collaborative RD&D over the next 20∂ years to create a full portfolio of commercially self-sustaining, competitive advanced coal power generation and CO2 capture and storage
technologies.
The potential return on this investment is enormous. EPRI’s ‘‘Electricity Technology in a Carbon-Constrained Future’’ study suggests that it is
technically feasible to reduce U.S. electric sector CO2 emissions over the next 25 years while meeting the
increased demand for electricity. The study showed that the largest single contributor to emissions
reduction would come from the integration of CCS technologies to advanced coal-based power plants
coming on-line after 2020. Economic analyses of scenarios to achieve the study’s emission reduction goals
show that a 2030 U.S. energy mix including advanced coal technologies with integrated CCS results in
electricity at half the cost of a 2030 energy mix without advanced coal with CCS.
In the case with advanced coal with CCS, the U.S. economy is $1 trillion per year larger than in the case
without advanced coal and CCS, with a much stronger manufacturing sector. A previous EPRI economic study based on financial market
‘‘options’’ principles found a similarly large benefit to U.S. consumers of having coal’s price-stabilizing influence on the electricity system.
R&D AND TECH DEMONSTRATION IS KEY TO CLEAN COAL

Katzer et al—2007 (See Cite Page)
Finding #6: It is premature to select one coal conversion technology as the preferred route for cost-effective electricity generation combined with CCS. With present technologies and higher quality coals, the cost of
electricity generated with CCS is cheaper for IGCC than for air or oxygen driven SCPC. For sub bituminous coals and lignite, the cost difference is significantly less and could even be reversed by future technical
Since commercialization of clean coal technology requires advances in R&D as well as technology
advances.
demonstration, other conversion/combustion technologies should not be ruled out today and deserve R&D
support at the process development unit (PDU) scale.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: AFFORDABLE ENERGY 2NC

CONTINUED R&D FOR CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO AFFORDABLE ENERGY
Starkey—2008 (Joseph P. Strakey is chief technology officer for the National Energy Technology
Laboratory in Pittsburgh, “Clean coal is vital to energy outlook” 6/15/08,
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0615vip-strakey0615.html)
The economic prosperity of the United States has been, and is currently, strongly linked to the abundance
and affordability of fossil fuels.
To ensure a future that is both secure and prosperous, we must develop and deploy a mix of technologies to satisfy our growing need for electric power and other forms of energy.
Advanced clean coal technology will be an important part of our future energy portfolio as we transition to
a sustainable energy future with zero emissions.
Managing greenhouse-gas emissions is now the biggest challenge for coal.
The National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, has estimated that using currently available technologies to capture and store 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO{-2}) produced by pulverized-coal-fired
power systems would raise the cost of electricity by over 80 percent. For integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems, the cost of electricity would increase by about 35 percent.
Capturing and storing CO{-2} reduces the efficiency of pulverized-coal systems by 30 percent and IGCC
systems by 20 percent.
This results in increased needs for coal and for water, a particularly important issue in arid regions.
Clearly, energy technologies that are capable of economically and efficiently capturing and permanently
storing CO{-2} are needed.
THIS IS KEY TO THE ECONOMY—6 WARRENTS

CARE—2006 (Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, “Fueling Growth; Economic Impact”, 06,
http://www.careenergy.com/fueling_growth/impact.asp)
As America's most vital commodity, electricity is critical to our economic strength. At the wholesale level,
electricity is a commodity, and at $217 billion a year it is one of the largest commodities in the U.S.
economy.
* Market forces are powerfully oriented toward demanding low prices for commodities. The lower the
prices, the greater the downward pressure on inflation, which is why changes in commodity prices are considered a key indicator of inflationary trends.
* When any commodity is projected to have stable and declining prices, economists predict low inflation.
Since electricity is one of the biggest commodities bought and sold in our nation, low and declining electric
rates will moderate inflationary pressure for years to come, thereby protecting the integrity of savings and
investments.
There is a direct connection between electricity, new technologies and the nation's economy.
* Increasing electricity demand is a direct measure of the fast-growing use of electric-based technologies
such as telecommunications devices and computer and internet-oriented equipment, which boost the U.S.
economy.
* The growing dependence on electricity is best illustrated by the continued close relationship between
electricity usage and the general level of economic activity. Each percentage increase in real GDP between 1970
and 2000 has, in general, resulted in just over a one percent rise in the demand for electricity.
<EXTEND THE 1NC ECON IMPACT>

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: AFFORDABLE ENERGY (A2 ALTERNATIVES

CHEAPER)
WIND AND SOLAR POWER ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN COAL POWER
the-rise-of.html)
Prices or unit costs data can be confusing or misleading sometimes, as it is not always clear whether prices or costs are subsidised or not and what items are included. Trainer (2005; 2006b) made direct estimates
wind power is about 20% more expensive than a

of capital costs of wind and solar power based on Australian prices (see Table 2). Trainer's estimates suggest that
coal-fired power plant. Solar power costs range from 3 to 35 times those for coal-fired power. If solar power
is used on a large scale, then given the intermittency and variability problems, storage would be necessary
to deliver a reasonably reliable electricity output. Taking into account storage, the cost of solar power is
likely to range from 6 to 35 times that of coal-fired power. (8)

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: AFFORDABLE ENERGY (SUSTAINABLE)

COAL IS THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOURCE—ALL YOUR ALTERNATIVES FAIL
Vaux—2004 (Gregson Vaux is a Chemical Scientist, “The Peak in U.S. Coal Production; LNG Import Issues
Key”, 5/27/04, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html)
Nuclear energy can be used to generate electricity and can even make motor fuels, but safety concerns, waste disposal
issues, and needs for further technological development mean that nuclear energy will not be a majority
energy source for several decades. Hydroelectric power has served the U.S. well but is now near its
maximum potential because there are simply almost no rivers remaining to be dammed. In addition, water
shortages have affected the reliability of hydroelectric power. Wind power has a moderately promising
future but the unreliability of wind has limited its use throughout the world. Even countries such as Denmark that have made heroic efforts
to develop wind power are connected to a larger electrical grid so that they can rely on more traditional sources of electricity when the wind is not blowing. There are also other energy
sources such as solar power but they are very minor contributors and will remain so for reasons that are beyond the scope of this
paper. In short, the only major energy sources for the next few decades will be oil, natural gas, and coal.
DEMAND FOR COAL IS INCREASING, CONTINUED R&D FOR CLEAN COAL IS CRITICAL FOR
DEVELOPMENT—THIS IS KEY TO SUPPLY CLEAN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TO MATCH THE GROWING
DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY
CARE—2006 (Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, “Cleaner Enviornment; Clean Coal Technology
(CTT)”, 06, http://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_environment/clean-coal-technology.asp)
Clean Coal Technologies—the products of research and development conducted over the past 20 years—
have resulted in more than 20 new, lower-cost, more efficient and environmentally compatible
technologies for electric utilities, steel mills, cement plants and other industries.
Source: U.S. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy
Clean coal technologies helped make it possible for U.S. utilities to meet more stringent Clean Air Act
requirements while continuing to utilize America’s most plentiful domestic energy resource—coal.
The original Clean Coal Technology Program, which began in 1986, focused on commercializing processes that helped
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and demonstrating more efficient and environmentally
friendly alternatives to traditional pulverized coal boilers.
New programs in clean coal technology—such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)—are essential for building on the
progress of the original Clean Coal Technology Program, finding solutions for reducing trace emissions of
mercury; reducing or eliminating carbon dioxide emissions; and increasing fuel efficiencies. Over the longer term, research
in clean coal technology will be directed toward developing coal-based hydrogen fuels. If coupled with sequestration, this will allow greater use of coal with zero emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy has
announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will lead to the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing greenhouse gases.
Clean Coal Technology is Important, Now and in the Future

Electricity demand will increase 53.4 percent over the next 25 years. Meeting this rising growth rate will
require the construction of the equivalent of more than 1,200 new power plants of 300 megawatts each—the equivalent of about 65
plants each year.
Coal will remain the largest single source of electricity—accounting for 51 percent of power generation in
2025. Clean coal technologies will help meet these needs, plus continue the decline in SO2 and NOx
emissions already underway.
Source: Table 8, Annual Energy Outlook 2003
The recently announced FutureGen project takes clean coal technology even further. FutureGen, a plant to
produce hydrogen from coal and sequester emissions, will be the world’s first zero emission coal-fired
plant.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA ENERGY COOPERATION 2NC

CLEAN COAL AND ENERGY EFFICIENCE IS A KEY TO US-CHINA ENERGY COOPERATION WHICH IS
KEY TO OVERALL RELATIONS
Ma—No Date Given (Aimin Ma is a Administrator in the Economic Affairs Office in the Embassy of the
People’s Republic of China in the U.S. “China’s energy Policy and China-US cooperation”, Accessed
7/9/08,http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Ahq8GXT-
_u4J:www.ncar.org/conferences/60/presentations/Ma.pdf)
With the economic globalization, countries share the same energy market. China will further expand
international energy cooperation with foreign countries:
----Complement our domestic energy production through international trade and upstream development.
----continue to participate in international energy cooperation in both bilateral and multilateral dimensions
and step up its dialogue and cooperation with international organizations and transnationals to jointly
secure the stability of world energy market
----continue to conduct extensive cooperation on energy security, including better strategic dialogue on
energy, greater technological progress in the exploration, development and utilization of energy, enhanced
fruitful cooperation on clean coal, renewable energy and higher energy efficiency, in a joint effort to boost
global oil production and stabilize its supply.l coop
China and US has great potential for energy cooperation, both countries will benefit from energy cooperation. The cooperation will
help ensure energy supply for both countries, it will encourage energy technology development, transfer and deploy, create business opportunities and contribute to
global environment protection.
energy cooperation has become one of the important contents in bilateral relations between US and
Today,
China.
US-SINO RELATIONS KEY TO SOLVE MULTIPLE NUCLEAR WARS.

Adhariri – 99 (Eschan, Armed Forces Staff College national security professor, Jane’s Intelligence Review,
Aug 1, online)
Looking ahead, a continued deterioration of Sino-US ties does not bode well for the regional stability of the very
large and equally important Asia Pacific. Yet this regional stability might be negatively affected for a long time if Washington and Beijing fail to bounce back from this fiasco
and assiduously work to improve their strategic relations. In the meantime, the issue of immediate concern for the USA is nuclear non-
proliferation. Immediate work has to be done by both sides to minimize damages on this issue. The PRC,
armed with the knowledge of America's premier nuclear programs, is likely to be a much more sought after sources for nuclear proliferation
than it has ever been in the past by those countries keenly interested in enhancing the sophistication of
their extant nuclear programs and by those who have not yet developed indigenous nuclear knowhow but
desire to purchase it. China, along with Russia, has an established record proliferating nuclear technology. This reality is not
likely to change in the foreseeable future, much to the continued consternation of now-nuclear India. The increased nuclear sophistication on the troubled
subcontinent carries with it the risk of a potential nuclear holocaust. The Kashmir issue still remains unresolved and very explosive given the
continued intransigence of both India and Pakistan to amicably resolve it.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA ENERGY COOPERATION

CLEAN COAL IS A KEY ISSUE FOR COOPERATETION WITH CHINA
Kolton—2006 (Anne Womack Kolton is a Governmental Reporter and Researcher for the Department of
Energy, “U.S. and China Announce Cooperation on FutureGen and Sign Energy Efficiency Protocol at U.S.-
China Strategic Economic Dialogue”, 12/15/06, http://www.doe.gov/news/4535.htm)
”We welcome China and their expertise to the FutureGen project. China and the U.S. share a common
energy resource in coal, so it is imperative that we work together to find ways to use coal effectively,
efficiently, and without contributing emissions,” Secretary Bodman said. “Our joint efforts in developing new energy technologies
including clean coal and renewable energy will enhance our nations’ energy security, provide for economic growth, and
reduce harmful pollutants."

The $1 billion FutureGen initiative is a ten-year effort announced by President Bush in 2003. Once operational, this plant will remove and sequester carbon dioxide while producing electricity and hydrogen, making it
FutureGen will initiate operations in 2012 and will be the first plant in
the environmentally cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world.
the world to produce both electricity and commercial-grade hydrogen from coal, simultaneously. Virtually
every aspect of the 275 megawatt prototype plant will be based on cutting-edge technology. Once
completed, the technology will be used by member countries to reduce emissions around the globe.
CHINA AND THE US ARE COOPERATING OVER CLEAN COAL

Department of Treasury—2007 (U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Fact Sheet: Second Meeting of the
U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue”, HP-417, 5/23/07,
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp417.htm)
Promoting Energy Security and Protecting the Environment
Energy security and environmental protection are shared priorities for both the United States and China.
This creates demand and incentives for the rapid development and deployment of clean and efficient
energy technology. At the second meeting of the Strategic Economic Dialogue, both countries agreed to:
* Coal-Mine Methane (CMM) Capture: Over the next five years, the United States and China will develop up to 15
large-scale CMM capture and utilization projects in China.

* Develop Clean Coal Technologies: The United States and China will provide policy incentives to promote
the full commercialization of advanced coal technologies and will advance commercial use of carbon
capture and storage technologies. China uses twice as much coal as the United States to power its growth
and economy, and that number is expected to double by 2020.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA MODELLING (ECON) 2NC

US PRODUCTION OF CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO CHINESE ADAPTION
Roberts—2004 (Paul Roberts is a Contributor to Harper's Magazine, “The End of Oil: on the Edge of a
Perilous New World”, 04, pg. 324)
Even as U.S. policies were undermining the existing energy order, they would be encouraging the
development of a more sustainable one. A U.S. initiative to develop clean-coal technology, for example,
would dramatically change the significance of the Asian economy powered by coal. American companies
can bring down the costs of IGCC and carbon capture technology sufficiently, China and India might find
themselves able to burn their coal without dooming the climate to catastrophic warming.
CHINA WILL CONTINUE TO USE COAL—BUT WANTS TO PRODUCE CLEAN COAL—THIS IS KEY TO
THE CHINESE ECONOMY AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Matthews—2007 (Stuart Matthews is a Staff Writer for the Arabian Business, “The burning issue of clean
coal” 8/5/07, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/energy/energy/497329-the-burning-issue-of-clean-coal)
China is still looking to coal to provide for its energy needs, but it's trying to find a cleaner way of using the
resource.
The establishment of the Clean Energy Commercialisation Centre (CECC) is a start. It will be a joint project between BP and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), although
at this stage it is little more than a recently-signed memorandum of understanding (MoU).
As coal accounts for more than 70% of China's total energy consumption, cleaner use of it is considered
critical for the sustainable development of the Chinese economy. The stated aim of the CECC is ‘to
accelerate the development in China of clean coal conversion technologies'.
How? Well, according to a BP statement, commercialising some key technologies and trying them out in large-scale
demonstration projects is the way forward. Coal will be used as the feedstock in these projects, which are
looking to produce fuel, chemicals and power.
The CECC will also serve a co-ordination role, combining research and development from CAS institutes and other organisations, from both China and elsewhere. The final target is the
creation of commercially viable ideas that can add to China's clean energy development and energy
security. As a major consumer of Middle East oil, anything that has an impact on the country's energy demand could have an impact elsewhere too, a point not lost on BP.
"Given the increasingly important role China plays in the global economy, China's choice and efforts in
promoting new and cleaner energy applications will have a profound impact on both the future of the
Chinese economy and the global energy market," said Iain Conn, BP managing director and chief executive, Refining and Marketing.
INDEPENENTLY CHINESE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN CAUSES WORLD WAR III

Plate, 2003 (Tom, professor of Policy and Communication Studies at UCLA where he founded the Asia
Pacific Media Network, “WHY NOT INVADE CHINA? With allies like the neo-cons, Bush scarcely needs
enemies”,, June 30, 2003, http://asiamedia.ucla.edu/TomPlate2003/06302003.htm)
But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright military invasion because the
economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would
head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don’t’ want them and cant handle them; some in Japan might lick
their lips at the prospect of of World War II revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send
Singapore and Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet,
and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That’s why wise policy encourages
Chinese stability, security and economic growth – the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA MODELLING (POLLUTION) 2NC

US PRODUCTION OF CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO CHINESE ADAPTION
Even as U.S. policies were undermining the existing energy order, they would be encouraging the
development of a more sustainable one. A U.S. initiative to develop clean-coal technology, for example,
would dramatically change the significance of the Asian economy powered by coal. American companies
can bring down the costs of IGCC and carbon capture technology sufficiently, China and India might find
themselves able to burn their coal without dooming the climate to catastrophic warming.
CHINA IS INCREASING ITS COAL CONSUMPTION—ITS NOT A QUESTION OF IF, BUT A QUESTION
OF HOW—AMERICAN PRODUCTION IS KEY TO REDUCE CHINESE POLLUTION—THEY CAN’T
AFFORD IT THEIR SELVES
Perilous New World”, 04, pg. 147-148)
Instead, China will solve its looming energy security problems in the worst way possible; through coal. China is, in fact, well on its
way towards becoming the world’s largest coal economy. According to one forecast, to meet its demand for electricity, China must build as many as sixty
400-megawatt electric power plants every year for the next decade, and most of them will burn coal. Despite an apparent decline in coal use during the 1990s (which Western analysts optimistically attributed to
improved energy efficiency and a shift toward gas), Chinese coal consumption is again rising—by nearly 9 percent in 2002. All told, the demand 11
for coal in China, and in neighboring India, which is on a similar coal track, will account for more than two-
thirds of the growth in the world demand for coal. By 2050, more than a third of the energy consumed by
China and its neighbors will come from coal. “The real question isn’t whether china is going to use its coal,”
warns Reid Detchon, a former energy official in the first Bush administration, “but whether China will use its coal cleanly.”
At this point, the answer seems to be no. China is so poor that it simply cannot afford the kind of cutting-edge IGCC
technology needed for a “clean-coal” energy economy. Instead, Beijing is relying largely on the same
obsolete coal-fired technology that plagues the West. Indeed, many of China’s existing coal-fired power plants are so ancient they lack emissions-controlled
technology and waste most of the energy they generate. The result is a power sector that is horribly polluting and so inefficient that, to
meet the nation’s rising energy demand, it has been forced to to build new plants faster than if it used a
more efficient power technology, like gas—thus committing China to burn even more coal and emit even
more pollutants.
The consequences aren’t encouraging. China is already the leading emitter of sulfur dioxide, the
component in coal smoke that causes acid rain, which is ravaging China’s cities and nearly 40 percent of its forests and farmlands. Whereas many Western coal-fired
power plants must install sulfur-“scrubbing” technology, most new coal-fired power plants in China do not—not because the Chinese like acid rain any more than Americans or Europeans do, but because scrubbers
add 30 percent to the cost of a new power plant—the difference between building four new power plants and building only three. In electricity-starved China, where blackouts are still common in most cities, the
if China can’t afford sulfur scrubbers, it is almost impossible to imagine how or why, Beijing
choice isn’t hard.12 And
would spend billions of dollars installing clean-coal technology.

The climatic consequences of China’s coal-fired drive for energy security are staggering. Today, China is
the second leading emitter of carbon dioxide, right behind the United States—despite the fact that China’s per capita CO emissions are just one-eighth those of the 2
United States. Given China’s current energy trends, it should occupy first place before the end of the decade.
Between now and 2030, China’s CO2 emissions will increase as much as those of the entire rest of the
industrialized world.13 What is truly alarming here is that, despite all the new growth in power usage and in construction of power plants, China’s per capita consumption of electricity is still less
than a tenth of the average for industrialized countries.14 What this suggests is not only that China still suffers from chronic energy poverty but that, once China starts to lift itself out of that poverty and approach a
Western level of energy use, its energy needs will exceed the capacity of any global system that currently exists.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHIAN MODELLING (POLLUTION) 2NC

POLLUTION IN CHINA KILLS THE ENVIORNMET, POLITICAL STABILITIY, AND THE ECONOMY—
SPILLS OVER GLOBALLY
Kahn and Yardley—2007 (Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley are Staff Writers for the New York Times, “As
China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes”, 8/26/07,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20070826/ZNYT03/708260426)
But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so
its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such
stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on
the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear
that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health
says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500
million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city
dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic
formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.
Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in
China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or
other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no
longer sustain marine life.
China is choking on its own success. The economy is on a historic run, posting a succession of double-digit
growth rates. But the growth derives, now more than at any time in the recent past, from a staggering
expansion of heavy industry and urbanization that requires colossal inputs of energy, almost all from coal,
the most readily available, and dirtiest, source.
“It is a very awkward situation for the country because our greatest achievement is also our biggest
burden,” says Wang Jinnan, one of China’s leading environmental researchers. “There is pressure for
change, but many people refuse to accept that we need a new approach so soon.”
China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s
coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution
over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
More pressing still, China has entered the most robust stage of its industrial revolution, even as much of
the outside world has become preoccupied with global warming.
Experts once thought China might overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of
greenhouse gases by 2010, possibly later. Now, the International Energy Agency has said China could
become the emissions leader by the end of this year, and the Netherlands Environment Assessment
Agency said China had already passed that level.
For the Communist Party, the political calculus is daunting. Reining in economic growth to alleviate
pollution may seem logical, but the country’s authoritarian system is addicted to fast growth. Delivering
prosperity placates the public, provides spoils for well-connected officials and forestalls demands for
political change. A major slowdown could incite social unrest, alienate business interests and threaten the
party’s rule.
But pollution poses its own threat. Officials blame fetid air and water for thousands of episodes of social
unrest. Health care costs have climbed sharply. Severe water shortages could turn more farmland into
desert. And the unconstrained expansion of energy-intensive industries creates greater dependence on
imported oil and dirty coal, meaning that environmental problems get harder and more expensive to
address the longer they are unresolved.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA MODELLING (POLLUTION)

CHINA COAL DEPENDENCE IS POTENTIALLY DEVISTATING FOR THE GLOBAL ENVIORNMENT—
CLEAN COAL WOULD SOLVE—CHINA’S MARKET IS IDEAL FOR CLEAN COAL
These two scenarios pose very different risks and benefits for China and for the rest of the world. For the Chinese, the heavy coal use scenario would have
the merit of greater energy autonomy, given China’s very extensive coal resources. It would also mean
less Chinese pressure on world oil and gas markets. But the impact on the environment would be
substantially greater, both locally and internationally. In the worst case, the heavy environmental toll inflicted by
today’s vast coal mining, shipping, and burning operations, already by far the world’s largest, would grow
much worse as China’s use of coal doubled or even tripled over the next 25 years. More optimistically, China would
become the world’s largest market for advanced clean coal technologies, including gasification and liquefaction, and eventually also including
carbon dioxide capture and storage. But these technologies will add considerably to the cost of coal use, and, in the case of carbon capture and
sequestration, are unlikely to be deployable on a large scale for decades.
CHINA POLLUTION O/W SYSTEMIC DEATHS

Kahn and Yardley—2007 (Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley are Staff Writers for the New York Times, “As
China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes”, 8/26/07,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20070826/ZNYT03/708260426)
An internal, unpublicized report by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning in 2003 estimated that
300,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution, mostly of heart disease and lung cancer. An
additional 110,000 deaths could be attributed to indoor air pollution caused by poorly ventilated coal and
wood stoves or toxic fumes from shoddy construction materials, said a person involved in that study.
Another report, prepared in 2005 by Chinese environmental experts, estimated that annual premature
deaths attributable to outdoor air pollution were likely to reach 380,000 in 2010 and 550,000 in 2020.
This spring, a World Bank study done with SEPA, the national environmental agency, concluded that
outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year. Indoor pollution
contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhea, bladder and
stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.
China’s environmental agency insisted that the health statistics be removed from the published version of
the report, citing the possible impact on “social stability,” World Bank officials said.
But other international organizations with access to Chinese data have published similar results. For
example, the World Health Organization found that China suffered more deaths from water-related
pollutants and fewer from bad air, but agreed with the World Bank that the total death toll had reached
750,000 a year. In comparison, 4,700 people died last year in China’s notoriously unsafe mines, and
89,000 people were killed in road accidents, the highest number of automobile-related deaths in the world.
The Ministry of Health estimates that cigarette smoking takes a million Chinese lives each year.
Studies of Chinese environmental health mostly use statistical models developed in the United States and
Europe and apply them to China, which has done little long-term research on the matter domestically. The
results are more like plausible suppositions than conclusive findings.
But Chinese experts say that, if anything, the Western models probably understate the problems.
“China’s pollution is worse, the density of its population is greater and people do not protect themselves as
well,” said Jin Yinlong, the director general of the Institute for Environmental Health and Related Product
Safety in Beijing. “So the studies are not definitive. My assumption is that they will turn out to be
conservative.”

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (ENVIORNMENTAL

PERCEPTION)
CLEANING COAL AND DECREASING EMITIONS IS KEY TO MAINTAINING HIGH COAL PRODUCTION
WHICH IS KEY TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
Kirkham and Hall—2007 (John Kirkham and Richard Hall are natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives
LLP, “Coal: Like It or Not, It's Here to Stay”, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484)
In addition to the benefits provided as a source of energy, the coal industry is an important component in both Utah’s and the national
economy. Based on the National Mining Association statistics, the average number of miners working daily in this country is
approximately 123,000. The Utah Geological Survey estimates that coal industry in Utah employed approximately 2,000
people in 2006. Employment totals could increase by another 200 to 300 people in 2007 and 2008 as demand for higher production
continues and proposed coal operations commence production. Revenues from coal produced in Utah increased substantially in recent years, reaching an estimated $474.9 million in 2005, 23.0% higher than in
2004. Increases in production and prices are expected in 2006, pushing the estimated revenue up an additional 26.2% to $599.5 million, the highest amount ever recorded in nominal dollars.
While coal supplies are abundant and production cost low, many still view coal as an unwelcome guest.
The major disadvantages of coal come from the adverse environmental impacts that accompany the
mining, transportation and combustion of coal. Coal faces significant environmental challenges in mining,
air pollution, and emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). Indeed, coal-fired plants contribute almost one-third of all the carbon
emissions the United States generates – roughly as much produced by every car and truck on the road. Clearly, no future effort against global
climate change will succeed without reducing coal-related emissions. However, reducing these emissions could
significantly impact the competitiveness of existing and new coal-fired plants, significantly increasing energy costs.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (ENVIORNMENTAL

PERCEPTION CARBON TAX SPEIFIC)
A CARBON TAX SYSTEM WOULD COLLAPSE THE COAL INDUSTRY
Big Coal is best understood as a beast of inertia, pushed along by hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
heavy metal infrastructure, and kept on track by an army of lobbyists, and our own ignorance of what goes
on behind the light switch.
That may be changing.
Even seven year-olds know that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, is
warming the planet. Coal is by far the most carbon-intensive of fossil fuels, with roughly twice the carbon content as natural gas.
Right now in the U.S., there is no financial cost to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s likely to change during the next
administration. Big Coal is fighting for loopholes and safety valves to keep CO2 costs low, because if legislation
passes that actually puts a serious price on CO2, coal's reign as a "cheap" energy source is officially over.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (MARKET COMPETITION)

CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO MAINTAINING MARKET COMPETITION FOR COAL
Kavalov and Peteves—2007 (B. Kavalov and S.D. Peteves are DG JRCs Institute for Energy, “THE FUTURE
OF COAL”, 2/07
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:i7MSoUfSRioJ:ie.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/scientific_publications/
2007/EUR22744EN.pdf)
The sharp increase in oil and gas prices in 2005-2006 and the temporary cutback in natural gas supplies from Russia at the end of 2005 have boosted about the security, diversity, reliability and affordability of
After many years in the shadows, coal has recently come back into fashion owing to three
energy supplies in the EU.
advantages over oil and gas: lower prices per energy unit, different geopolitical distribution of reserves
and a higher reserves-to-production ratio. The advances in novel and more environmentally friendly
technologies for coal utilisation — Clean Coal Technologies — have further increased the interest in coal.
The full implementation of Clean Coal Technologies will represent a new era in coal use that might
strengthen its market position, especially if coal remains cheaper than oil and gas. Nevertheless, such a scenario raises three important questions that are sometimes overlooked:
1. If Clean Coal Technologies achieve large-scale penetration, will the required coal supply be secured in the long term?
2. If the coal supply is secured, where will it come from?
3. What will the corresponding trends be in coal costs and prices?

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: COAL INDUSTRY (PUBLIC RELATIONS)

CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO COAL PR—IT’S KEY TO OVERWHELM PUBLIC PERCEPTION THAT THE
COAL INDUSTRY HURTS THE ENVIORNMENT
Several years ago, in Gillette, Wyoming, I fell into a long conversation with the vice-president of a large American
coal company about coal's public image problem. Gillette is in the center of the Powder River Basin, the epicenter of the coal boom in America, where 60 foot seams
of coal lay just below the surface.
This vice president, who did not want his name to appear in print, was deeply concerned about coal's future and expressed
frustration with environmental attacks on coal, suggesting that it was all a problem of perception: "People
don't like coal because it's black," he told me.
"If it were white, all our problems would be solved."
Whenever one of those slick ads for "clean coal" pops up on CNN, I think about that conversation in
Gillette. The $35 million "clean coal" campaign, spearheaded by a coal industry front group called American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (formerly known as
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices), is nothing less than a nationwide effort to paint coal white.
And to the coal industry's credit, they're doing a pretty good job. "Clean coal" is touted by Republicans and
Democrats alike as the solution to America's energy troubles.
The logic is simple: America has lots of coal. We are a technologically advanced society. Ergo, we can clean
up coal. What's the problem?
Well, here's one: "clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or "interest-free loans," "clean coal" is a phrase that embodies the Bush-era faith that there
is an easy answer for every hard question in America today. We can have a war in Iraq without sacrifice. We can borrow more than we can afford without worrying about how we'll pay it back. We can end our
dependency on oil by powering our SUVs with ethanol made from corn. And we can keep the lights on without superheating the climate through the magic of "clean coal."
if
Here's another: mining and burning coal remains one of the most destructive things human beings do on this earth. It destroys mountains, poisons water, pollutes the air, and warms the atmosphere. True,
you look at it strictly from the point of view smog-producing chemicals like sulfur dioxide, new coal plants
are cleaner than the old coal burners of yore. But going from four bottles of whiskey a week down to three does not make you clean and sober.
Of course, the "clean coal" campaign is not about reality – it's about perception. It's an exercise in re-branding.
Madison Ave. did it for Harley Davidson motorcycles and Converse shoes. Why not Old King Coal?
It's not a difficult trick – just whip out some slick ads with upbeat music and lots of cool 21st century
technology like fighter jets and computers. Run the ads long enough, and people will believe.
But the real goal of the campaign is not simply to re-brand coal as a clean and modern fuel – it's to
convince energy-illiterate TV viewers that the American way of life depends on coal. The ads remind us
(accurately) that half the electricity in America comes from coal, then shows images of little girls getting tucked into bed at night or Little Leaguers playing ball
under the lights.
The subtext is not simply that, without the electricity from coal, the lights will go out and your family will
be plunged into darkness. It's that, without coal, civilization as we know it will come to an end. As one utility industry
executive asked me while I was reporting Big Coal, "Have you ever been in a blackout? Do you remember how scary it was?"
From the coal industry's point of view, this is a brilliant way to frame the argument. If the choice is, coal or
chaos, they win. This framing also disarms environmental arguments – yes, it's too bad that mountaintop removal mining has destroyed or
polluted 1200 miles of streams in Appalachia and that the Environmental Protection Agency projects a loss of more than 1.4 millionacres – an area the size of Delaware – by the end of the decade.
if it's a choice between losing flattening West Virginia and keeping our lights on, good-bye West
But hey,
Virginia!
A SUCCESSFUL CLEAN COAL CAMPAIGN IS KEY FOR FURTHER AND LONG TERM SUCCESS OF THE
COAL INDUSTRY
In the end, the "clean coal" campaign is about using the tools of the 21st century to keep us locked in the
19th century. Like other greenwashing campaigns, it's about using the iconography of sexy technology and
down-home Americana to maintain the status quo.
These campaigns always pretend to offer inspiration about we can do in America if we set our minds and
hearts to it, but in fact the real message is what we can't do: we can't power America without coal, we
can't keep our lights on without destroying Appalachia, and most important of all, we can't pass
meaningful carbon legislation without wrecking the American economy.
This is why the false promise of "clean coal" is dangerous.
The goal is not to solve our problems, but to perpetuate our addiction. In one ad, the narrator even adopts
the feel-good language of substance abuse and recovery: cleaning up coal is a "big challenge," he
explains," but we've made a commitment – a commitment to clean."

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
After decades of stoking the engines of denial and obfuscation on global warming, it's nice that Big Coal
wants to be a good citizen. But just because your pusher decides to shower and shave, don't delude
yourself into thinking that he cares about your welfare.
His real goal is to keep you hooked.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: ECONOMIC/ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS

2NC
DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN COAL IN THE UNITED STAETS WOULD FORCE CHINA AND INDIA TO
SHIFT THE ALTEARNTIVE ENERGY MARKET TOWARDS CLEAN COAL—BOOSTING AMERICAN
ECONOMIC AND ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS
Even as U.S. policies were undermining the existing energy order, they would be encouraging the development of a more sustainable one. A U.S. initiative to develop clean-coal
technology, for example, would dramatically change the significance of the Asian economy powered by coal.
American companies can bring down the costs of IGCC and carbon capture technology sufficiently, China
and India might find themselves able to burn their coal without dooming the climate to catastrophic
warming.
In fact, many experts believe that the United States should not wait until the Chinese and Indians can afford clean-coal technology but should offer the technology as soon as it becomes available and should even
subsidize the purchase, simply to avoid the catastrophe of an Asian energy economy based on dirty coal. Such energy Charity would not be cheap, by one estimate, subsidies of that kind could run the United States
China
at least ten billion dollars for the first hundred plants - a cost that conservative policymakers would oppose. But advocates of such clean-technology exports counter with three points. First, because
and India have little choice but to burn coal, if the United States hopes to avoid climate change it has little
choice but to help the Chinese and Indians adopt clean-coal technology. As one climate expert put it: "America is going to
pay for climate, one way or another. It can either pay now to try to mitigate some of the effects, or it can
pay later, when droughts and floods start to decimate the developing world."
Second, advocates say that the United States could attach strings to technology, making the offer contingent, for example, on a promise from Beijing to stop undercutting U.S. currency or dumping products on the
China and India will not only be the only market for U.S. built clean-coal technology: many
U.S. market. Third,
experts believe that the technology once costs have been driven down, could give rise to a lucrative American export
business - and reverse a depressing trend in which the United States lost the lead in wind technology to
the Danes and in solar technology to Japanese. "We have to start looking at this less as a climate policy
than as an economic stimulus for the U.S. industrial sector," argues Detchon. "We should be approaching this at
scale, not as one-off R&D projects, but in a way that will make these units competitive overseas, where the
bulk of the growth is. This is going to be a growth market, and the United States needs to build up a real
manufacturing strength."
ECONOMIC COMPETITIVNESS FROM TECH SUPERIORITY IS KEY TO HEGE

Khalilzad—1995 (Zalmay Khalilzad was a Fellow at RAND and the current Representitive for the U.S. to
the United Nations, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, 95)
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy
declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership
would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become
inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened,
others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must
maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and
industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the
If the United States fails to

world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations.
recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the
preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per
capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology. In the long run the economic future of
the United States will also be affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance between government revenues and government expenditure. As a society the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it
wishes the government to control and adjust expenditures and taxation accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S. economic wall-being over the long run, may be the overall rate of investment.
Although their government cannot endow Americans with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use tax policy to raise the savings rate.
HEGE SOLVES PATRIARCHY

Khalilzad—1995 (Zalmay Khalilzad was a Fellow at RAND and the current Representitive for the U.S. to
the United Nations, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, 95)
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

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
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.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: ECONOMIC/ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS

DEVELOPING CLEAN COAL WOULD MAKE THE US A TECHNOLOGICALAL LEADER—CAUSING
MODELLING IN AUSTRALIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA, MEXICO, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA,
AND THE EU, AND CLEAN COAL WOULD BE MASSIVELY PROFITABLE FOR THE US
Fraser and Osborne—2007 (Shannon Fraser is an international trade specialist and Stefan Osborne is an
economist in the Manufacturing and Services unit of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International
Trade Administration, “Potential Exports of U.S. Clean Coal Technology through 2030”, 11/07,
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:L-VVaj0LjJ8J:www.trade.gov/media/publications/pdf/coal2007.pdf)
The United States is a world leader in technology that allows coal to be burned for electricity production
without excessive emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and particulate matter. To reduce
overall emissions, the U.S. coal industry is developing specific technology that can be incorporated into
coal-fired power plants. That technology will allow coal to be burned with lower emissions of carbon
dioxide. The U.S. technological preeminence in this field presents an opportunity to export the equipment
and to license the technology to countries such as China and India, where coal-fired electricity production is rising quickly. This paper estimates the potential for U.S. exports of
existing clean coal technology (CCT) to a growing worldwide market. U.S. exports of CCT to Australia, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, New
Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, and the European Union (EU) 25 could amount to US $36 billion between 1
now and 2030.
FURTHER INVESTMENT IN CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO COAL EFFICIENTLY—AND IT WOULD BE

MODELLED GLOBALLY
One technology that holds promise for cleaner coal is gasification, or "integrated gasification combined cycle
systems," which convert coal into a gas before generating electricity.
"That enables it to burn more efficiently and more cleanly than traditional coal-burning power plants," explains Environment 2004's Christensen.
Today's coal-fired power plants in the United States are about 30 percent efficient -- which means about 70 percent of the coal's
inherent energy value is wasted as it is burned to create steam -- but the Department of Energy predicts that gasified plants could be as
much as 60 percent efficient.

Environmentalists say that really investing in clean coal technologies will result in benefits beyond just
cleaning up our own environment -- there's also the prospect of exporting them to the rest of the world.
"We're expecting globally a tripling of the use of coal in the next couple of decades," says the Apollo Alliance's Hendricks.
"China being a huge piece of it, but also India, Iran, Korea. Many parts of the developing world are planning
to put new coal plants online. It could be a very significant export technology."

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: INDUSTRIES

(COAL/AUTO/OIL/UTILITIES/RAILROADS)
CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO THE COAL, AUTO, OIL, ELECTRIC UTILITIES, AND RAILROAD INDUSTRIES
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) -- sometimes called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) -- would benefit other industries besides
coal. An 85% reduction of CO2 emissions from coal plants would make" space" for the automobile industry
to continue to pollute, so the automobile and oil corporations are enthusiastic about CCS for coal. The
electric utilities favor CCS because it would mean they could stop worrying about unfamiliar renewable
technologies like solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power; if they can get CCS going on a large scale,
renewable energy won't be needed. Coal mining executives strongly favor CCS because without it their day
is done. And the railroads favor CCS because 44% of all rail freight (by weight) is coal.[3]

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: POLLUTION

<EXTEND CLEAN COAL DECREASES EMISSIONS CBS FROM THE 1NC>
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS SOLVE AIR POLLUTION.

Alison Bailie, Associate Scientist in the Energy and Environment group at Tellus, July 2001
[http://www.tellus.org/energy/publications/E01-073-3.pdf, “The American Way to the Kyoto Protocol:”]
In addition to greenhouse gas emission reductions, the set of policies in the Climate Protection case also reduce criteria air
pollutants that harm human health, cause acid rain and smog, and adversely affect agriculture, forests, water resources, and buildings. Implementing the policies would
significantly reduce energy-related emissions as summarized in Table ES.2. Sulfur oxide emissions would decrease the most by half in 2010 and
by nearly 75 percent in 2020. The other pollutants are reduced between 7 and 16 % by 2010, and between 17 and 29 percent by 2020, relative to Base case levels in those years.
The complete Climate Protection package including measures to reduce energy-related, land- related, and non-carbon greenhouse gas emissions, as well as modest
purchases of allowances provides a net economic benefit to the US. It also positively affects public health, by reducing emissions of the key
air quality-reducing pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates,
and volatile organic compounds. By dramatically reducing energy consumption, the Climate Protection strategy reduces our dependence on insecure energy supplies, while
enhancing the standing of the US as a supplier of innovative and environmentally superior technologies and practices. Table ES.2: Impact of policies on air pollutant emissions 1900 2010 2010 2020 2020 Base Case
Climate Protection Base Case Climate Protection
AIR POLLUTION KILLS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS A YEAR.

Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 [The Nuclear Energy Option,
http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/index.html]
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Health and Environmental Research sponsored a multiyear study by a Harvard University research group to evaluate all of the available studies. Its conclusion was that
air pollution is probably causing about 100,000 deaths per year in the United States.11 These deaths are
principally from heart and lung disease. In addition it is estimated that air pollution causes about 1,000
cancer deaths per year.6
The estimate of 100,000 deaths per year means that 1 American out of 30 dies as a result of air pollution.
Most environmental agents that get abundant media attention and public concern, such as Alar in apples, pesticides that have been banned, PCBs, and formaldehyde, give those exposed less than one chance in
100,000 of dying from their effects. We see that air pollution, which gives 1 chance in 30, is thousands of times more harmful.
AND, IT’LL CAUSE EXTINCTION

Katz – Dir of Citizens Awareness Network – 98 (Resist Inc.,
http://www.resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/1998/01/art1.html)
Toxic contamination of the planet threatens human survival. In our time, we will detennine whether there is
clean air to breath, water to drink and places to live for our children and theirs. Industrial technology-with
its shadow of pollution-overwhelms us and threatens the democratic structures on which we depend. The
scientific community and the nuclear industry undermine citizens' confidence in their ability to understand nuclear power and its effects. Many people have withdrawn from the process, potentially allowing vital
decisions to be dictated outside of democratic safeguards.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (ELECTRICITY AFFS)

COAL IS THE BEST AND ONLY OPTION—ONLY CLEAN COAL ALLOWS US TO USE THIS WITHOUT
HARMING THE ENVIORNMENT
Harper—2007 (Ronald R. Harper is the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager for Basin Electric
Power Cooperative in a Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th
Basin Electric is growing and we are looking at developing new base-load generation. After reviewing all of our options, it became clear to us that to meet our needs for
low cost base-load power, the best choice was coal. Both North Dakota and Wyoming have ample supplies of coal and we
have considerable knowledge of building and operating coal-based generation plants. We have built gas generation for peaking
purposes and will build more. However, we do not believe it is prudent to build base-load gas generation and expose our
membership to significant fluctuations in natural gas prices. To provide base-load power, Basin Electric is developing two coal-based facilities, one is the
Dry Fork Station in Wyoming and the other will be located either in North Dakota or South Dakota.
Coal provides 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. It is our most abundant
domestic resource and will continue to play an important role in meeting our Nation’s energy needs.
However, new technology must be developed to use this resource more wisely and efficiently, including
addressing how to capture the CO2 emissions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a step in the right direction in providing tax incentives, loan guarantees, and other
programs to encourage the commercial development of the next generation of clean coal technology.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVSE THE CASE (HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS AFFS)

CLEAN COAL WILL CULMINATE IN THE CREATION OF HYDROGEN FUEL CELL POWER
USINFO—2003 (“Abraham Says U.S. Pursuing Clean Coal Projects with Other Countries”, 12/18/03,
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:P8TYN7L2oVUJ:www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/clean_coal031117.pdf)
Not only that, we see the potential for an additional and perhaps equally significant contribution from clean
coal. We believe coal will become an important source of the hydrogen that will power the fuel cells that
will transform the transportation energy sector in decades to come, as well as contribute greatly to on-site industrial, commercial and residential
power generation.
Breakthroughs in scientific research and new technological developments are the basis for past and future
advances in clean coal, and cooperative international efforts such as this Conference will speed our
progress and spread the benefits of our work.
DEMAND FOR COAL IS INCREASING, CONTINUED R&D FOR CLEAN COAL IS CRITICAL FOR
DEVELOPMENT—THIS IS KEY TO SUPPLY CLEAN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS
CARE—2006 (Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, “Cleaner Enviornment; Clean Coal Technology
(CTT)”, 06, http://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_environment/clean-coal-technology.asp)
Clean Coal Technologies—the products of research and development conducted over the past 20 years—
have resulted in more than 20 new, lower-cost, more efficient and environmentally compatible
technologies for electric utilities, steel mills, cement plants and other industries.
Source: U.S. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy
Clean coal technologies helped make it possible for U.S. utilities to meet more stringent Clean Air Act
requirements while continuing to utilize America’s most plentiful domestic energy resource—coal.
The original Clean Coal Technology Program, which began in 1986, focused on commercializing processes that helped
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and demonstrating more efficient and environmentally
friendly alternatives to traditional pulverized coal boilers.
New programs in clean coal technology—such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)—are essential for building on the
progress of the original Clean Coal Technology Program, finding solutions for reducing trace emissions of
mercury; reducing or eliminating carbon dioxide emissions; and increasing fuel efficiencies. Over the
longer term, research in clean coal technology will be directed toward developing coal-based hydrogen
fuels. If coupled with sequestration, this will allow greater use of coal with zero emissions. The U.S.
Department of Energy has announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will lead to
the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing
greenhouse gases.
Clean Coal Technology is Important, Now and in the Future
Electricity demand will increase 53.4 percent over the next 25 years. Meeting this rising growth rate will
require the construction of the equivalent of more than 1,200 new power plants of 300 megawatts each—the equivalent of about 65
plants each year.
Coal will remain the largest single source of electricity—accounting for 51 percent of power generation in
2025. Clean coal technologies will help meet these needs, plus continue the decline in SO2 and NOx
emissions already underway.
Source: Table 8, Annual Energy Outlook 2003
The recently announced FutureGen project takes clean coal technology even further. FutureGen, a plant to
produce hydrogen from coal and sequester emissions, will be the world’s first zero emission coal-fired
plant.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY IS KEY TO A TRANSITION TO THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY—

FUTUREGEN PROVES
Business Wire—2005 (“Clean Coal Technology Will Aid Energy Security, Hydrogen Economy and Slow
Climate Change, says The Thinking Companies”, 12/7/05,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Dec_7/ai_n15924840)
FALMOUTH, Maine -- The seeds of the hydrogen economy lie buried in the coal beds of North America. "Wise
companies will get in on the ground floor of clean coal technology in order to be best positioned for the
hydrogen economy of the future," says Peter R. Savage, CEO of The Thinking Companies, an energy think tank. "We applaud the Bush
Administration's launch of the FutureGen project. The companies who will profit from a coal-based

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
hydrogen economy are those who are willing to invest in today's and tomorrow's clean coal technologies,"
notes Savage, the co-author of "Back To Coal: Why Utilities Must Reconsider This Cheap, Plentiful Fuel."
"Back to Coal" is a highly readable, comprehensive report that tells you in detail:
--How coal combustion has progressed, detailing many new efficiency improvements
--Why coal gasification is now a realistic contender for electricity generation
--What's emerging in the way of efficient clean-up techniques to solve SOx, NOx and mercury problems
--How gasification-based IGCCs will help utilities be the founders of a hydrogen economy, if they choose
--How we've made progress in CO2 sequestration
--How coal will beat the path to energy independence, long before renewables can hope to contribute
"Clean coal technology can provide energy that doesn't pollute, uses cheap, domestically available fuel,
and supports the US workforce," says co-author Shirley Strzelecki Savage. "You can't outsource energy production," she notes, "so
why would you want to import a fuel source like LNG? It doesn't make sense."

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVSE THE CASE (HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS AFFS)

THE DOE IS INCREASING CLEAN COAL R&D WHICH WOULD REDUCE EMISSIONS TO ZERO AND
PRODUCE HYDROGEN POWER
Since 1978 the DOE has supported a broad effort of RD&D on advanced coal technologies for: (a) coal
processing, (b) environmental control, (c) advanced power generation, (d) CO2 capture and sequestration,
and (e) industrial coal applications. A number of these activities have been undertaken in cooperation with industry and other organizations such as EPRI.
Figure 6.1 presents a timeline of the major RD&D program components. Since 1978 DOE has spent about $10 billion (2003 $) on these activities. The Clean Coal Technology
Demonstration Program focused on commercial scale demonstration of technologies to improve the

efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of coal-fired power generation. The Power Plant Improvement Initiative focused on
demonstrating near-term technologies for improving environmental and operational performance of the PC fleet. The current Clean Coal Power Initiative is directed
toward demonstrating innovative technologies to help meet the Clear Sky Initiative, the Global Climate
Change Initiative, Future- Gen, and the Hydrogen Initiative. FutureGen is intended to demonstrate the first
commercial- scale, near-zero-emissions, integrated sequestration and hydrogen production power plant. The
Advanced Research program is designed to develop the underlying basic science and innovative technologies to support the demonstration programs.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (NATURAL GAS AFFS)

LACK OF COAL CONSUMPTION LEADS TO NATURAL GAS USE
AFX International Focus—2006 (“Railroads struggle to ship coal in U.S.”, 6/10/06, L-N)
Richard Bower, engineering assistant at the plant, said ideally the plant would have 700,000 to 800,000 tons of coal on hand. But this
winter, the plant's coal supply dwindled as low as 150,000 tons, less than a week's supply, prompting Basin Electric to consider curtailing power
production.
'It's not increased generations causing the stockpile to go down,' Basin Electric spokesman Robb said. 'It's lack of coal deliveries.'
Other power companies are having similar supply problems. Entergy Arkansas said its coal shipments declined up to 20 percent last year , forcing it to reduce
operations at two power plants in Arkansas and to buy power on the open market. Wisconsin utilities incurred nearly $50 million in extra costs last year because of interruptions in coal shipments.
Entergy Arkansas has sued Union Pacific Railroad, claiming the railroad schemed to hold back deliveries of Wyoming coal in an effort to make more money. UP denied the claim, saying it actually turned down new
contracts to ship coal in order to catch up with delayed shipments to existing customers.
Power generating companies are not expecting any improvement this year. David Wilks, president of energy supply for the Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, testified before a Senate committee last month that
power companies may be forced to buy up to $2 billion worth of natural gas to make up for a coal shortfall.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (OIL ADVANTAGES)

COAL CAN BE CONVERTED INTO AN ALTERNATIVE TO OIL AND IT WOULD BE CHEAPER—CLEAN
COAL IS KEY TO DO THIS WITHOUT HURTING THE ENVIORNMENT
the-rise-of.html)
Coal may be converted into oil or gas through chemical processes. It is reported that China is currently investing $6 billion in production facilities
that will have the capacity to make 14 million barrels of oil a year (Heinberg, 2006: 29). Coal costs about $50 a tonne and the conversion from coal to
oil results in an energy loss of 40% (thus, one tonne of coal may be converted into just under three barrels of oil). Assuming a plant life of 20 years, then the total
production cost of converting coal into oil is about $38 a barrel. Given the current world oil prices, this is
not particularly expensive.
However, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels. If coal is mined and used on a massive scale to replace oil and natural gas, the
emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollution would get out of control. The world would be on the
path towards environmental catastrophe.
Pollution problems may be somewhat alleviated if so-called "clean coal" and carbon sequestration technologies
are used to remove some of the pollution elements when coal is being processed. However, these technologies involve higher capital
costs and reduce overall energy efficiency. They would not help to address the emissions generated by transportation vehicles, industrial and agricultural equipment (unattached to large-scale facilities) and
residential homes (Boyle et al., 2003: 48, 577-83; The Economist, 2-8 December 2006 (Technology Quarterly Section): 30-2).
STRONG COAL INDUSTRY CAN SOLVE FOR OIL DEMANDS

Heinberg—2008 (Richard Heinberg is a Staff Writer for the Global Public Media, “Coal in the United
States”, 5/28/08, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45005)
The nation is currently paying over $620 billion per year for petroleum imports, and this ongoing transfer
of wealth abroad cannot help but have a substantial negative impact on the domestic economy. There are
three ways to moderate that impact: reduce consumption of liquid fuels through conservation; produce
more fuels domestically; or electrify transport, which will require more electricity. Coal could help with either of the latter two
strategies. Given that the nation possesses so much coal, and that energy from coal is still relatively
cheap, it would seem inevitable that strong arguments will be made for a dramatic increase in coal
production to help solve the nation’s energy problems.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA—SOLVES THE CASE (WARMING ADVANTAGES)

CURRENT COAL PLANTS EMIT A TON OF CO2—SUCESSFUL R&D FOR CLEAN COAL WOULD SOLVE
Phillips—2007 (Jeff Phillips is a Program Manager for Advanced Coal Generation for the Electric Power
Research Institute, in a Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 110th
A ‘‘typical’’ 500 MW (net) coal plant emits about 3 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The annual power output
and emissions of the current U.S. coal fleet are roughly equivalent to 600 such plants. The contributions attributable to individual
plants vary considerably with differences in plant steam cycle, coal type, capacity factor, and operating regimes. For a given fuel, a new supercritical PC unit built today might produce 5–10 percent less CO2 per
megawatt-hour (MWh) than the existing fleet average for that coal type.
With an aggressive RD&D program on efficiency improvement, new ultra-supercritical (USC PC) plants could
reduce CO2 emissions per MWh by up to 25 percent relative to the existing fleet average. Significant
efficiency gains are also possible for IGCC plants by employing advanced gas turbines and through more
energy-efficient oxygen plants and synthesis (fuel) gas cleanup technologies.
COAL IS DISASTROUS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT—CLEAN COAL DOESN’T EXIST NOW BUT
EFFECTIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN COAL WOULD SOLVE
Burke—2004 (Dr. Frank Burke is the Vice President of the Research and Development Consol Energy Inc.,
Speaking on behalf of the National Mining Association to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
in the United States Senate, “Sustainable Low Emission Electricity Generation”, 4/27/07,
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:s9HW7uGJx9AJ:www.nma.org/pdf/cong_test/burke_042704.pd)
The Need for Clean Coal Technologies
One of the principal reasons for developing new coal-fired generating technologies is to ensure that
electricity generation from coal does not compromise environmental quality. Because of its chemical composition, coal poses
more environmental concerns than other fossil fuels. On average, coal contains more sulfur and nitrogen, and more mineral
matter, than oil or natural gas. Fortunately, the means are available to control the emission of these substances into
the environment to levels that meet current regulatory limits with the wide range of technologies already
deployed on many coal-fired power stations. These include particulate collection devices, such as electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters that control emissions of coal
ash, flue gas desulfurization scrubbers of various designs that control emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and a variety of methods and devices for reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Many of
these were developed under the DOE-industry partnerships of the Clean Coal Program. There are no
technologies in widespread commercial use today to control emissions of mercury or carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, but as I will discuss, these
are the subjects of active research programs.
CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO LEVEL OFF CLIMATE CHANGE

Wicks—2008 (Malcolm Wicks is an Energy Minister, “Is clean coal the best way to meet spiralling energy
needs and save the planet?”, 6/25/08,
http://society.guardian.co.uk/thecarbonquestion/story/0,,2287188,00.html)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could cut CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power generation by up to
90%. The International Energy Agency predicts the technology could contribute up to 28% of the global
CO2 reductions needed by 2050 to stabilise temperature rises at 2C.
The agency also estimates CCS costs could halve as technology develops. And models - including that in
the Stern review - show that including CCS in our climate mitigation plans could reduce the cost of cutting
CO2 emissions by up to 60%. It's for these reasons that the government is investing in CCS technology.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—UNIQUENESS: COAL DEMAND HIGH

DEMAND IS GROWIGN FOR CLEAN COAL NOW
WNA—2008 (World Nuclear Association“"Clean Coal" Technologies”, 2/08, http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/inf83.html)
The clean coal technology field is moving very rapidly in the direction of coal gasification with a second stage so as to
produce a concentrated and pressurised carbon dioxide stream followed by its separation and geological storage. This technology has the potential to provide what may
be called "zero emissions" - in reality, extremely low emissions of the conventional coal pollutants, and as low-as-engineered carbon dioxide emissions.
This has come about as a result of the realisation that efficiency improvements, together with the use of
natural gas and renewables such as wind will not provide the deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary to
meet future national targets.
The US DOE sees "zero emissions" coal technology as a core element of its future energy supply in a
carbon-constrained world. It had an ambitious program to develop and demonstrate the technology and
have commercial designs for plants with an electricity cost of only 10% greater than conventional coal
plants available by 2012, but with the cancellation of FutureGen this is in doubt.
COAL CONSUMPTION IS HIGH AND IS UNLIKELY TO FALL

We live in a world that was built and is sustained by inexpensive, readily available fossil fuels. Fossil energy powers our delivery vehicles and all of our farm machinery, it pumps water to our homes, it produces
nearly all of the products that we call chemicals. In short, without fossil fuels our civilization cannot exist as we currently know it. Figure 1 shows the percentage of various energy sources used to run American
It can be easily seen that natural gas, petroleum, and coal make up the vast majority of
civilization from 1920 to 2002.
American energy demand and that as petroleum and gas consumption have risen or fallen, coal has done
the inverse. This is because coal is the only real alternative for gas and oil. Some might argue that there could be other sources of energy
and they would be right but we are simply not ready for them.
COAL PRODUCTION IS RISING AND WILL CONTINUE TO RISE

There is almost no doubt that coal production will rise in the future and the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA)
predicts that coal consumption will greatly increase in the next two decades.4 Most would agree that this will not
be a problem because in the U.S. we have hundreds of years of reserves remaining. Years of reserves remaining is easy enough to
calculate: one only need determine how many tons of coal remain in the ground (available from the EIA) and divide by the production for that year. If we look at the year 2000, we can see that we have 255 years of
coal remaining. However, if we look at other years, we see something strange: there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by,
we use our coal more quickly and we see that the standard formulation of 'years remaining' is nearly meaningless.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: A2 LINK NON-UNIQUE (ALTERNATIVE

ENERGY NOW)
DESPITE CURRENT LEVELS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY THE COAL INDUSTRY IS STILL GROWING—
THIS WILL LIKELY CONTINUE BUT THROUGH DIRTY COAL
Despite environmental concerns and the development of alternative energy sources, the coal industry (and coal
consumption) is on the rise, with no signs of slowing in the next few decades. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
indicates that U.S. coal production in 2005 increased 1.9% to 1133.3 million short tons. This is the second straight year
of increased production after significant declines from 2001-2003. This trend is expected to continue. The EIA predicts that U.S.
coal production will continue to increase by an average of 1.1% each year until 2015, when total production will equal 1272
million short tons. Coal production growth should be even stronger between 2015 and 2030, averaging 2% per year, as electricity demand
continues to increase. This demand will likely be met with new or expanded coal-fired power plants.
THE ALTERNATIVE THAT IS BEING USED NOW IS NATURAL GAS—WHICH IS LETTING COAL
MAINTAIN ITS COMPETITIVE ADVANAGE
Alternative means of electricity production are actively being pursued to reduce global reliance on coal.
These alternatives, however, have had only limited success. For instance, in the United States, where coal is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, the
chief alternative to coal is cleaner, natural gas. During the 1990s, the price of natural gas averaged below $3 per
thousand cubic feet. These low prices made new, low-cost, efficient natural gas combined cycle power
plants competitive with coal-generated power. As a result of the lower prices and environmental concerns, the electric power sector shifted to increased natural gas
use. Since 2000, natural gas prices have increased and are projected to remain above $3 per thousand cubic feet,
making coal-fired plants increasingly more competitive. Based on the current forecasts, coal will retain its competitive
advantage over natural gas for the foreseeable future. This has resulted in a swing back toward greater
reliance on coal. Consistent with this shift, the Department of Energy recently reported that U.S. utilities are planning to build 150 more coal-fired power plants through 2030, with nearly half slated
for operation by 2011.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: RENEWABLES

COAL IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE MAIN FOCUS FOR GLOBAL ENERGY, UNLESS
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES ARE INCREASED—AND COAL IS KEY TO MAINTAIN
CHINESE RAPID GROWTH THAT IS KEY TO GLOBAL GROWTH
Coal Industry Advisory Board—2008 (The Coal Industry Advisory Board is a group of high-level
executives from coal-related industrial enterprises, established by the International Energy Agency, “Clean
Coal Technologies: Accelerating Commercial and Policy Drivers for Deployment”, 08,
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:an3800g0z3MJ:www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2008/Clean_Coal_CIAB
_2008.pdf+https://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2008/Clean_Coal_CIAB_2008.pdf)
Because of its abundance, broad geographic distribution and comparatively low and stable delivered cost,
coal will remain a key component of the electricity generation fuel mix for most of this century, unless
there are major breakthroughs in alternative energy technologies. Global proved reserves for all types of coal are 909 billion tonnes, of which 41.1%
are located in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries (BP, 2007). In contrast, OECD countries have 6.6% of the world’s oil reserves and 8.8% of the natural gas reserves
In electricity generation, coal plays a crucial role

(ibid.). : in the OECD in 2005, coal supplied 38% of generation and renewables 3%; in North America coal was 44.9%
of electricity production and renewables 2.4% (IEA, 2006b). The growth in global coal consumption has accelerated in the decade 1995-2005: up 36% worldwide and over 70% in Asia (ibid.). Coal’s share of primary
energy consumption has declined in Europe but increased in Asia. While hard coal consumption has declined slowly in Europe over the past quarter century and increased gradually in North America, in Asia
The rapid rise of Asia’s economies has been,

consumption has increased by almost 300% slowing only for a few years after the 1997 Asian financial crisis (Figure 4).
above all, powered by coal and coal demand will likely rise strongly as Asian countries continue to raise
living standards (Figure 5). The BP Statistical Review of World Energy reveals that in the period 2001-2006, coal consumption in the Asia-Pacific region increased by 642.1 mtoe, accounting for some
91% of the global increase in coal consumption during that period.
China leads global growth. It has embarked on campaigns to close older, smaller coal-fired stations and
has indicated its desire for the future to primarily build supercritical units of 600 MW or above 1. In 2005, about 70 GW
of new generation came online in China. In 2006, the comparable figure was 102 GW, of which 89% was coal. For 2007, a further 90 GW are expected2. Longer term, the goals are even more ambitious. A vice-
minister of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) indicated that, by 2025, China’s power consumption could reach 11 000 terawatt hours (TWh) with a generating capacity of 2 400 GW3,
increases of 330% and 360%, respectively, from current levels. Although these figures are significantly above other forecasts, coal could make up about 78% of the generation mix by 2030 with nuclear at 3%,
natural gas at 4%, hydro at 12% and renewables at 3% (IEA, 2007c).
THE INCREASE USE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TRADES OFF WITH STATUS QUO ENERGYS—LIKE
COAL
Goffman—2008 (Ethan Goffman is a Correspondent for Politics and Environment, “Renewable Energy
Likely to Overtake Oil And Coal Sooner than You Think”, 6/17/08,
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977375141&grpId=3659174697247171&nav=Gro
upspace)
Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute panel (Tipping Point).
Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and other
renewable energies, such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow.
Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains that we are at an amazing moment in the history of energy, a transformational
moment, driven by historic high energy costs, concern about climate change, and the worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are
likely to replace oil and gas sooner rather than later.
Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the scope and import of this expansion are severely under-reported, according
to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric Martinot. Investment in new renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007 and continues to exceed expectations.
Government policy has been a key driver, Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable energy.If current policies supporting renewable energy are
simply maintained, he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable.
Venture capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment, explains that the implications of current growth are far bigger than
people think. Conventional energy use is growing only incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth
of renewable energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed.
Conventional thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually unchallenged, is all wrong, according to Liebreich. This is
because the big curve upward of renewable energy will inevitably beat the little curve of conventional
energy.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: NUCLEAR POWER

INCREASED USE OF NUCLEAR POWER WOULD DECREASE THE USE OF COAL
Totty—2008 (Michael Totty is a news editor for The Journal Report in San Francisco, “The Case For and
Against Nuclear Power”, 6/30/08,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
First, economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear
power uneconomical when compared with other sources of power.
But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin
construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. As we build
more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders become more comfortable.
Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to
It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been

reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction.
around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so
many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to
get it going.
It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is raising the cost of new plants. But if we start building
more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the demand, lowering the
price.
Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of "cheaper" fossil
fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those
costs, and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain.
That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to greenhouse gases, through
either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which
would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or
trade credits to companies whose pollution exceeds the cap.
Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive
compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower.
It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically
competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: RPS

AN RPS WOULD DECREASE THE USE OF COAL
Energy Information Administration—2007 (The Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government,
“Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard”, 6/07,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html)
The increase in renewable generation stimulated by the RPS primarily displaces coal fired generation. By
2030, coal generation is 3,086 billion kilowatthours with the RPS compared with 3,330 billion kilowatthours
in the reference case, a reduction of about 7 percent. Coal generation is still expected to grow significantly from 2,000 billion kilowatthours in 2005. Nuclear
generation is reduced by less than 5 percent, to 856 billion kilowatthours with the RPS from 896 billion kilowatthours in the reference case. As with coal, this still represents significant growth relative to 2005
generation levels. Natural gas generation is about 2 percent less than the 2030 reference case level of 932 billion kilowatthours.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—LINK: WIND POWER

WIND POWER HAS A ZERO SUM RELATION WITH COAL
Mays—2007 (Janice Mays is the Chief Counsel for the Committee on Ways & Means for U.S. House of
Representatives, Responding through the Energy Information Administration which is The Official Energy
Statistics from the U.S. Government, ”Analysis of Alternative Extensions of the Existing Production Tax
Credit for Wind Generator”, 5/07, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/index.html)
In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged. Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces generation from
other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of
generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from dedicated
biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030, when compared to the
reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect
on coal generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of
the additional wind generation is at the expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind
power production levels that are above reference case levels result in a dampening of coal generation of
the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity generated
from coal. Even in this case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: CLEAN COAL

HIGH DEMAND FOR COAL IS KEY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN COAL
Evans—2008 (Jared Evans is a Writer for Edzine, “Clean Coal Technology, Record Oil Prices - Will Coal
Rally?” 6/8/08, http://ezinearticles.com/?Clean-Coal-Technology,-Record-Oil-Prices---Will-Coal-
Rally?&id=1234181)
However, as the demand for coal increases, so will the development of "clean coal" technology, an environmentally safe use for
coal. As stated in a New York Times article, "[e]nvironmentalists are worried, but they put their faith in a technology that gasifies the coal before burning. Such plants are designed, they say, to be more adaptable to
separating the carbon and storing it underground."
With China now demanding more coal than it can produce and India following right behind, and plug-in hybrid cars going
mainstream in the US due to outrageous gas prices, coal is going to become a very hot commodity. "Within the next few years,
power companies are planning to build about 150 coal plants to meet growing electricity demands.
In another New York Times article, "[m]ajor corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on
Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration."
With the US being called the Saudi Arabia of coal with the most reserves of any other nation, and coal
being an "essential part of the world's energy future," it is only a matter of time until the coal rally begins.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: ECONOMY

COAL IS KEY TO ECONOMIC GROWTH—ONLY CLEAN COAL CAN ASSURE THAT GROWTH CAN
OCCUR WITHOUT HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT
I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these important hearings. Mr. Chairman, we agree with the statement in your letter of invitation to testify that “actions should be taken today to prepare the
nation for a future time when oil and gas prices and availability limit their uses to areas other than electricity generation.” As emphasized in the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest Annual Energy
the demand for electricity is expected to increase by nearly 50% by 2025 and we can
Outlook published in January of this year,
only assume that this growth will continue beyond that time. Affordable and clean electric energy must be
available to allow our nation to reach its full economic potential. Clean electric energy means economic
growth and it means jobs. Coal, which is over 90% of our nation’s domestic energy resource on a Btu basis, and
now provides over 50% of the electricity we use, is - and must continue to be - the source for much of this
electricity. Advanced clean coal technologies that are being developed under long-standing federal/private
partnerships will assure that coal can continue to be used in a manner consistent with environmental
needs.
COAL PRODUCTION IS KEY TO AMERICAN ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY AND WE HAVE ENOUGH

COAL TO MAINTAIN THE PRODUCTION FOR ANOTHER 250 YEARS DESPITE GROWING DEMAND
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on the Department of Energy’s advanced clean coal technologies and the
program for carbon capture and storage.
The economic prosperity of the United States over the past century has been built upon an abundance of
fossil fuels in North America. The United States’ fossil fuel resources represent a tremendous national
asset. Making full use of this domestic asset in a responsible manner enables the country to fulfill its
energy requirements, minimize detrimental environmental impacts, and positively contribute to national
security.
Given current technologies, coal prices, and rates of consumption, the United States has approximately a
250-year supply of coal available. Coal-fired power plants supply about half of our electricity and are expected to continue to do so through mid-century. Because
electricity production increases at a rate of about 2 percent per year, the rate of coal use will increase
proportionally. However, the continued use of this secure domestic resource will be dependent on the
development of cost-effective technology options to meet both economic and environmental goals,
including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
COAL IS KEY TO THE ECONOMY

The United States is not unique in its dependence on coal, and it is vital to our national interest to promote
the increased use of coal not only domestically, but worldwide as a key component of our energy and
economic security. The most compelling evidence of this is China. This year, the Chinese will mine and consume 1.5 billion tons of coal. In 15 years, they will consume 2.5 billion tons; China’s
increase alone will equal our current consumption. They expect to double their coal-fueled electricity generating capacity to 600 GW by 2020. By 2040, the Chinese expect to use 4 billion tons of coal annually.
Throughout the world, economic growth and political stability are tied to electrification, and electricity is
tied to coal. Therefore, the desire and, in fact, the necessity of the world to utilize its abundant coal resources will not
be denied. Energy availability and energy quality are key to meeting all three aspects of sustainable
development: economic, societal and environmental. The question is not whether we need or will use coal
for human development, but how we will use it.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: ECONOMY

COAL MINING IS KEY TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY—4 WARRENTS—THIS HELPS THE ECONOMY
AT THE NATIONAL, STATE, AND INDIVIDUAL LEVELS—THIS IS LIKELY TO INCREASE—PREFER OUR
EVIDENCE CITES GOVERNMENT STUDIES
CARE—2006 (Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, “Fueling Growth; Benefits of Mining”, 06,
http://www.careenergy.com/fueling_growth/strategic.asp)
The value of coal produced in the United States each year is nearly $18 billion.
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2001, T.7.8, and T.7.2
Coal is directly responsible for the existence of more than 90,000 U.S. jobs and nearly one million jobs
directly and indirectly.
Source: EIA, Western Economic Analysis Center (WEAC), 1998, p. 17
Coal mining has a combined direct and indirect impact of $161 billion annually on the U.S. economy. This is
$596 for every U.S. citizen.
Source: WEAC 1998, p. 17; EIA Annual Energy Review 1998, T.E1
Individual Americans and their families receive a significant amount of personal income as a result of coal
mining's monetary contributions to the economy: $37 billion annually, or nearly 1percent of all earnings
received by the country's workers.
Source: WEAC 1998, p. 17; U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Wages Annual Analysis 1998, p. 6
Every state, even those without reserves or mining, benefits economically in some way from U.S. coal
production. In fact, California and New York, two states without coal mining, are among those that benefit
the most from combined direct and indirect economic impacts.
Source: WEAC 1998, p. 3
The federal government receives more than $11 billion annually in taxes and fees from the coal industry.
State and local governments receive nearly $9 billion each year in revenues.
Developing countries' demand for coal will double through 2020, according to the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).
Source: EIA, International Energy Outlook 2001, p.177
Production rates have reached an average of more than six tons per miner per hour, or nearly 52 tons in a
single eight-hour day. In 1945, there were 390,382 coal miners (includes anthracite) who averaged almost
six tons of coal production a day.
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2001, T.7.6; Coal Data: A Reference 1998, pages 48-51
COAL IS KEY TO THE ECONOMY

Partners for Affordable Energy—No Date Given (“Economic Impact”,
http://www.powerofcoal.com/?id=3&page=Economic+Impact)
Aside from powering America, coal-based electricity boosts our economy.
Each percentage increase in electric usage is matched roughly by a percentage increase in the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). Today, roughly 50 percent of the electricity in the United States comes from coal.
Low-cost electricity helps farmers and businesses because it lowers their operational expenses and allows
them to be competitive on an international level. It also promotes industrial and economic development, since
low electricity costs attract new business and help retain our existing companies. Low-cost electricity is particularly beneficial to Minnesota and North Dakota as we consume high amounts of energy because of our
weather extremes while enjoying some of the lowest electric rates in the nation.
About 65 percent of Minnesota’s electricity comes from coal. Minnesota’s average electric rates are the 17th lowest in the U.S. Overall, Minnesota’s total
economic benefit from coal exceeds $2.5 billion annually.
North Dakota’s average electric rates are the 8th lowest in the U.S., and about 24,000 jobs in the state are
part of the coal mining and power generating industries. In fact, people working for the coal industry in North Dakota enjoy some of the state’s highest wages.
North Dakota’s economy receives more than $1 billion due to coal, and over $80 million in tax revenue annually.
Coal-based electricity generates substantial economic benefits for our region’s economy, and will continue
to do so for years to come.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA—IMPACT: ECONOMY (A2 OFFENSE-COAL

INEVITABLE)
THE COAL INDUSTRY IS INEVITABLE—ECONOMIC POWER, ENERGY TIES—IT’S ONLY A QUESTION
IF THEY ARE PRODUCTIVE TO THE ECONOMY
Washington Times—2006 (“International demand fuels market for U.S. coal”, 1/5/06
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/jan/04/20060104-115800-2050r/?page=1)
The American coal industry, supported by burgeoning international demand for energy and continuing U.S. reliance on the fossil fuel for electricity, has seen steadily
rising sales, revenue and investment after almost 20 years of stagnation.
"It is a thriving industry. We produce more coal year in and year out than ever before. It is still one of our lowest-cost, if
not the lowest-cost, source of energy," said Trina Karolchik Wafle, associate director at National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University.
A deadly accident at a West Virginia coal mine this week underscored the dangerous work performed by tens of thousands of miners to keep power plants and industries running worldwide.
Coal-burning power plants produce about half of all electricity in the U.S.
Rising prices for natural gas, caused by strong demand and exacerbated by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico this summer, has made some
gas-fired plants too expensive to operate. They account for 23 percent of U.S. electric-generating capacity
but less than 18 percent of output, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Regulatory limits on nuclear energy, which generates almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and
technological barriers with other sources leave coal as one of the most cost-effective, if heavily polluting,
sources of energy.
"Coal is still the predominant fuel used in generating electricity, and the demand for electricity continues
to increase. Because of that, the demand for coal will continue to increase for the foreseeable future," said Pat
Hemlepp, spokesman for American Electric Power, the largest U.S. coal consumer.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CHINA COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: COAL DEMAND HIGH

CHINA WILL MAINTAIN A HIGH DEMAND FOR COAL—IT PROVIDES CHEAP AND NECESSARY
ENERGY
In an alternative scenario, China will remain heavily dependent on coal for electric power, for industrial heat, as a
chemical feedstock, and increasingly, for transportation fuels, even as demand continues to grow rapidly in
each of these sectors. The prospect of continued high oil and gas prices make the coal-intensive scenario
more plausible today than it was during the era of cheap oil.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CHINA COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA COAL INDUSTRY 2NC

CHINA IS RELIANCT ON US COAL NOW
Washington Times—2006 (“International demand fuels market for U.S. coal”, 1/5/06
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/jan/04/20060104-115800-2050r/?page=1)
China, meanwhile, is demanding more fuel for its steel mills and growing electricity needs, prompting U.S. mines
to export coal rather than leave it on the U.S. market. China is the world's largest coal producer and
consumer.
"The wide-ranging economic expansion experienced in China in 2004 drove world markets for many
commodities into overdrive and helped to re-establish the United States into Asian coal markets," the EIA said in a
November report.
Rising global demand has been good news for U.S. mining companies, which sit on the world's largest coal
reserves.
LOW PRICE AND HIGH AVAILABILITY OF US COAL IS WHY CHINA IMPORTS US COAL—REVERSAL
OF THESE WOULD CAUSE CHINA TO START PRODUCING MORE COAL RATHER THAN IMPORTING
IT
Marquardt—2008 (Katy Marquardt is a Staff Writer for U.S. News, “Skip Alternative Energy—Dig for Coal
Stocks”, 6/5/08, http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/06/05/skip-alternative-
energy--dig-for-coal-stocks.html)
Hess Corp. is a U.S. name that is working alongside Petrobras in Brazil on this major new oil find. Hess will likely be able to double their proven reserves of oil from a small $36 million investment they made seven
we think the most exciting part of the U.S. energy sector today is our nation's coal companies.
years ago. That said,
the U.S. has the largest reserves of coal in the world, with a 27 percent share.
According to the Energy Information Administration,
Compared to other fossil fuels, coal is by far the cheapest fossil fuel in the world today.
Also, the dynamics are changing in the coal industry. Three situations have developed: First, China, which
was once a big exporter of coal, has become an importer to feed its growing demand for electricity.
Second, there have been major disruptions to the operations of the traditional coal exporters, with flooding
in Australia and power outages in South Africa. Third, U.S. coal is more attractively priced than coal from
other regions of the world. These dynamics have made for dramatic increases in the exports of U.S. coal,
although traditionally, our coal was used primarily for domestic consumption. This export demand shows
no signs of letting up in the future, as both India and China each plan to build more than 1,000 new coal-
fired electricity plants over the next five years.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CHINA COAL DA—IMPACT: CHINA COAL INDUSTRY (SAFETY IMPACT)

CHINA’S COAL INDUSTRY KILLS ALMOST 10,000 A YEAR IN ACCIDENTS
Tu—2006 (Jianjun Tu is a Staff Writer for the The Jamestown Foundation, “Safety Challenges in China's
Coal Mining Industry”, 3/15/06, http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2997.html)
Even India, a sizable developing country with a notoriously poor past safety record was able to reduce this rate to less than 9% of China’s current rate [3]. With such high fatality rates,
China alone accounts for approximately 80% of the total deaths in coal mine accidents worldwide (China Daily,
November 13, 2004). Much like its coal production statistics, the safety record of China’s coal industry is full of
controversy (China Brief, October 25, 2006). The official coal mine fatality statistics range from 5,602 to 6,995 deaths
annually in the last decade, though independent experts state that China’s actual death toll is much higher, as mine
owners routinely falsify death counts in order to avoid mine closures or fines [4].

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN

COAL/HYDROGEN FUEL CELL FAR OFF
CLEAN COAL AND HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS ARE JUST HOLLOW PROMISES THAT WON’T
MATERIALIZE FOR DECADES
For the Bush administration, the promise of true "clean coal" is remarkably similar to the promise of the
hydrogen fuel-cell car -- a tantalizing technological fix that's decades off, so one can endorse it happily and
continue merrily polluting in the present. So the administration continues to promote its FutureGen
Initiative, a research project to create a power plant that generates electricity and hydrogen while
generating no emissions, including CO2, which would be captured and trapped under the ground.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—UNIQUENESS: NO CLEAN COAL

NOW
THE DOE IS CUTTING ITS FUNDING TO THE FUTUREGEN PROJECT WHICH WILL PREVENT CLEAN
COAL FROM COMING NOW
The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) announced January 30 that it is pulling out of the Futuregen Project in Mattoon, Illinois -- America's
$1.8 billion "clean coal" demonstration plant scheduled to start construction next year. DoE had committed
to paying 74% ($1.3 billion) of Futuregen's costs.
"Clean coal" is the coal industry's term for various end-of-pipe filters that capture carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the main global warming gas -- pressurize it into a liquid, and store it underground, hoping it will stay there
forever. This is known as "carbon capture and storage" or CCS for short.
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and other Illinois politicians immediately denounced DoE for reneging on its commitment to the Mattoon "clean coal" project. (Not to be outdone, Mr. Obama's political rival, Senator
Hillary Clinton, has said that, if elected President, she will "put immediate funding towards 10 large-scale carbon capture and storage projects.")
DoE's 13 industrial partners in the Illinois project (the Futuregen Alliance) have bravely promised to press ahead, but
without DoE's billions, the Illinois project is almost certainly dead.
Ho hum, you say?
Not so. The U.S. response to global warming -- and therefore, arguably, the future of the planet -- is wrapped up in this fight.
President Bush had personally announced the Futuregen project Feb. 17, 2003 as a "bold" 10-year demonstration to turn coal into gas (mainly hydrogen and carbon dioxide), burn the hydrogen to make electricity,
In
and bury the carbon dioxide a mile underground, hoping it would stay there forever. Originally Futuregen was also intended to produce liquid transportation fuels from coal, according to the New York Times .
2003, Futuregen was supposed to cost $750 million, but recent estimates have escalated to $1.8 billion,
and further increases were expected, so the DoE pulled out.
Futuregen was an important part of the coal-industry's "clean coal" campaign because it would combine,
for the first time, coal gasification with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Coal gasification had been demonstrated at commercial scale a decade
ago at the small (260-megaWatt) Polk Power Station 40 miles southeast of Tampa, Fla. (Polk uses a system called IGCC , short for integrated gasification combined cycle.) Despite this technical innovation, Polk still
emits its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Futuregen in Illinois was supposed to show that a small (275- megaWatt) electric power plant could combine coal gasification with
carbon capture and storage (CCS), reducing near-term CO2 emissions by perhaps 85% compared to standard coal-burning plants.[1, pg. 4] (In the longer term, no one knows if, or when, CO2 stored below ground
will escape to the atmosphere. The stated goal of the Futuregen project is to store CO2 below ground for 5000 years.)

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—LINK: CARBON TAX LINK TURN

BIG COALS CLAIMS OF ZERO- EMISSIONS ARE FALSE—WONT ACTUALLY BE DEPLOYED UNLESS A
CARBON TAX IS DEPLOYED
Big Coal would like us all to believe that capturing and storing CO2 from these new coal plants is a slam-
dunk technology -- but one that's not quite ready for prime time yet (capturing CO2 from existing
combustion coal plants, while theoretically possible, is far too expensive and ineffecient to be taken
seriously by anyone but the most die-hard coal boosters).
Of course, Big Coal has always been better at touting new technology than actually deploying it. Yes, there
are serious questions about how much it will cost to build new coal plants that can capture and store CO2,
how soon will it happen, and whether or not the technology can scale up quickly enough to really make a
difference. But it's not technology that's holding back CCS. It's politics. Without a price on carbon, there is
little incentive to do anything serious about CO2 emissions from coal plants. Indeed, for Big Coal, the game now
is not to prove that carbon capture and storage is a viable technology. It's to use the expense and
complexity of it as leverage in negotiations over climate legislation.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—LINK: NO TRADE-OFF

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DOESN’T DECREASE THE USE OF COAL—OUR EVIDENCE IS EMPIRIC, IT IS
MORE LIKELY THAT WE WOULD INCREASE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND CLEAN COAL TOGETHER
Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable
energy sources were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However,
despite these predictions, the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years,
and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has
enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and coal is now being used in
record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the United States, and it is
anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United
States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with electrical generation.
. Despite the
The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with the environmental impacts and risks of climate change
environmental concerns and promising advances in the development of alternative energy sources, coal
will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation for decades to come. Attempts to
abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent and jeopardize the
availability, reliability and security of a country’s overall energy supply. To ensure future energy needs are
affordable, support for the development of new energy technologies should include research and
development for clean coal technologies as well as improving competitiveness of alternative energy
sources.
NO RISK OF A TRADE-OFF—THE TWO HAVE EMPIRICALLY EXISTED TOGETHER IN COOPERATION

RATHER THAN IN COMPETITION
Klare—2008 (Michael T. Klare is a defense correspondent for The Nation and the director of the Five
College Program in Pease and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst., Rising Powers,
Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, 08)
The instinctive preference American leaders have for old-energy systems like coal plants and nuclear reactors was evident in the Bush administration’s National Energy Policy
of 2001 and the Energy Policy Act passed by congress in 2005—both of which propose numerous incentives for the construction of
additional facilities of these types. Coal-fired power plants are, of course, a major source of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gasses, as well as poisonous emissions responsible for “acid rain”; nuclear reactors raise the specter of accidents like those at Three Mile Island (1979) and
Chernobyl (1986), along with the problem of long-lasting radioactive wastes that cannot safely be disposed of. To allay such concerns, the White House sought to emphasize
the promise of what it called “clean coal” and “safe,” “environmentally friendly” nuclear reactors. “[O]ur
plan funds research into new, clean coal technologies,” Bush proclaimed when releasing the NEP in 2001. He further claimed that “[n]ew
reactor designs are even safer and more economical than the reactors we possess today. And my energy plan directs the
Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the best science to move expeditiously to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste.” These assurances
53
were then incorporated into the 2005 energy bill, which provides billions of dollars in subsidies and tax
breaks for the measures envisioned by Bush. 54

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: ALT ENERGY SOLVES

BETTER
ALTERNATIVE ENRGY SOLVES BETTER THAN CLEAN COAL
That's a false choice, of course.
The coal industry may not want to acknowledge it, but we're living in the 21st century now. We have
indeed figured out other ways to generate electricity besides burning out 30 million year old rocks. And
with each passing year, those alternatives are getting cheaper and smarter.
Wind is already less expensive than coal in many parts of the country, and so is large-scale solar thermal.
Google is exploring enhanced geothermal. The creaky old electricity grid will soon morph into a system
that looks more like the internet, driving big gains in efficiency and allowing for real-time pricing of a
kilowatt of power.
This does not mean we can shut down coal plants tomorrow. But it does mean that coal is no longer the
engine of civilized life as it has been since the industrial revolution.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: RENEWABLES GOOD

FAILURE OF CLEAN COAL IS KEY TO COLLAPSE COAL AND OPEN UP THE RENEWABALE MARKET—
BOOSTING THE ECONOMY AND HEGE
To stop coal, stop CCS
Without CCS, coal is over, and if coal is over then space opens up for renewable technologies, creating an
opportunity for America to revitalize its economy and once again demonstrate its industrial power,
ingenuity, leadership, and productivity. It poses a basic choice for the nation: stick with 19th century
technologies (coal and oil) or move into the 21st century and revitalize our economy and our standing in
the world at the same time.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: A2 CHINA COOPERATION

THE US AND CHINA WOULD COOPERATE OVER ALTEARNTIVE ENERGIES
Kolton—2006 (Anne Womack Kolton is a Governmental Reporter and Researcher for the Department of
Energy, “U.S. and China Announce Cooperation on FutureGen and Sign Energy Efficiency Protocol at U.S.-
China Strategic Economic Dialogue”, 12/15/06, http://www.doe.gov/news/4535.htm)
In addition, the U.S.-China Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Protocol renews the joint collaboration in
developing and deploying clean, energy efficient and renewable energy technology including solar, wind,
biomass, geothermal, and hydrogen energy. Secretary Bodman and China’s Minister of Science and Technology (MOST) Xu Guanhua pledged to continue work to advance
clean renewable energy technologies through discussions on market potential and commercialization and methods and results of research and development.
During bilateral discussions with MOST Minister Xu Guanhua and NDRC Minister Ma Kai, Secretary Bodman also highlighted ongoing cooperation to advance energy security through a
number of cooperative efforts. These efforts include the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP); the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy; the Carbon Sequestration
Secretary Bodman met with China’s Atomic

Leadership Forum; the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; and the Generation IV International Forum.
Energy Authority Chairman Sun Qin during which he underscored the importance of the U.S. and China’s
cooperation in nonproliferation work and discussed U.S. private sector development and availability of the
most advanced, safe and cost-effective nuclear energy technology available. These meetings follow Secretary Bodman’s meeting
Thursday with U.S. business leaders in China where they discussed current business opportunities and the role of the business community in the development and advancement of science and technology in the
energy sector.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CLEAN COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: A2 SOLVES WARMING/CO2

EMITIONS
CLEAN COAL IS IMPOSSIBLE—IT STILL EMITS CO2
CBS—2008 (Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?: Coal Industry Launches Ad Campaign To
Support Energy Alternative, But Some Say Technology Hasn't Caught Up Yet”, 6/20/08,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_4
199506)
That's the good news. But here's the problem.
"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit
millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas.
"There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.
WITHOUT CARBON CATCHING OR CARBON SEQUESTRATION TECHNOLOGY WILL ONLY INCREASE

CO2 EMISSIONS
But the irony is that some of the technologies now used to make coal burn cleaner can increase CO2
emissions, since the new technologies also require energy to run.

"When you have a scrubber on a plant, it decreases efficiencies. It's like putting a muffler on your car. If you're adding scrubbers, they use energy to
run them, and you have to burn more coal to get the same amount of power. So, there would be more carbon for unit of juice coming out of the
plant," says Davies, of Greenpeace.

Even coal gasification doesn't entirely escape the problem of CO2 emissions and global warming. "We need
to get to close to zero total CO2 emissions, and you're not going to do that with efficiency," says Keith.
Only somehow keeping the carbon from escaping into the atmosphere via carbon-sequestration techniques
could achieve that. But the costs of bringing such a futuristic solution to market have yet to be explored:
"The perfect solution of coal gasification with carbon sequestration on the back has not been used enough
to really get at what the costs are going to be," says Galloway from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
CLEAN COAL FAILS

The logic is simple: America has lots of coal. We are a technologically advanced society. Ergo, we can clean
up coal. What's the problem?
Well, here's one: "clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free
donuts" or "interest-free loans," "clean coal" is a phrase that embodies the Bush-era faith that there is an easy answer for
every hard question in America today. We can have a war in Iraq without sacrifice. We can borrow more
than we can afford without worrying about how we'll pay it back. We can end our dependency on oil by powering our SUVs with ethanol made from
corn. And we can keep the lights on without superheating the climate through the magic of "clean coal."
Here's another: mining and burning coal remains one of the most destructive things human beings do on
this earth. It destroys mountains, poisons water, pollutes the air, and warms the atmosphere. True, if you
look at it strictly from the point of view smog-producing chemicals like sulfur dioxide, new coal plants are
cleaner than the old coal burners of yore. But going from four bottles of whiskey a week down to three
does not make you clean and sober.
Of course, the "clean coal" campaign is not about reality – it's about perception. It's an exercise in re-branding.
Madison Ave. did it for Harley Davidson motorcycles and Converse shoes. Why not Old King Coal?
It's not a difficult trick – just whip out some slick ads with upbeat music and lots of cool 21st century technology like fighter jets and computers. Run the ads long enough, and people will believe.
But the real goal of the campaign is not simply to re-brand coal as a clean and modern fuel – it's to
convince energy-illiterate TV viewers that the American way of life depends on coal. The ads remind us
(accurately) that half the electricity in America comes from coal, then shows images of little girls getting tucked into bed at night or Little Leaguers playing ball
under the lights.
The subtext is not simply that, without the electricity from coal, the lights will go out and your family will
be plunged into darkness. It's that, without coal, civilization as we know it will come to an end. As one
utility industry executive asked me while I was reporting Big Coal, "Have you ever been in a blackout? Do
you remember how scary it was?"

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
If the choice is, coal or chaos, they win. This framing also
From the coal industry's point of view, this is a brilliant way to frame the argument.
disarms environmental arguments – yes, it's too bad that mountaintop removal mining has destroyed or
polluted 1200 miles of streams in Appalachia and that the Environmental Protection Agency projects a loss of more than 1.4 millionacres – an area the size of Delaware –
by the end of the decade.
But hey, if it's a choice between losing flattening West Virginia and keeping our lights on, good-bye West
Virginia!
CLEAN COAL DOESN’T REMOVE CARBON AND SULFUR—I T JUST SHIFTS IT SOMEWHERE ELSE
Seeking Alpha—2007 (“Coal: The Black Gold?“,5/22/07, http://seekingalpha.com/article/36244-coal-the-
black-gold)
A slogan any ad wonk could love, Clean Coal remains a dream more than a reality. The problem, at the end of the day, is that medieval alchemists never figured out how to turn lead into gold. When
people talk about clean coal, what they really mean is “keep all the bad stuff out of the air.” But the bad
stuff has to go somewhere: all that sulfur has to be disposed of; all that carbon has to be taken care of.
This has led most environmental groups to label the “clean coal” movement as nothing more than
greenwash.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA AFF ANSWERS—LINK: RPS NO LINK

RPS WOULDN’T DECREASE THE RELIANCE ON COAL
Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the
environmental impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically
require a certain level or percentage of electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from
renewable sources. While renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the
development of renewable energy sources, they do not appear to have a significant effect on coal
consumption. Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend to decrease the consumption of
natural gas, rather than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short
term, encouraging the development of renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a
substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the absence of
other policy measures.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
COAL CONSUMPTION DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT TERMINAL

UNIQUENESS: COAL WILL PEAK
THE HUBBERT CURVE PROVES COAL WILL PEAK—OIL, BRITISH COAL, ARSENIC, AND
MANGANESE PROVE—THIS PEAK WILL OCCUR AROUND 2032
One model that has been fairly successful at predicting the production of oil and gas is the Hubbert curve.
It is a bell shaped mathematical curve very similar to the normal distribution curve and is named after the now famous geophysicist M. King Hubbert who used it to
predict that oil production in the 48 contiguous states would peak in the early 1970's. Hubbert was proven to be
right when production peaked in 1971. Figure 3 shows a Hubbert curve that has been fitted to coal production data for the United Kingdom. The U.K.
was chosen as an example because it is a region that is well past its peak and will likely never be able to
increase its production to British coal's heyday in the early parts of the 20th century.
Britain has already shown us that a region's coal fields can be depleted, but we must ask whether the
Hubbert curve is a good depletion model. It seems to work fairly well for British coal but this sort of analysis is traditionally used for
oil and gas. A review of the U.S. Geological Survey's databases shows us that there are at least two resources that have experienced depletion. Figures 4 and 5 show U.S. production for Arsenic and Manganese.
The Hubbert model predicts that a resource will peak when ½ of the ultimate production (the total amount that will ever be
produced) has been produced. For arsenic, we see that the production peak occurred exactly in the year that the model predicts. As for manganese, there was an early peak in 1918 but then
production went back down not because of geological constraints but due to human decisions. However, we see a second production peak in 1943 that is only one year after the peak predicted by the Hubbert
model.
It is probably too early to definitively say whether the Hubbert model can be used for coal production in
the U.S., but the examples of British coal, U.S. arsenic, and U.S. manganese seem to indicate that a
Hubbert curve may be able to predict future production trends for U.S. coal.
A full paper will be published at a later date explaining how the Hubbert curve was fit to U.S. coal production data, but the results can be seen in figure 6. The fitted curve takes into
account past production trends and predicts the peak date based on the assumption that once one half of
the ultimate has been reached, production will naturally decline as the remaining coal lies in thinner and
deeper seams. In this fitting of the Hubbert model, the date of peak coal production is forecast to be 2032.
If we look at figure 6, it might seem that the Hubbert curve does not closely match the historic data but that is because of the variable nature of historic growth. The full paper gives details describing analyses that
argue that the fitted curve does indeed match the historic data. Some critics have argued that Hubbert's curves are really just curve fitting which is partially true but the Hubbert model also takes into account
remaining and original reserves which are determined using geological knowledge.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CHINA COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: WON’T USE CLEAN COAL

NO CLEAN COAL IN CHINA—MULTIPLE STRUCTURAL AND GOVERNMENTAL BARRIERS
A major obstacle is that these clean-coal-based strategies require a strong central government role, centralized
funding, and substantial cross-regional coordination, all of which are lacking in China’s energy sector today.
Instead, China’s most-developed coastal regions, rather than waiting for a national strategy to emerge, are moving forward with their own
solutions. Many municipalities are simply building conventional coal-fired power plants as fast as they can,
oft en with subpar environmental controls. While they are willing to import coal from the poorer inland
provinces, they are not willing to invest in the large-scale infrastructure that would make them dependent
on electricity generated in those interior regions. It is commonly observed that in China everybody wants to generate power, and nobody wants to rely on others for
it.
NO CLEAN COAL IN CHINA—PETROLEUM INDUSTRY RESISTANCE, LACK OF INCENTIVES, AND

LACK OF INTEREST
In fact, more than any other players in the Chinese system, those who are participating in the gas and petroleum supply chains are the organizations with cash, commercial sophistication, links to global partners,
access to global fuel supplies, and ready entrée to downstream infrastructure and major energy consumers. It is they who are making national energy policy, whether by design or—simply by virtue of the speed
with which they are executing commercial strategies—by default. And none of them—not the national fuel and power firms nor the decision-makers in the leading coastal provinces—has much incentive to advocate
For the state petroleum firms, which increasingly see themselves as gas companies and hold substantial cash reserves, coal is a
advanced coal-based solutions or technologies.
substitute for their products and the coal industry a competitor. Large-scale clean coal solutions are
unlikely to be much more appealing to the national power companies, the nominal parents of most of
China’s coal-burning plants. Large-scale clean coal is associated with power generation at the mine mouth,
which in turn is associated with control by the mining industry, and the power companies have little
interest in yielding control of their industry to mining concerns.

2008-2009 X-GULLIE
CHINA COAL DA AFF ANSWERS—IMPACT: CHINA COAL INDUSTRY

GOOD
CHINA’S COAL INDUSTRY IS KEY TO IT’S ECONOMY
China Coal and Mining Expo—2007 (“General Situation of China”, 07,
http://www.chinaminingcoal.com/2007/static.php?page=mkt_general_situation.php)
China is the third biggest country of coal resources in the world and its annual coal output and
consumption rank number one in the world. Coal industry is the basic industry in China, which is regarded
as “The Motive Force of national economy” and “Industry Food”. Coal industry plays an important role in
the construction of Chinese economy and the development of the society.
China coal industry has kept good development trends in recent years. Coal market is in great increase,
the annual output result a record-breaking. But there are still many places where the demands exceeding supply. It is estimated that the coal output will be 1.55 billion tons
with export hitting 90 million tons in 2003. The coal output will be 1.6 billion tons in 2005, and 1.8 billion tons in 2010. If Chinese national economy keeps the rapid
development trends as the present, there will be great increase of coal output, sales and exports in the
coming several years.

Coal - Da - Fellows

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Coal - Da - Fellows

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KENTUCKY FELLOWS COAL DISADS

COAL DAS—THE TRUTH

Zavell I hid your man card here 1

CLEAN COAL DA—IMPACT: POLLUTION..................................................................................44

“People don't like coal because it's black

And you will never find it 2

Zavell I hid your man card here 3

And you will never find it 4

STRATEGY SHEET/ABBREVIATIONS GUIDE

Zavell I hid your man card here 5

iii. China Modeling—China would model our clean coal—this is key to

And you will never find it 6

STRATEGY SHEET/ABBREVIATIONS GUIDE

Second—Welcome to the pit of doom!!!!!!!!!!!! (doom)!!!!!!!!!! (doom)!!!!!!!!! (doom)!!!!

ARD&D = Analysis, Research, Development, and LPG = Liquified Petroleum Gas

Zavell I hid your man card here 7

CLEAN COAL DA 1NC

source - coal - a cleaner alternative.

soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

solution, clean coal is not an option.

reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.

And you will never find it 8

Zavell I hid your man card here 9

CLEAN COAL DA 1NC

And you will never find it 10

Zavell I hid your man card here 11

OVERVIEW (IF THEY DROP CONSUMPTION)

And you will never find it 12

IMPACT ANALYSIS CARDS TO ADD IN TO THE OVERVIEW IF YOU

ECON COLLAPSE HAS A 99% CHANCE OF CAUSING AN ARMAGEDDON

Zavell I hid your man card here 13

COAL DA—IMPACT TERMINAL UNIQUENESS: COAL SUSTAINABLE/A2

THE SOONEST TIME OF COAL PEAK IS ANOTHER 100 YEARS

And you will never find it 14

CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL COMING NOW

THE US IS LEADING ON DEVELOPING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY—THEY WILL DEVELOP IT NOW,

CARBON CATCHING WILL BE INITIATED—PUTTING CLEAN COAL IS ON THE BRINK OF

Zavell I hid your man card here 15

ultimately lead to pollution-free coal plants.

And you will never find it 16

CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: CLEAN COAL COMING NOW

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE PUSHING CLEAN COAL FOR POLITICAL BENIFITS

Zavell I hid your man card here 17

CLEAN COAL DA—UNIQUENESS: A2 FUTUREGEN

CLEAN COAL IS INEVITABLE—INDUSTRIAL PUSH AND BIPARTISAN POLITICAL SUPPORT, THIS

And you will never find it 18

CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: GLOBAL WARMING

Zavell I hid your man card here 19

CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: RENEWABLES

And you will never find it 20

CLEAN COAL DA—LINK: RPS

Zavell I hid your man card here 21

CLEAN COAL DA—BRINK

WERE ON THE BRINK OF DEVELOPMENT NOW—CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT IS KEY

And you will never find it 22

CLEAN COAL DA—INTERNAL LINK: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations.

"A lot of research took place in the 1970s and 1980s to

THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN PROFITABLITY AND SUCESSFUL DEPLOYMENT IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL

Zavell I hid your man card here 23

And you will never find it 24

CLEAN COAL DA—INTERNAL LINK: R&D KEY