CTL Aff - Scholars

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL Aff Index

CTL Aff Index.................................................................................................................................................................1
***1AC***.....................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Inh/Plan.................................................................................................................7
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (1/8)..........................................................................................8
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 1: China................................................................................................16
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (1/3)...........................................................................................17
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 3: Terrorism..........................................................................................21
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (1/4).........................................................................22
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (1/4).....................................................................................................26
***Topicality***...........................................................................................................................................................30
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (1/2).........................................................................................................31
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (1/6)....................................................................................................................33
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: AE = RE....................................................................................................39
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: 50-50 = Oil...............................................................................................40
CTL Good – T – Incentives...........................................................................................................................................41
CTL Good – T – Increase..............................................................................................................................................42
***Inherency & UQ***................................................................................................................................................43
CTL Good – Inherency – American Energy Production Act of 2008...........................................................................44
CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (1/3).................................................................................................................................45
CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (Fuel Use Down) – Fuel Use Up (1/2)............................................................................48
CTL Good – Non-UQ – Incentives Now......................................................................................................................50
CTL Good – Non-UQ – RE Up (1/2)............................................................................................................................51
***Readiness Adv Links***.........................................................................................................................................53
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (1/4)......................................................................................................54
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Natural Disasters...............................................................................................58
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Fuel Simplification/Tactical Supplies ..............................................................59
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Supply Shx UQ)...................................................................60
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (1/7)........................................................................................61
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Terror)...................................................................................68
***Readiness Adv Internals***....................................................................................................................................69
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (1/4).....................................................................................................70
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key – Terrorism..........................................................................................74
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Air Power =/= Key – Jet Fuel K to All..................................................................75
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Fuel Key.......................................................................................................................76
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Costs Key (1/2)............................................................................................................78
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Weight Requirements Key...........................................................................................80
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Key.................................................................................................................81
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Up (1/2)..........................................................................................................82
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Allied Coop Key..........................................................................................................84
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Interventions Key (1/2)................................................................................................85
***Readiness Adv Solvency***...................................................................................................................................87
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Missiles...................................................................................................88
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Maintenance............................................................................................89
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Budget.....................................................................................................90
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (1/2)...........................................................................91
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (1/6)....................................................................93
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Control..............................................................................................99
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Shocks.............................................................................................100
***Readiness Adv A2: Take-outs***.........................................................................................................................101
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: CTL Drawbacks..................................................................................................102
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Retrofitting/Interoperability (1/3).......................................................................103
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – No Link..................................................................................106
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – NUQ.......................................................................................107
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Aircraft Carriers DA – No Link: JP-5/JP-8 Fuels...............................................108
***Iran Adv***...........................................................................................................................................................109
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [1/5]............................................................................................................110
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel [1/2]...............................................................................................116
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel – Draws In U.S. ............................................................................118
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – CIA/Covert Ops [1/3].............................................................................119
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Prolif...........................................................................................................122
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Miscalc NW................................................................................................123
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Terrorism ....................................................................................................124
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Too Many Places..................................................................................125
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: “Don’t know where they are”..............................................................126
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Fundamentalism................................................................................127
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Radiation...........................................................................................128
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: U.S.-EU Relations................................................................................129
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Deterrence Solves................................................................................130
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: UN Solves [1/2]...................................................................................131
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [1/3]...........................................................................133
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Air Power Key.....................................................................................................................136
***China Adv***.......................................................................................................................................................137
CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat (1/3)......................................................................................................138
CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat – AF......................................................................................................141
CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit (1/3)......................................................................................................142
CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan................................................................................................145
CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan – US Intervention..................................................................146
CTL Good – China Adv – A2: Deterrence Checks.....................................................................................................147
CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – General...................................................................................................148
CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – Taiwan [1/2]...........................................................................................149
***Iraq Adv***...........................................................................................................................................................151
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Pullout Coming (1/2)...........................................................................................................152
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Spillover.................................................................................................................154
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: NW (1/2).................................................................................................................155
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Civil War (1/2)........................................................................................................157
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy..............................................................................................................159
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – NW...................................................................................................160
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – Terrorism..........................................................................................161
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – War etc. ...........................................................................................162
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Air Force key [1/3]...............................................................................................................163
***Air Pollution Adv***............................................................................................................................................166
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves General (1/2)..............................................................................................167
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves Airlines.......................................................................................................169
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – US Key to World...................................................................................................170
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine (1/3)..........................................................................................................171
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine – O/W War................................................................................................174
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Marine Species......................................................................................................175
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Species...................................................................................................................176
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer..........................................................................................................177
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer – Survival.........................................................................................178
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Endocrine Disruption............................................................................................179
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen (1/2)...........................................................................................................180
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen: Keystone...................................................................................................182
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Health Harms.........................................................................................................183
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Low-Level......................................................................................................184
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Inefficient........................................................................................................185
***Solvency***..........................................................................................................................................................186
CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (1/8).............................................................................................187
CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Interprets CTL as AE.................................................................................................195
CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (1/5)........................................................................................................197
CTL Good – Solvency – Repeal EISA Solves............................................................................................................202
CTL Good – Solvency – Excise Tax Credits Solve....................................................................................................203
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (1/4).......................................................................................................204
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – Technical Problems (1/2)....................................................................208
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – CTL = Profits......................................................................................210
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Empirically Fails..........................................................................................................211
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Regulation Prevents.....................................................................................................212
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Backstopping................................................................................................................213
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Peak Coal (1/2).............................................................................................................214
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Long-Term....................................................................................................................216
CTL Good – Solvency – CTL = Gasification.............................................................................................................217
CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (1/4)..................................................................................218
CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Airlines (1/3)....................................................................................................222
CTL Good – Solvency – AF Key (1/3).......................................................................................................................225
***A2: Warming DA***............................................................................................................................................228
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: CO2 Up.......................................................................................................231
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: Methane Up.................................................................................................232
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Threshold.........................................................................................................233
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Blends Solve..........................................................................................................234
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Storage Solves (1/2)...............................................................................235
CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Feasibility (1/2)...................................................................237
CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Costs....................................................................................239
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Oil Recovery..........................................................................................240
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: NOx (1/2).....................................................................................................241
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Airlines.........................................................................................................243
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (1/2)..........................................................................245
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (1/2).................................................................247
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Ethanol Fermentation...................................................................................249
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Hybrids.........................................................................................................250
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Efficiency.....................................................................................................251
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (1/4)...............................................................................................252
***A2: Other Enviro DA’s***....................................................................................................................................256
CTL Good – A2: Water DA – No Link: Heat Recovery.............................................................................................257
CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Turn: SQ Worse...........................................................................................................258
CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Recycling....................................................................................................................259
CTL Good – A2: Water Pollution................................................................................................................................260
CTL Good – A2: Slag DA (1/2)..................................................................................................................................261
CTL Good – A2: Radon DA (1/2)...............................................................................................................................263
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – 2AC...........................................................................................................................265
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (1/4)...............................................................................................266
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Turn: CTL = Efficiency............................................................................................270
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – No Impact.................................................................................................................271
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Waste..................................................................................................................272
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Dust and noise pollution....................................................................................273
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Mine reclamation solves...........................................................................................274
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Emissions...........................................................................................................275
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Electricity ..........................................................................................................276
CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Generic.......................................................................................................................277
CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Turn: Biomass Slag....................................................................................................278
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Laundry List...............................................................................................................279
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Mercury (1/2).............................................................................................................280
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Trace/Particulate Emissions (1/2)..............................................................................282
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – NOx............................................................................................................................284
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Lead...........................................................................................................................285
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Chlorine.....................................................................................................................286
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Flourine .....................................................................................................................287
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Sulfur (1/2).................................................................................................................288
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Cyanide......................................................................................................................290
***A2: Econ DA’s***................................................................................................................................................291
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: 2AC General.......................................................................................................292
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Renewables Bridge.............................................................................................293
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Manufacturing....................................................................................................294
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Aviation (1/3)......................................................................................................295
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Rare Mineral Extraction.....................................................................................298
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry (1/2)..............................................................................................299
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry – Coal Prices .............................................................................301
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Heating Oil.........................................................................................................302
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Chemical Industry (1/4)......................................................................................303
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Chemical Industry – Key to Econ.......................................................................307
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – No Link...............................................................................................308
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – Turn: Reg’s Inevit...............................................................................310
***A2: CP’s***..........................................................................................................................................................311
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – “Say No”.......................................................................................................312
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – Non-Binding Perm........................................................................................313
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – No Solve: One Act ........................................................................................314
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – No Impact: Resilience ..................................................................................315
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – Turn: Heg.......................................................................................................316
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – A2: NATO K Heg..........................................................................................317
CTL Good – A2: Actor CPs – US Key........................................................................................................................318
CTL Good – A2: XO CP.............................................................................................................................................319
CTL Good – A2: PIC EISA CP – WTO Add-On........................................................................................................320
CTL Good – A2: Ban Iran Strikes CP.........................................................................................................................321
CTL Good – A2: Fuel Cells CP..................................................................................................................................322
CTL Good – A2: Hybrid Cars CP...............................................................................................................................323
CTL Good – A2: Nat Gas-to-Liquid CP.....................................................................................................................324
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: AF (1/2)...................................................................................................325
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve – General..................................................................................................327
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – Perm Solves.............................................................................................................328
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: Oil Demand.............................................................................................329
CTL Good – A2: Fuel Efficiency CP (1/4).................................................................................................................330
***General Military Aff Misc.***..............................................................................................................................334
Gen Mil Aff – Non-UQ – RE Up Now.......................................................................................................................335
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – DOD Key (1/2).................................................................................................................336
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – International Spillover......................................................................................................338
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Installations Key...............................................................................................................339
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – RE Key.............................................................................................................................340
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP [1/3].........................................................................................................................341
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP-ESPC (1/2)..............................................................................................................344
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Commercial (1/2)...........................................................................................346
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Microgrids......................................................................................................348
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Procurement Good............................................................................................................349
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Solar Power Bad DA – N-UQ.......................................................................................................350
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Wind Power DA............................................................................................................................351
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Installations Key......................................................................................................352
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Solvency..................................................................................................................353
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – AE Deters.................................................................................................................354
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Heat Signatures........................................................................................................355
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – AE Solves..........................................................................................................................356
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Links (1/2).........................................................................................................................357
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Impacts (1/3).....................................................................................................................359
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – A2: Occupation Bad..........................................................................................................362
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Surge Working [1/2]..........................................................................................................363
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – A2: Back-Up Power Solves..............................................................................................365
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – SQ Bad (1/2).....................................................................................................................366
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – RE..................................................................................................................368
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – Microgrids (1/4).............................................................................................369
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Military Industry (1/2)......................................................................................373
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Subsidies..........................................................................................................375
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Militarism/Enviro K.....................................................................................................................376
***1AC***
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Inh/Plan

Ob 1: Inherency
The Department of Defense can only extend 5-year contracts for alternative fuels – Longer
contracts check price volatility, which is critical to the widespread commercialization of
alternative energy
Letourneau April 29 (2008, Matthew, Senate Press Release,

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.detail&PressRelease_id=8ab09ee0-f356-49bf-abd9-70e21ab46dd2)
Next, I encourage you to extend federal agencies’ contracting authority for renewable energy. Current law
limits such contracts to a period of ten years, even though longer-term contracts would protect
agencies from price volatility while simultaneously encouraging greater investment in renewable
sources of energy. Congress sought to remove this barrier last year. In H.R. 6, the “Renewable Fuels,
Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007,” the Energy Committee authorized the extension
of this contracting authority for up to 50 years. The House-passed Energy bill contained a similar provision,
allowing for a period of 30 years. However, the contract extension was not included in the final energy
package, EISA, that became law. In my opinion, this contracting authority should be extended for all
federal agencies, especially the largest energy consumer within the federal government, the
Department of Defense, to at least a 20-year period.
Plan – The Department of Defense should be exempted from the Energy Investment
Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have the authority to extend 25-year contracts
for alternative fuel development.
Plan – The Department of Defense should be exempted from the Energy Investment
Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have the authority to extend 25-year contracts
for liquid coal development.
Plan – Congress should exempt the Department of Defense from the Energy Investment
Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have give the Department of Defense the
authority to extend 25-year contracts for alternative fuel development.
Plan – Congress should exempt the Department of Defense from the Energy Investment
Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have give the Department of Defense the
authority to extend 25-year contracts for liquid coal development.
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (1/8)

Advantage 1 – Readiness
The military budget is strained to the brink – Growing support and logistics funding
crowds out crucial technology investment necessary for sustained military power
Spring 8 (Feb 13, Baker, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2110.cfm)

In recent years, spending on today's forces has tended to crowd out investment in tomorrow's forces. The
funding for operations and support activities (the operations and maintenance account plus the military personnel account) has
taken an increasing share of the overall Department of Defense (DOD) budget. Conversely, spending on
modernization (the research and development account plus the procurement account) has received an increasingly smaller share
of the DOD budget. Specifically, operations and support activities absorb roughly 60 percent of DOD budget authority for
the core program, not including the FY 2009 request for supplemental appropriations. Modernization activities absorb only a little over 35 percent. By
comparison, the two activities approached parity in the 1980s, when operations and support absorbed slightly more than modernization.
The trend toward operations and support's receiving higher shares of the core defense budget is driven largely by the increasing per capita compensation
cost for military personnel and the higher operational tempo. During the 1990s, the gross cost of compensating America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines was held in check by a 24 percent reduction in manpower. However, this pressure valve on manpower costs is closing because the Bush
Administration has proposed adding 92,000 soldiers and Marines to the force by 2012.
In fact, the planned increase in ground forces is ahead of schedule.
Meanwhile, per capita military compensation costs continue to rise, more than doubling in the past 10 years. A major contributing factor is the cost of
military health care. The FY 2009 defense budget allocates $41.6 billion to providing health care benefits to military personnel and their dependents.
The trend toward modernization's receiving smaller shares of the core defense budget is largely the result of the Clinton Administration's "procurement
holiday" in the 1990s. The recovery from this unwise choice is still incomplete. An enduring effect of the procurement holiday is the imbalance between the
procurement account (the account for purchasing new weapons and equipment) and the account for researching and developing new weapons and
equipment technology.
In the 1980s, procurement consumed more than 70 percent of the modernization budget. The core defense budget for FY 2009 would still leave procurement
at only slightly more than 60 percent. (See Chart 6.) As
a result, essential new weapons programs must be stretched out,
which increases unit costs, reduces the numbers of new weapons available to the military, and prevents
their timely delivery.

Oil dependence is the cause – High prices drive DOD budget shortfalls and create critical
gaps in readiness
Miles 7 (Donna, American Forces Press Service, DoD, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_1_36/ai_n27158522)

The Defense Department is exploring ways to make its weapon systems and facilities more fuel-efficient and
less vulnerable to market fluctuations and controls, senior defense officials told Pentagon reporters today. John
J. Young Jr., director of defense research and engineering, said DoD is putting more emphasis on improving
the efficiency of its operations--for national security as well as financial reasons. DoD is the United States'
biggest energy consumer, using more than 300 million barrels of oil every day. At those levels, a $10-a-barrel
price hike puts a $1.3 billion dent in the defense budget and the funds appropriated to support the fighting force.
"When oil goes up $10 a barrel, there's a billion dollars in things we don't get to do ... [for] the warfighter,"
Young said. But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The United
States imports 58 percent of its oil, so there's no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy it
needs. A major goal in DoD's energy program "is making sure we ... have multiple options in a changing
marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation's
security," Young said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic
vulnerability, Young explained. The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to
deliver it, and the more frequently they expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats.
He cited "a desire to have renewable-type [energy] sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we ... potentially have
to take less fuel to the deployed forces and therefore put fewer convoys at risk." About three-quarters of DoD's oil
consumption goes toward keeping the military on the move: its aircraft conducting sorties, its ships patrolling
the seas, and its wheeled and tracked vehicles patrolling the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan. The military is
working to make these systems less oil-dependent without sacrificing capability, Young explained. It is looking into
composite materials that make vehicles lighter and more efficient, and fuel-efficient engines and alternative fuel
sources to decrease its dependence on fossil fuel. The Air Force, DoD's biggest energy user, is considering setting a
goal to reduce its fuel consumption in a way that doesn't shortchange training or operations, he said. The Marine
Corps recently issued a solicitation for a new heavy truck that includes "a very specific and precise goal that
decreased fuel consumption something like 15 to 20 percent" over its current Logistics Vehicle System. "And so in
each program space, we are going to set ... fairly aggressive goals for achieving additional efficiencies" that
apply technological advances, he said. "And we have already been doing that." Many of those same strategies are
already proving successful as DoD reduces the fuel needed to keep its 570,000 buildings and facilities around the
world humming, Philip Grone, deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, told reporters.
These facilities consume about 22 percent of DoD's energy requirements, but more than 8 percent of the electricity
they use comes from renewable energy sources, he said. DoD hopes to raise that level to 25 percent by 2025,
setting the standard for the rest of the federal government as well as industry, Grone told reporters. Throughout
the military, Grone said, he sees a continued trend toward tapping diversified energy sources--particularly more
renewable sources--that offer more efficiency and reliability to the fighting force. "That is where I see us headed in
the course of the next 10 to 25 years," he said. "Conceptually, that is where we want to be." Whether from an
operational or support viewpoint, all energy conservation ultimately supports the fighting force because it
frees up defense dollars for critical training and equipment, Grone said. As these initiatives increasingly take
shape, "resources will be freed up to go for higher priority efforts in supporting the mission ... [and] the pointy
end of the spear," he said.

Oil dependence undermines coalitions, leads to hostage holding by aggressive powers,
increases the trade deficit reducing US industrial competitiveness, and makes the military
vulnerable to price spikes, which aggravate budget problems
Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog
new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)
Foreign policy issues are daily concerns for the White House and the Department of State, but the DOD is typically the department called upon
when foreign policy goes awry. In his article, “Energy Security: The New Threats in Latin America and Africa,” David L. Goldwyn, a senior
fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that current US energy dependency challenges US power in five ways. First,
dependency on consuming imported oil makes many nations reluctant to join coalitions led by the United
States to combat weapons proliferation, terrorism, or aggression. Examples include French, Russian, and
Chinese resistance to sanctions on Iran; Chinese resistance to sanctions against Sudan; and US tolerance of
Middle East repression that would otherwise have been sanctioned were it to occur in any other non-oil-
producing part of the world.20 Second, high oil revenues in the hands of oil-exporting nations allow
governments to act with impunity against their own people and work against the United States and its
neighbors. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Latin America’s loudest anti-American cheerleader, has used
oil revenue to build support for his economic vision by providing subsidized oil to neighboring countries and
gaining advantage over them by purchasing bonds to finance their debt. Russian president Vladimir Putin
has renationalized his energy sector, restricted foreign access to his pipeline system, and demanded open
access to Europe. Iran has reduced its international debt and increased foreign reserves to prepare for
possible sanctions. Goldwyn remarks that “Even Saudi Arabia’s economic reform movement, born in the
days of $10 oil in 1998, evaporated when oil reached $30 per barrel in 2000. Enrichment of America’s
competitors or adversaries harms US security interests in every part of the globe.”21 Third, the global oil market is
far from being a fair, free-market system. Governments that do not allow free-market access to develop, exploit, and expand supplies control most
of the world’s major oil reserves. Most free-market commodities allow the market supply to expand to meet demand. As oil prices rise, many
governments are less receptive to foreign investment, preventing supply from responding to demand and driving prices even higher.22 An
increased price of imported goods increases the US trade deficit and exports wealth to foreign lands. In 2005,
imported oil accounted for one-third of the country’s $800 billion trade deficit.23 Fourth, the highly
competitive world oil market enables the political competitiveness to undermine the fluidity and fairness of
the market for available supplies. Goldwyn adds that “New competitors like China and India are trying to negotiate long term
contracts (at market prices) to ensure they have supplies in the event of a crisis or supply disruption. . . . From an economic point of view it may
not matter if China lends Angola $3 billion at low interest to gain part of an exploration project as long as the oil is produced. But China gains an
enormous geopolitical advantage by this act.”24 Fifth, the problem oil dependency creates for America and directly
impacts the DOD is vulnerability to price volatility that results from supply and demand shocks.25 From fall 2005
until gasoline prices started to decline in fall 2006, the price of gasoline had replaced the weather as America’s favorite subject of conversation
with a stranger. The price of standard crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange was under $25 per barrel in September 2003, but by 11
August 2005, the price had increased to more than $60 per barrel; the price topped out at a record $78.40 per barrel on 13 July 2006.26 Experts
attributed the spike in prices to many factors, including the war in Iraq, North Korea’s missile launches, the crisis between Israel and Lebanon,
Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, and Hurricane Katrina. None of these factors, except for the war in Iraq, could be controlled by the
US government.

Air Force oil dependence leaves them open to price increases-This hurts air power and causes
budget shortfalls
Shalal-Esa`8 (Andrea, Reuters oil specialist, Every $10 oil rise ups Air Force costs $610 million, May 22,
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2252728920080523?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)
The U.S. Air Force operates the "world's largest airline" and every $10-per-barrel increase in crude oil
boosts its annual operating costs by $610 million, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said on Thursday.
The Air Force's bill for aviation fuel was about $6 billion in fiscal 2007, Wynne told a defense industry
group. He declined to predict what the total would be for 2008. U.S. crude oil futures soared to a record
above $135 a barrel on Wednesday, more than double the price of one year ago. "We are very concerned
about the instability in oil prices because it wreaks havoc on how we manage our flying-hour program
across the Air Force, just as it is wreaking havoc on the pricing statistics for an airline," Wynne said.
The jump in fuel prices has hammered the U.S. commercial airline industry, forcing seven small
carriers to file for bankruptcy or to close their doors in the past five months.

Air power is critical to US military power
Melinger 3 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. (ret.), Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html)
Just as the Royal Navy defended British economic strength over a century ago, so do our air forces protect
our economic security. This is especially true because military strategy has evolved so dramatically over the
past decade. The basic factors that shaped our geopolitical environment during the Cold War era have
changed. The Soviet threat is gone, but other threats and other commitments remain. In fact, US military deployments have increased fourfold while
the size of our military has shrunk by 40 percent. The character of these engagements has also altered. It is ever more essential that the United States
we must be extremely careful about both inflicting and
maintain strong public support for its actions. This in turn means
sustaining casualties. Our military campaigns from the Persian Gulf War to Afghanistan have been
marked by remarkably low losses, and the increasing use of precision weapons has limited civilian
casualties and collateral damage, essential to maintaining worldwide public support. It is obvious,
however, that if such sterilized warfare is our goal, then certain types of strategies, tactics, and weapons
are more desirable than others. Precision or nonlethal weapons delivered by air platforms- ideally either
unmanned, unseen, or flying beyond the range of enemy fire- are the instruments of choice. To be sure, the process
of identifying, tracking, and destroying mobile targets- tanks, trucks, and terrorists- remains one of our most difficult challenges, but this problem is being
addressed through the use of a combination of space-, air-, and land-based sensors tied to strike aircraft by satellite. It would be foolish for our leaders to
think that air and space power could be effective in any crisis, but it has now become their weapon of first resort. The American
people intuitively realize this: recent Gallup Polls reveal that 42 percent of those surveyed believe the Air
Force is the most crucial arm
of our national defense, and a like number believe it should be built up to a greater extent than the other services. Just as our commercial air
fleet is the largest and most modern in the world, so too is our military airpower. Our superiority is even greater than a comparison of the number of US
military aircraft to the totals of other leading countries would indicate (fig. 4). Although China has a large supply of aircraft, most are obsolescent, including
over 4,500 Vietnam-era MiG-17s, -19s, and -21s. Certainly, quantity has its own quality, but most of the Chinese air force would stand little chance against a
frontline adversary. Similarly, Russia’s air force has atrophied dramatically over the past decade. Once the pride of the Soviet state, much of this vaunted air
force now sits unused. Examining the types of military aircraft comprising the world’s air forces is also revealing. The majority of combat aircraft
worldwide consists of short-range fighter-bombers, such as the F-16, Mirage 2000, and MiG-21. The United States has nearly 4,000 such aircraft but has far
more capability than that. Our airlift and aerial-tanker fleets allow us to project power anywhere in the world on short notice. The United States possesses
the vast majority of the world’s large military cargo aircraft, such as the C-17 and C-5, while also having four times more tankers than the rest of the world
No other nation has such an impressive capability to
combined. Tankers turn our tactical fighters into strategic bombers.
project power and influence. China, for example, has fewer than 50 modern cargo aircraft and virtually no aerial-refueling capability. Our
dominance in space is equally compelling. At present, approximately 550 operational satellites are in orbit. Nearly half of those were launched by the United
States, and approximately 100 of them have military missions. In addition, the Global Positioning System’s constellation of 28 satellites provides precise
geographical data to users all over the world. In contrast, Russia now has only 90 operational spacecraft, and much of its space infrastructure- its missile-
launch detection system, for example- is moribund. Although China can be expected to become a space competitor- it is currently working on an antisatellite
one finds an
system- it has launched an average of fewer than four satellites per year over the past decade. Within the US military services,
increasing reliance and emphasis on air and space power. According to an old saying, if you want to know what’s important,
follow the money. In the American military, that trail is clear. The backbone of the Navy is the aircraft carrier, which costs over $5
billion each (without its aircraft and support ships), and the Navy spends nearly as much on aircraft each year as does the Air Force. The top funding priority
of the Marine Corps is the tilt-rotor V-22 cargo plane, which will cost $85 million apiece. The Army has major production and modernization programs for
Comanche, Apache, and Black Hawk helicopters that will total $70 billion. Indeed, over the past decade, the Army has spent more on aircraft and missiles
than it has on tracked combat vehicles. In sum, over 60 percent of the US defense budget is devoted to air and space forces. In fact, a comparison of our four
air arms with those of the rest of the world shows that each individually is greater than the military air assets of most major countries (fig. 5). The
qualitative superiority of American aircraft makes our air and space dominance even more profound.
The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their
realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the
American way of war. Indeed, the major disagreements that occur among the services today generally
concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those assets, but their differing
views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the
authority of the joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the
question of which service should command space, and the question of whether the air or ground commander
should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance of joint operations, and air and
space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon. Air and space dominance also provides
our civilian leadership with flexibility. Although intelligence is never perfect, our leaders now have
unprecedented information regarding what military actions can or cannot accomplish and how much
risk is involved in a given action. For example, our leaders understood far better than ever before how many aircraft and weapons would be
needed over Serbia and Afghanistan to produce a specified military effect, weapon accuracy, collateral damage that might occur, and risk to our aircrews.
This allowed our leaders to fine-tune the air campaign, providing more rapid and effective control than previously.

Declining US power causes econ collapse, nuclear world wars and power vacuum
Wall Street Journal 4 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005244)

Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a
world without a hyperpower might find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an
altogether more dangerous one than the one of the ninth century. For the world is roughly 25 times more populous, so
that friction between the world's "tribes" is bound to be greater. Technology has transformed production; now societies depend
not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of mineral oil that are known to be finite. Technology has
changed destruction, too: Now it is possible not just to sack a city, but to obliterate it. For more than two decades,
globalization has been raising living standards, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. Deglobalization--which
is what a new Dark Age would amount to--would lead to economic depression. As the U.S. sought to protect itself after a second 9/11
devastated Houston, say, it would inevitably become a less open society. And as Europe's Muslim enclaves grow, infiltration of the EU by Islamist extremists could
become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to breaking point. Meanwhile, an economic crisis in China could plunge the Communist
system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that have undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out, and conclude that lower
returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The
worst effects of the Dark Age would be felt on the margins of the
waning great powers. With ease, the terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers and
cruise liners while we concentrate our efforts on making airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars
could devastate numerous regions, beginning in Korea and Kashmir; perhaps ending catastrophically in the
Middle East. The prospect of an apolar world should frighten us a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the U.S. is to
retreat from the role of global hegemon--its fragile self-belief dented by minor reversals--its critics must not
pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony. The alternative to unpolarity may not be
multipolarity at all. It may be a global vacuum of power. Be careful what you wish for.
Effective military power precludes nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the
World After the Cold War.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2. pg. 84 Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise
of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term
guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which
the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment
would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major
problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling
the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers,
including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability
than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good
guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be
ready to use force and put American lives at risk. It is a good prism for identifying threats, setting priorities
for U.S. policy toward various regions and states, and assessing needs for military capabilities and
modernization.

Collapse of US heg makes peace impossible – there are multiple scenarious for war
KAGAN 7 (Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, Policy
Review, August/Sept, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10,)
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American
predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists
independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the
aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works.
International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The
international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold
War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and
Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would
have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it
would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also
offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving
the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and
Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to
decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and
Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too,
could draw in other great powers, including the United States.Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what
policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its
positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American
power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even
China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American
withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the
United States withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the
scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more
overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the
disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a
permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If
the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in
time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the
United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American
position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital
interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in
Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best
while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic
key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That
commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American
military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.The subtraction of American power from any region would
not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside
and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more
threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate
American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance
and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution
of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper
involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states
of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would
voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed
that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will
produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again.The alternative to American regional
predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is
likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend
American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and
global involvement will provide an easier path.

Liquid coal enhances all military functions of combat vehicles, strengthening overall
military power
Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
December 09, 2006]
Ethanol, however, has a 50% lower volumetric energy density than gasoline. With 50% less energy density than
gasoline, DoD operations will require 50% more fueling sorties by tanker trucks, implying a 50% greater danger for
those responsible for that endeavor. To keep the same range per fillup by combat vehicles, fuel tanks would have to
be increased in size by 50%. Furthermore, ethanol has a lower flash point and, therefore, more prone to explosion
than is gasoline. Hence, even if it were comparable on a WTW energy or GHG emissions basis, ethanol would still
be unsuitable for use on DoD missions on a performance basis. On this performance basis, liquid hydrocarbon
fuels emerge as the preferred energy source for mobility on DoD tactical and combat vehicles, both air and
land-based. Since these fuels are most cheaply made from fossil energy of one type or another, and since,
barring unforeseen upheavals, the fossil-fuel feedstock supplies appear adequate for sometime into the future,
the best method for reduction of a DoD fuel consumption is to reduce demand, as described above, through a
variety of methods including patterns of use, lightweighting vehicles, re-engining tanks and B-52 bombers,
and replacing manned platforms with unmanned ones. In aggregate, these approaches can yield considerable
fuel savings while at the same time enhancing performance of DoD platforms and opening up new mission
capabilities for DoD forces.
Liquid coal solves oil dependence
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 9)

The United States continues to increase its dependence on foreign oil as domestic production declined by
11% from 2001 to 2005. Meanwhile, global demand is growing and concerns are mounting that world oil
production is depleting reserves at rates faster than replacement reserves can be deployed. Application of
coal-to-liquids technologies would move the United States toward greater energy security and relieve cost
and supply pressures on transportation fuels by producing 2.6 MMbbl/d of liquids. These steps would
enhance U.S. oil supply by 10% and utilize an additional 475 million tons of coal per year.
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 1: China

The Chinese will attack in 2012, it will go nuclear, and only air power solves
Winn 8 (Patrick, Air Force Times Staff Writer, Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China, January 28, 2008
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/01/airforce_china_strategy_080121/)
In a hypothetical future scenario, the U.S. and China are poised to clash — likely over Taiwan. The democratic Republic of
China, commonly called Taiwan — which America backs and the communist People’s Republic of China considers part of its territory — frequently irritates
while the American military mulls its options, Chinese
Chinese leaders with calls for greater independence from the mainland. But
missiles hit runways, fuel lines, barracks and supply depots at U.S. Air Force bases in Japan and South Korea. Long-range warheads
destroy American satellites, crippling Air Force surveillance and communication networks. A nuclear
fireball erupts high above the Pacific Ocean, ionizing the atmosphere and scrambling radars and radio feeds. This is China’s anti-U.S.
sucker punch strategy. It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by
Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid
full-on war. This strategic outlook isn’t hidden in secret Chinese documents. It’s printed in China’s military journals and textbooks. And for much of last year,
Mandarin literates and defense experts — working for the Santa Monica, Calif.-based Rand Corp. on an Air Force contract — combed through a range of
Chinese military sources. They emerged with “Entering the Dragon’s Lair,” a lengthy report on how the
Chinese People’s Liberation Army
would likely confront the U.S. military and how the Air Force in particular can brace itself. In many cases, the
theoretical enemy nation China’s officers discuss in these scenarios isn’t explicitly named but is unmistakably the U.S. “These aren’t war plans,” said report co-
author Roger Cliff, a former Defense Department strategist and China military specialist who spoke to Air Force Times from Taiwan. “This is the military talking
to itself. It’s not designed for foreigners or even China’s general public to read.” Element of surprise When it comes to conflict with the U.S., Chinese military
analysts favor age-old schoolyard wisdom: Throw the first punch and hit hard. “Future conflicts are likely to be short, intense affairs that might consist of a single
campaign,” Cliff said. “They’re thinking about ways to get the drop on us. Most of our force is not forward-deployed.” China’s experts concede its army would
lose a head-on fight, with one senior colonel comparing such a scenario to “throwing an egg against a rock.” Instead, the Chinese would attempt what Rand calls
an “anti-access” strategy: slowing the deployment of U.S. forces to the Pacific theater, damaging operations within the region and forcing the U.S. to fight from a
distance. “Taking the enemy by surprise,” one Chinese military expert wrote, “would catch it unprepared and cause confusion within and huge psychological
pressure on the enemy and help [China] win relatively large victories at relatively small costs.” Another military volume suggests feigning a large-scale military
training exercise to conceal the attack’s buildup. The Dragon’s Lair Striking U.S. air bases — specifically command-and-control facilities, aircraft hangars and
surface-to-air missile launchers — would be China’s first priority if a conflict arose, according to Rand’s report. U.S. facilities in South Korea and Japan, even
far-south Okinawa, sit within what Rand calls the “Dragon’s Lair”: a swath of land and sea along China’s coast. This is an area reachable by cruise missiles, jet-
borne precision bombs and local covert operatives. Air Force bases within this area include Osan and Kunsan in South Korea, as well as Misawa, Yokota and
Kadena in Japan. And in a conflict over Taiwan, any nation allowing “an intervening superpower” such as the U.S. to operate inside its territory can expect a
Chinese attack, according to China’s defense experts. China is designing ground-launched cruise missiles capable of nailing targets more than 900 miles away —
well within striking range of South Korea and much of Japan, according to the report. Cruise missiles able to reach Okinawa — home to Kadena Air Base — are
in development.
The Chinese would first launch “concentrated and unexpected” attacks on tarmacs using runway-penetrating missiles and,
soon after, would target U.S. aircraft. Saboteurs would play a role in reconnaissance, harassing operations and even “assassinating key personnel,”
according to another military expert. Chinese fighter jets would scramble to intercept aerial refueling tankers and cargo planes sent to shuttle in fuel, munitions,
supplies or troops. High-explosive cluster bombs would target pilot quarters and other personnel buildings. Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive”
about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on
the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the
Rand report.) Once this hard-and-fast assault on U.S. bases commenced, the Chinese army would “swiftly divert” its forces and “guard vigilantly against enemy
retaliation,” according to a Chinese expert. Dumb and blind The PLA also would likely use less conventional attacks on the American military’s vital communications
network. The goal, as one Chinese expert put it: leaving U.S. combat capabilities “blind,” “deaf” and “paralyzed.” Losing early-warning systems designed to detect
incoming missiles would be, for the Air Force, the most devastating setback — one that could force the service to exit the region altogether, according to Rand. China
could also launch a nuclear “e-bomb,” or electromagnetic explosive, that would fry U.S. communication equipment while ionizing the atmosphere for minutes to
hours, according to the report. This would likely jam radio signals in a 900-mile diameter beneath the nuclear fireball. The PLA could also employ long-range anti-
satellite missiles — similar to one successfully tested last January — to destroy one or more American satellites. However, the PLA has a host of less dramatic
options: short-range jammers hidden in suitcases or bombs and virus attacks on Air Force computer networks. U.S. Air Force options Shielding against a swift
Chinese onslaught is, according to Rand, as simple as reinforcing a runway or as complex as cloaking the orbit of military satellites. In the short term, U.S. air bases
inside the Dragon’s Lair should add an extra layer of concrete to their runways and bury fuel tanks underground. All aircraft, the report said, should be parked in
hardened shelters, especially fighter jets. Parking larger aircraft — bombers, tankers and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems jets — in hard-shell
hangars would be expensive and difficult but likely worth the cost, according to the report. U.S.
fighter jets remain the best defense against
incoming Chinese missile attacks. But, given China’s taste for sudden attacks, surface-launched missile defense systems must be installed long before
a conflict roils. Because the PLA is expected to strike quickly, the report said, waiting for the first tremors of conflict is not an option. The Air Force also should fortify
itself against Chinese hackers by using software encryption, isolating critical computer systems and preparing contingency plans to communicate without a high-
bandwidth network. Though China maintains a “no first use” nuclear bomb policy, the U.S., according to Rand, should warn China that nuclear electromagnetic pulse
attacks will be considered acts of nuclear aggression and could prompt nuclear retaliation. Rand insists the Air
Force must defend satellites —
which support communication, reconnaissance, bomb guidance and more — against China’s proven satellite-
killing missiles. This could be accomplished in the Cold War tradition of mutually assured destruction by threatening to retaliate in kind if the PLA blasts U.S.
satellites. “That might be the one restraining factor,” Cliff said. “They might not want to start that space war.” Or, Rand suggests, the U.S. could invest heavily in
satellite protection or evasion techniques, including stealth, blending in with other satellite constellations or perhaps developing and deploying microsatellites capable
of swarming to defend larger satellites, which the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working toward. If the most contentious issue is
Taiwan, Cliff said, then the likely trigger would be Taiwanese elections, where assertions of complete
independence from the mainland can infuriate Chinese leaders. China’s current president, Hu Jintao, has built up
China’s military but also its ties with America. In 2012, however, when Taiwan holds an election and
mainland China’s leadership is expected to turn over, perhaps for the worse, the risk of conflict could increase.
“It really depends on the circumstances,” Cliff said. “Would Taiwan be the provocateur? If so, it might be hard for the American public to support
intervention.” However, if China moves to capture control of the island, Cliff said he believes the U.S. would face a rocky dilemma. “Are we really going
to let a small, democratic country get snuffed out by a huge authoritarian country — especially when you
think about how our own country came into existence?” Cliff said.
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (1/3)

War with Iran is inevitable – The Bush Administratin wants it in the short-term
BBC 8 (Brittish Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Monitoring International Reports

June 23, 2008 Monday USA MAY GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAN SOON - AZERI EXPERT, Lexis)
The following is the excerpt from Cavid Turan's report in opposition Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 23 June headlined "`The
US-Iran war is inevitable'" and subheaded "Vafa Quluzada: `The White House thinks that Tehran should
be attacked before it acquires nuclear weapon'" The concern about the start of military operations against Iran is again on the
agenda of the world. The head of the IAEA, Muhammad al-Baradi'i, has said he would resign if military action is taken against Iran. [Passage omitted:
quotes from al-Baradi'i statement and Iran's move to transfer bank accounts from Europe] Political expert Vafa Quluzada says that the
danger
around Iran remains quite real: "War against Iran has always been on the agenda. Their policies are
completely against each other. Such a situation may end up in a war soon." The political expert
highlighted that it is of no significance for the USA the region to be turned into a fireball: "The point in question
is that not the USA but our region will turn into a fireball. This is a very dangerous issue. However, we are unable to influence the processes. Other states
are not the same heavyweights like the USA. When there was a balance in the world, the USSR either raised the issue with the UN or announced a "nuclear
alarm". After such a move, the USA would retreat. However, Russia is not a match to the USA now. Therefore, the
USA does whatever it
wants." Quluzada said that no-one yet knew on what America has calculated own plans: "There are criticisms that the USA made mistakes in Iraq.
However, they do not name what those mistakes were. Does the USA consider that this should be the case?! America, which has succeeded
in Iraq, now wants to wipe Iran off the political map. We should know that the US calculations are
different." The political expert thinks that as against the Iraq operations, the US-Iran conflict is more
understandable than that of Iraq. "America has no option except for war with Iran as the Iranian
regime is very strong and will not surrender to the USA. Although Tehran does not recognize, it is coming
closer to the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapon. In its turn, America thinks that it is better to go to
war against Iran now rather than after it obtains nuclear weapon." Quluzada also believes that opinions
of experts that oil prices will rocket to 500 dollars if a war starts, will not hinder these operations: "It is
possible that oil prices will soar into 500 dollars for a brief period. But at the end, the prices may plummet to
15 dollars. America is not going to destroy Iranian oil... On the contrary, as a result of these operations, the
USA will also get control over Iranian oil. In this context, war is always expected."

A failed strike would cause WWIII
Ashinoff`6 (Alan Ashinoff, HUMAN EVENTS, May 22,, 2006, p.. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1487)
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has set Iran on a collision course with the world powers over nuclear
technology. The Iranian leader's argument for his nation's nuclear path is simple and even legitimate. Iran believes that
any sovereign nation is entitled to pursue nuclear power to suit its purpose be it energy or weaponry. In this view
Ahmadinejad is not alone. French President Chirac was quoted via a spokesman as saying that "France believes in the need
for the demands of non-proliferation to be respected, but believes this does not in any way prejudice Iran's right to civil
nuclear energy within such a framework." France is not alone in this position as many European Union nations and Russia
seem to believe Iran responsible enough to posses and wield the earth most destructive power. Unlike Iraq, the world clearly
knows where Iran's nuclear ambitions are leading.
The Iranian leader made his intentions clear that he views
the destruction of Israel as an Islamic duty. Any world leader making such a statement is either fanatically insane
or extraordinarily calculating. Ahmadinejad has publicly threatened the existence of another sovereign nation, Israel, and
nothing has been done by Israel, the UN, or any other nation to curtail the probability of an actual strike. The world has
known for quite some time that Iran has aggressively supported terrorism across the globe. Very much like a
bully who needs to talk himself into action Iran has been building its courage as it builds its ability to make war. Once the
bully feels his punch is great enough to back his mouth the fight ensues. How could such a brazenly hostile statement serve
Iran's interests? Iran has reluctantly willing allies in Europe. History has already witnessed the 'price' countries like France
and Germany were willing to pay for Iraqi oil and business revenues. Thousands of Iraqi civilians died as some members of
the United Nations skirted the 1991 cease-fire sanctions to allow billions of dollars into former leader Saddam Hussein
coffers to rebuild his weapons and regime. Former President Saddam Hussein did not care how many innocent Iraqi's
suffered and instead blamed the United States for Iraq's hardships via the sanction imposed by the 1991 cease fire
agreement. United Nations members who allowed for the Oil for Food scandal obviously didn’t care, or didn't care to know,
what this dictator was doing with the excess funds they allowed him to collect. Instead United Nations members pocketed
billions of dollars as Iraqi citizens were butchered, tortured, or let starve by Saddam Hussein. Ahmadinejad is gambling that
the world is more interested in the flow of oil (and the potential of some nations to grossly profit from that flow) than Israel.
After all, in Ahmadinejad's mind, were not the Jews systematically exterminated in Europe not that long ago? Did not the re-
creation of Israel occur after the Holocaust of World War II as a way to physically remove the Jews from Europe's hatred?
Isn’t there a sizeable and sometimes violent racial hatred toward Jews in Europe that continues to this day? Isn't there a
deeply paranoid and irrational distrust of the Jews resident in the American left today? Ahmadinejad is banking on distrust
and hatred of Jews and is relying on greed to buy enough time to develop the power and weapons needed to fulfill what he
As the United States inches closer to war with Iran, the world frantically
sees as his divine purpose.
scrambles to negotiate some equitable, peaceful solution to defuse global chaos. A war with Iran would
disrupt the world’s oil trade and drastically increase the cost of oil and oil related goods. To complicate matters further,
Muslim populations throughout Europe have already been enraged by Dutch cartoons, which have sparked riots throughout
Europe. A war with Iran (a known sponsor of terrorism and the suspected supporter of the Iraq insurgency) could mean
Muslim violence of epic proportions across Europe. As witnessed in France recently, many European governments prefer not
to confront rioters and instead choose allow angry mobs to exhaust themselves from feasting on the destruction of anything
in their path. A massive Muslim uprising of potentially 88 million Islamic people in Europe could devastate entire countries.
Widespread riots combined with seeded terrorist cell activity in typically apathetic European nations could provoke the
To
failure of European government and leave millions of Europeans at the mercy of angry and vicious Islamic mobs.
assume that Iran, once having attained nuclear capability, would launch a first strike on Israel is logical from
an attrition point of view. Iran’s population of 68 million people greatly outnumbers Israeli’s
population of 6.2 million people. Iran could, with enough nuclear capability, trade blows with Israel until
Israel is no more. The Iranian Mullahs have shown little concern when it comes to the lives of their
own people. It would not be much of a stretch to think the mullahs (who have been buying homicide bombers
for years) would hesitate to sacrifice all of Palestine to obliterate Israel. In fact, the Palestinian people would be
revered in Islam as martyrs. Iran would look like heroes to all of Islam despite the massacre of millions of Israelis and nearly
10 million Palestinians. A stretch of nuclear wasteland and a wandering cloud would be preferable to co-existence with the
Jews. From a Christian perspective the Iranian conflict could well be the beginning of the end. Iran is playing the part of the
antagonist quite well. Consider this, Iran through wild accusations, an impotent Europe, a diplomatically timid United States,
or a backdoor deal, manages to bide enough time to develop nuclear power and manufacture a nuclear weapon.
Immediately the negotiating environment changes as anyone who is negotiating knows exactly where the single warhead is
pointed. Wielding the ultimate destructive power, Iran would continue to threaten Israel with less concern than ever. Israel
having an openly hostile enemy bent "removing Israel from the map" snubs Europe's diplomatic efforts with Iran and seeks
to remove the threat itself. If successful the Iranian nuclear threat is removed. The outraged Muslim world (and possibly self-
This would set the stage for
serving European allies angered by Israel's actions) would then declare war on Israel.
biblical Armageddon as told in the book of Revelation where all the kings of the earth and their armies would be
amassed to destroy Israel once and for all. If Israel’s attack were unsuccessful Israel would be struck by the
Iranian warhead, which could potentially kill millions of Israel’s people. Israel having been struck
would retaliate in kind. Diplomatic, geographic, and economic alliances form and the third world war would begin. The
United States can not rely on the United Nations. The United Nations and the European Union showed their mettle with the
Iraq crisis and the Oil for Food scandal. Regardless of the weapons of mass destruction, Iraq did support terrorism and did
have the mechanisms to produce chemical weapons in quantity on relatively short notice. Iraq was in possession of dual use
chemicals and machinery and a variety of banned items from the sanctions imposed by the cease fire. Iraq was a logical
threat with logistical value in the long term war on terrorism. How less of a threat is a country that has openly stated that
they are pursuing nuclear power and possibly nuclear weapons with hostile intent? How much more suspect was Iraq for
supporting terrorism in 2003 than is Iran’s support of terrorism today (or prior)? Neither Israel nor America has the luxury of
time with a diplomatic oil embargo. Considering the United Nations record in such matters and the time it takes to
manufacture nuclear weapons,
to wait allows Iran to grow stronger and increases the likelihood of greater
bloodshed. Can the world afford to play politics and posture while literally millions of human lives
hang in the balance? Europe stood by as Hitler grew to his murderous prominence on their continent.
Will Europe will stand by, and possibly assist, as seventh century Muslim fundamentalist minds arm
themselves with 21 century weaponry?

The Air Force is critical to effective Iran strikes
WND 7 (Word Net Daily, NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR Pentagon rules out ground attack on Iran Officials find rugged terrain
makes invasion virtually impossible February 17, 2007, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54294)
Democrat leaders in Congress vow they'll move to block President Bush from invading Iran, but
Pentagon officials say that won't be necessary, because they have no active plans for a ground attack. In
fact, officials tell WND they have war-gamed a full-blown invasion and ruled it out because of the difficult terrain in Iran, a mountainous fortress compared
to Iraq. "It's a non-starter," said one official. He explains Iran
is ringed virtually 360 degrees by towering mountains, and
even if they were passable by artillery units, unstable salt flats and high desert wastelands stand
between those mountains and Tehran, the capital. "The Great Salt Desert outside Tehran is hundreds
of miles of dry lakebeds that ooze a black sticky mud that's a lot like quicksand," he said. "It won't
support tanks and artillery." It was in the Great Salt Desert, known locally as the Dasht-e Kavir, that the 1980 military mission to rescue
American hostages in Tehran was aborted. Dust storms blinded pilots and caused a U.S. helicopter to crash into a C-130 transport plane, killing eight crew
members. On the other side of Tehran lie the steep, jagged Elburz Mountains, which include Mount Damavand, the highest peak in Europe and Asia west of
the Hindu Kush. The average elevation of that northern range protecting Tehran is twice that of mile-high Denver. Critics of Bush's saber-rattling over Iran –
which he accuses of arming insurgents in Iraq while developing a nuclear-weapons program – worry the president is looking for a pretext to also invade Iran
and carry out regime change in Tehran. "Congress should make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president to go into Iran," warned
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. But even strong promoters of the war in Iraq are not talking seriously about going "into" Iran. "I do not think anyone
in the U.S. is talking about invasion," said Josh Muravchik, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute who has argued for air strikes on Iran.
"We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." If
the initial march to Baghdad was a cake walk, a
march to Tehran would be a logistical nightmare, experts agree. Iran is more than twice the area of
Iraq. And a wall of mountains essentially surrounds a high plateau of inhospitable terrain pocked by
salt domes and sand dunes. Supply lines would be next to impossible to establish because needle-eye
mountain passes are barely wide enough for one-way traffic during mild weather. Bottlenecks are
common even on roads between Iran and Iraq, officials note. Logistics teams were able to readily
supply U.S. forces marching to Baghdad thanks to Iraq's flatlands and easy-access ports in the Persian
Gulf. "Iran is a different story altogether," even along its rugged Gulf coast, another Pentagon official pointed out. "We
couldn't convoy big daily loads into the interior. We'd have to airlift them in." But those smaller deliveries wouldn't
be enough to supply full divisions, he added. And unlike Iraq, Iran lacks any sizable rivers, leaving most of the country arid
and dry. The Lut Desert, for example, experiences some of the world's hottest summers.) U.S. artillery forces would not have any indigenous means to
keep engines cool. That leaves air assault, which is a much more viable military option.
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 3: Terrorism

Air Power solves terrorism
Peck`7 (Allen G Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower's Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07/peck.html)
In an IW environment, the traditionally recognized ability of airpower to strike at the adversary’s “strategic
center of gravity” will likely have less relevance due to the decentralized and diffuse nature of the enemy.3
The amorphous mass of ideological movements opposing Western influence and values generally lacks a
defined command structure that airpower can attack with predictable effects. Still, airpower hold)s a
number of asymmetric trump cards (capabilities the enemy can neither meet with parity nor counter in
kind). For instance, airpower’s ability to conduct precision strikes across the globe can play an
important role in counterinsurgency operations. Numerous other advantages (including information
and cyber operations; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance [ISR]; and global mobility) have
already proven just as important. These capabilities provide our fighting forces with highly
asymmetric advantages in the IW environment. Innovation and adaptation are hallmarks of airpower. Cold
War–era bombers, designed to carry nuclear weapons, can loiter for hours over the battlefield and deliver
individual conventional weapons to within a few feet of specified coordinates. Fighter aircraft, designed to
deliver precision weapons against hardened targets, can disseminate targeting-pod video directly to an
Air Force joint terminal attack controller who can then direct a strike guided by either laser or the
global positioning system (GPS). Unmanned systems such as the Predator, once solely a surveillance
platform, now have effective laser designation and the capacity for precision, kinetic strike. Airborne
platforms offer electronic protection to ground forces, including attacking insurgent communications
and the electronics associated with triggering improvised explosive devices (IED). Exploiting altitude,
speed, and range, airborne platforms can create these effects, unconstrained by terrain or artificial
boundaries between units. Forward-thinking Airmen developed these innovations by using adaptive
tactics, techniques, procedures, and equipment to counter a thinking, adaptive enemy. To be sure, our
IW adversaries have their own asymmetric capabilities such as suicide bombers, IEDs, and the
appropriation of civilian residences, mosques, and hospitals as staging areas for their combat
operations. However, they lack and cannot effectively offset unfettered access to the high ground that
superiority in air, space, and cyberspace provides.
Terrorism risks extinction
Alexander 3 (Yonah, Professor for Inter-University for Terrorism Studies http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/aug/27/20030827-084256-8999r/)

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that
the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the
terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a
mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,
Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military
powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that
began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now
revoked cease-fire arrangements (hudna). Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern
terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's
expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the
exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike
their historical counterparts, contemporary
terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and
impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have
entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber) with its serious
implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (1/4)

Advantage 2: Air Pollution
Aircraft are the major source of air pollution.
Holzman 97 (David, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 105, Number 12, December, http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html)
In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of VOCs and NO x during landing and takeoff cycles, more than
double 1970 levels, according to the NRDC report. These two classes of compounds are precursors of ground-
level ozone, which can interfere with lung function. "During the summer . . . between 10% and 20% of all East
Coast hospital admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," says the NRDC report.
Airports are among the greatest sources of local air pollution. A major airport's idling and taxiing planes can
emit hundreds of tons of VOCs and NO x annually. John F. Kennedy International Airport is the second largest
source of VOCs in New York City. LaGuardia is among the major sources of NO x .
Air pollution devastates crops killing 50 million
BBC 5 ( News, Horizon Documentary on Global Dimming, January 15,

http://www.innovatieplatformnoordnederland.nl/cms/content.asp?contentId=247&catid=77)
The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive. Climatologists studying
this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a
result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern
Africa. In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never
quite understood why they had failed. The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the
documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations
from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50
million more” with hunger and starvation.
Air pollution kills lichen.
Kourik 8 (Robert, Author of Roots Demystified, March 29, http://robertkouriksgardenroots.blogspot.com/2008/03/tattletale-lichens.html)

In 1866, William Nylander, a Finnish naturalist, was the first to link the disappearance of lichens and air pollution. He noticed that some lichen species
present within Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, were missing in other parts of the city. He attributed these differences to air quality. Over the next thirty years,
fumes from coal-burning industrial furnaces gradually led to the eradication of the lichen population within the park. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), the result of
industrial and urban emissions, does
the most widespread damage to lower plants, even though it is only one of several air
pollution components in the atmosphere. Why are lichens sensitive to air pollution? Since lichens lack roots, surface
absorption of rainfall is the only means of obtaining vital nutrients which are dissolved in rainwater.
Lichens act like sponges, taking in everything that is dissolved in the rainwater, and retaining it. Since
there is no means of purging the SO2, the sulfur content accumulates within the lichen and reaches a
level where it breaks down the chlorophyll molecules which are responsible for photosynthesis in the
algae. When the photosynthetic process stops in the algae, the algae die and this leads to the death of
the fungus. Since it is known that different species of lichens vary in sensitivity to air pollution, scientists can use these organisms as monitors of air
pollution and as indicators of air quality. This is very useful because modern air quality instruments cannot measure the effects air pollution has on living
cells and they are limited to measuring present conditions.Most
importantly, the lack of lichens on fruit trees would be a
sure indicator that their orchard is not free from the harsh chemical sprays that harm and kill lichens. I
could readily tell that the air quality was fine in their backyard just by looking at what is growing on the bark of older trees. Take some time and look at the
bark of some of your older trees. Hopefully, a few scattered patches of gray or orange lichens can be seen growing on the bark. Near a city, there is an
obvious change in what is growing on tree trunks. Here there are areas where lichens don’t exist, such areas are termed "lichen deserts". As the air quality in
Lichens are sensitive to air pollution and
these lichens deserts improve, lichens will begin to reappear in a slow process of recovery.
have disappeared from many metropolitan and industrial areas over the last century. Lichens’
sensitivity to pollutants are actually used as biomonitors—like a green version of a canary in the coal
mine.. Lichens are valuable research tools and through the information they provide, we can have a better understanding of the impact
air pollution has on the environment.

Lichens are keystone species critical to biodiversity
USFS 98 (United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/summary/gtr_385d.pdf)
The key ecological roles of lichens include contributing mass and nutrients to litter and duff, increasing
canopy and soil moistureholding capacity, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, serving as food for animals, and
acting as bioindicators for air quality. Some species are important to American Indians. The 736 lichen species
were divided into 40 functional groups based on ecological relations. The groups occur on four main substrates:
dead organic matter; corticate and decorticate wood; rock; and soil. Lichens are major components of native
rangelands and provide critical soil functions, but have been threatened by exotic grasses, increased fire
frequency, conversion of rangelands, and livestock trampling. Lichens are part of microbiotic crusts and are
susceptible to damage from livestock grazing and trampling. One lichen, Texosporium sancti-jacobi, is listed
as a Category 2 (C2) candidate species. Providing clumps of old trees and uneven-aged stands for their legacy
of lichens can improve conservation of lichens.
Biodiversity collapse threatens human extinction

Schlickeisen 2000, (Roger, President of Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council,
May 24, Federal News Service
A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History confirmed that a majority of scientific experts
believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things. These scientists agree that: the loss of
species will pose a major threat to human existence in this century; during the next 30 years as many as
one-fifth of all species alive today could become extinct; this so-called "sixth extinction" is the fastest in the
Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, but unlike prior mass extinctions, is primarily the result of human activity
and not natural causes; biodiversity loss is a greater threat than the depletion of the ozone layer, global
warming or pollution and contamination.

Liquid coal fuels are more affordable, eliminate pollutants, and enable better engine
performance. This spills-over from the Air Force to commercial air lines
Sirak 6 (Michael, Defense Daily Correspondent, Vol. 231 No. 116, December 22, Lexis)
As the Air Force nears the goal of certifying its B-52H bomber aircraft to burn synthetic aviation fuel, the
service is also working toward the broader goal of having its entire future fleet capable of burning such
alternatively derived fuels, according to a senior service official. "We are looking for complete certification of
the Air Force fleet," Paul Bollinger, special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations,
Environment and Logistics, told Defense Daily during an interview on Dec. 20. Such fuels would reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign energy sources, Air Force officials have said. Additionally, said Bollinger, they are
expected to be more affordable, produce less pollutants and potentially enable greater engine performance, he
said. The Air Force conducted a 6.1-hour flight test on Dec. 15 of a B-52H bomber burning a synthetic fuel mix in
all eight of its engines. The fuel is 50 percent derived from natural gas and 50 percent traditional JP-8 aviation
fuel. The natural gas is converted via a process called the Fischer-Tropsch procedure. Pilot feedback from the mission, which built upon earlier
flight tests in September, showed that the B-52H "performed the same way that he would have expected on a JP-8-fueled aircraft," said Bollinger,
who noted that Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, Calif., flew the aircraft. Cold-weather
engine tests with the synthetic fuel mix are scheduled to take place in January and February, Bollinger said. Analysis of data from the B- 52H
tests is ongoing and the service anticipates issuing a report of the findings around March that will lead to the aircraft's certification, he said. The
Air Force expects to select a second platform within the next month or so to continue the process of certifying additional aircraft, he said. The
service intends to pick an aircraft with high-bypass engines, such as those on Air Force transport aircraft, he
said. Doing so will allow the Air Force work to support the certification of the synthetic fuels on commercial
airliners, said Bollinger. Since commercial airlines consume about 90 percent of all aviation fuel in the United
States annually, their inclusion is critical to establishing the market for the alternative fuels in the United
States, he said. Thereafter, the Air Force anticipates addressing its fighter fleet, he said. "The aircraft that our
scientists and engineers are most interested in testing are the fighter aircraft because of the afterburners," he
said. Bollinger said there is a clear business case for the synthetic fuels. The Air Force currently pays about $92
per barrel of aviation fuel, he said. Studies have shown that synthetic fuel could be acquired for around $70
per barrel, he said. "The ability to have fuel provided at a known price over a long-term period has potentially
huge benefits to the Air Force and other services," he said, noting that the Air Force had to spend $1.6 billion more in 2006 than
the previous year for roughly the same amount of fuel due to oil price increases. By 2016, the Air Force would like to have half of its aviation fuel
to be the 50-50 synthetic blend (Defense Daily, Nov. 21). However, the longer term objective is to incorporate synthetic fuel mixes with a greater
percentage of Fischer-Tropsch-derived fuel, such as a 90-10 blend, he said. "It is our objective in all of this ultimately to be able to fly with
synthetic fuel potentially up to 100 percent synthetic fuel, which is in reality a 90-10 formula," he said. The Air Force is cooperating with the
Army and Navy on the introduction of alternative fuels, Bollinger noted.
CTL solves air pollution from aircraft
Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)

F-T fuels offer numerous benefits for aviation users. The first is an immediate reduction in particulate
emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown in laboratory combustors and engines to reduce PM emissions by
96% at idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other turbine engine emissions is
still under way. Concurrent to the PM reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel.
F-T fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy content per carbon content of
the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load
of fuel.

Independently, CTL replaces traditional cooking oils which produce indoor air pollution –
The impact is 1.5 million lives a year
Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)

Fuels produced from coal also have potential outside the transportation sector, In many developing countries,
health impacts and local air quality concerns have driven calls for the use of clean cooking fuels. Replacing
traditional biomass or solid fuels with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has been the focus of international aid
programs. LPG, however, is an oil derivative and is thus affected by the expense and price volatility
of crude oil. At current oil prices the affordability of LPG is questionable, potentially causing consumers to
return to traditional biomass resources—wood or dung—with resulting health impacts. Indoor air pollution
from traditional solid cooking fuels is responsible for at least 1.5 million deaths per year.
1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (1/4)

Ob 2: Solvency
Long-term contracts jumpstart the industry by ensuring financial stability – A

procurement market overcomes cost-competitiveness issues
Landry 7 (Cathy, Platts Oilgram Price Report, SECTION: Pg. 1 Vol. 85 No. 40, Feb. 28, Lexis)
The Pentagon will announce plans this week to buy 215,000 gal of synthetic jet fuel, with 206,000 gal of the total going
to feed a US Air Force test and evaluation program and the balance going toward a similar program being conducted by National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, a contracting official for the Defense Department's fuel-procurement arm said Tuesday. "We could have the [solicitation]
out [Wednesday]," said the Defense Energy Support Center official, who asked not to be named. DESC had initially been considering a tender of
around 500,000 gal, but the contracting agent said the Navy had yet to sign onto the program, so the solicitation would reflect only the needs of
the Air Force and NASA. "We will probably get to 500,000 gal in the future, but right now we only have a need for
215,000 gal," the official said. Michael Aimone, the Air Force's assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics,
installations and mission support, unveiled the Air Force's synthetic jet fuel purchasing plans before a Senate
panel Tuesday. He also told the Senate Finance Committee that the Air Force would seek legislative authority
to enter into long-term contracts to buy larger volumes of the fuels. Companies that are considering
development of commercial-scale US synthetic fuel coal-to-liquids production plants say they need long-term
contracts to justify the multi-billion projects. To allow for "strategic research and development investments,"
the Air Force would like "long-term contract authority for these types of products," Aimone said of synthetic fuel
purchases. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave federal entities authority to enter into long-term contracts, but that authority was limited to five
years, Aimone said, adding in an interview that he wanted at least 10 years of long-term contract authority. The Air Force spends $7
billion/year on energy and stated its intention to get synthetic jet fuel approved for all its military aircrafts by
2010 and the fuel to be in widespread use by 2016. The Air Force has successfully completed its first two tests
of a 50-50 blend of synthetic jet fuel and crude-derived jet in its B-52 bombers to ensure the fuel meets
various performance and safety standards. The Air Force plan is part of a Pentagon policy toward promoting
synfuels. The Defense Department, through the DESC, buys 8.7 billion gal/year, making it the world's largest
fuel buyer. The Pentagon is hoping to use that buying power to jump-start the synthetic jet fuel industry, and
has indicated it could purchase of up to 200 million gal over the next several years. The ultimate goal would
be to lessen US dependence on crude oil, particularly from trouble spots in the Middle East. While the Defense
Department's long-term objective is to bolster US alternative fuel production, US synthetic jet fuel plants probably will not be ready for another
three years at the earliest. For that reason, the winner or winners of the upcoming solicitation will likely be foreign companies?Royal Dutch Shell
and South Africa's Sasoil?because they are the only two companies that have expressed interest that have commercialized synthetic fuels. Shell
produces synthetic jet using the Fischer-Tropsch process by converting natural gas to liquids; Sasoil, which sells to commercial jets in the
Johannesburg airport, converts coal to liquids using the same process. The solicitation will be an "open competition contract," meaning any
qualified bidder can bid, the contracting official said. US companies that have expressed interest in supply synthetic jet
fuel to the military have indicated they would pursue coal-to-liquids plants because of the favorable price
differential between coal and jet fuel prices. The solicitation to be released this week will require that the
synthetic jet fuel be converted using a Fischer-Tropsch process, the contracting official said.

SQ incentives are effective, but limited – Only new federal incentives generate a stable
DOD test market and prevent backstopping by OPEC

Today, the barriers to building large scale commercial F-T facilities that can cut into the volume of imported
oil are purely financial. The history of the energy business, particularly the oil industry, is marked by
volatility. Investors have long memories and, as has been said before, “capital is cowardly.” Many who are
interested in investing in alternative energy production are looking to Washington to provide some level of
certainty. The cost of a 30,000 to 40,000 barrel per day F-T plant is estimated in the $3 to $6 billion range,
numbers that are often associated with large traditional refineries or power plants, not alternative energy
production.
Federal policies and programs that can help to provide the needed certainty can take several forms. The first,
and most natural, would be for the Department of Defense to enter into long term supply contracts with F-T
fuel producers. There are several bi-partisan proposals to enable this, including extension of the Department’s
contracting authority from its current 5 year limit to 25 years. Next would be the establishment of a program
similar to that proposed by Representatives Boucher and Shimkus to create a “price collar” program which
would protect producers from a dramatic drop in oil prices and taxpayers through a revenue sharing
mechanism when prices exceed a certain level.
Extending the extending the existing alternative fuels excise tax credit, which covers F-T fuels and is set to
expire in the fall of 2009, to 2020 would also provide a level of protection for investors from potential OPEC
price manipulation intended to undermine U.S. alternative energy programs.
CTL faces no technical problems and expanded federal R&D is critical to commercial
deployment and carbon capture
Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)

A great benefit of the F-T approach to liquid fuel development is that we know it works. F-T fuels
are being produced today using both coal and natural gas in South Africa and using natural gas in
Malaysia and Qatar. F-T fuels or blends of F-T and conventional petroleum products are in
commercial use. Their suitability for use in vehicles and commercial aviation has been
established. The R&D challenge for coal-to-liquids development is not how to use but rather how
to produce these fuels in a manner that is consistent with our national environmental objectives.
If the federal government is prepared to promote early production experience, then expanded
federal R&D efforts are needed. Most important, consideration should be given to accelerating
the development and testing (including large-scale testing) of methods for the long-term
sequestration of carbon dioxide. This could involve using one or more of the early coal-to-liquids
production plants as a source of carbon dioxide for the testing of sequestration options.

Global use of CTL is inevitable – Only US incentives create the motive for environmentally
sound development, global modeling and guarantee U.S. competitiveness in critical
industries
Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)

The preceding discussion supports the argument for a holistic approach to energy and transportation fuel
development that is protective of the environment, while giving adequate attention to sustainable and secure
energy for the nation`s future. The urgency for clean energy need not come at the expense of national
security. As the nation moves forward using biomass and other renewable energy resources, and eventually
with nuclear power and heat, it will be to again produce ammonia for fertilizer, chemical feedstock for
consumer products, industrial gas for gas and steel production plants, and clean hydrogen for electrical power
production (as known as FutureGen), hydrogen for sour crude and unconventional fossil fuel upgrading, and
last, but not least, secure transportation fuels for the next century and beyond.
This can be done while reducing green house gas emissions. Failure to take on this leadership will only
transfer this responsibility to future generations or foreign nations that will continue to produce the products
demanded without probable control of greenhouse gas emissions. Failure to assume this leadership will also
result in economic decline and increased national security risk. On the other hand, willingness of project
developers and environmental protection organizations to accept coal conversion with biomass blending and
carbon management will enable the U.S. to provide solutions to our global commons, while assuring secure,
clean, efficient, and sustainable domestic energy for the future.
Other system approaches could consider the use of high pressure CO2 slurries to transport western coal and
CO2 to CTL plants and carbon sequestration sites in the East, with a return line bringing water from the East
to the arid West as practical. The reality is that the U.S. is not short on viable solutions to build a clean, and
secure CTL industry. Such ideas abound within the nation`s research academic institutions and national
laboratories. The key for currently developing projects is to implement proven technology with a goal of
reducing green house gases and minimizing water use. This recommendation is consistent with other
technical experts who have previously testified before congressional committees. It is consistent with DOE
and Department of Defense objectives to establish a secure domestic supply of transportation fuels while
simultaneously mitigating global climate impact concerns.
I personally support efforts to convince the U.S. to conserve energy, while moving to a new fleet of hybrid
cars and electrically-driven commuter cars. I support accelerated development of wind and solar energy, as
well ``smart`` deployment of nuclear electrical power generation. I support a movement to develop biomass
as a national resource, and the associated deployment of a system to improve yield, collection, preparation,
and transportation of this resource to points of efficient conversion into energy and transportation fuels.
However, I also believe the pending peaking of oil production, as well as diminishing domestic reserves of
natural gas, in parallel with global energy demand projections and the acute need to address climate change
point to the urgency for the United States to begin unprecedented efforts to begin building plants for
transportation fuels from the nations abundant supply of coal with biomass. It is both in the interest of
national security as well as global environmental protection. The example established by the United States
can serve as a model for other countries to follow. This task cannot be left purely to the market place, since it
is not presently the lowest cost method to produce electricity, natural gas, ammonia, chemicals, and
transportation fuels. It is for these reasons that ``big oil`` is not currently investing in the development and
construction of CTL plants in the United States. Therefore, Federal incentives to move to a synthetic fuels
industry are necessary for timely market entry- in a manner that is protective of the environment.
Establishing necessary greenhouse gas reduction targets will impact the economics and risk of the first U.S.
plants; hence, assistance in the form of loan guarantees and tax advantages will help establish this vital
industry ahead of significant economic incentives.

Only the military can solve – Jet fuel purchases spillover to civilian life – CTL solves military
vulnerabilities in the short-term
Eggers 8 (Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff. Was director for combating terrorism at national
security council Armed Forces Journal “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
Then-Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, before Hurricane Katrina, cautioned that policy should not interfere with the market and instead should allow
elevated prices and naturally reduced demand to drive increased innovation in alternative energy markets. In 2006, after Katrina and facing sharp increases in prices,
Greenspan testified before Congress that “the buffer between supply and demand is much too small to absorb shutdowns of even a small part of the world’s
production. ... Oil users judge they need to be prepared for the possibility that at some point a raid will succeed, with a devastating impact on supply.” And the price of
oil has increased more than $30 a barrel since that speech. The ability of market forces to force an adjustment of demand and spur technological innovation is now
eclipsed by market volatility and supply vulnerability. The growing national security consequences of our dependence underscore the imperative for action. Oil’s
ascendancy to a strategic commodity was through the military; the military should also be the source of its
demise. The British Navy’s shift from coal to oil and the U.S. Navy’s pioneering research in nuclear power suggest that military requirements and
innovation are well-poised to push difficult or innovative solutions. For starters, U.S. warships are one of the few places where
nuclear power might reduce the transportation sector’s dependence on liquid fuels. Thus the maritime sector has the luxury of being poised for transformation to
alternative methods if and when oil spikes to prices considered inconceivable today. Similarly, land-based transportation is arguably close to viable jumping points to
new foundational technologies, possibly through electric or hydrogen power. It is significantly less clear what non-liquid or non-carbon technology the airline industry
might choose. While there are alternatives on the horizon for shipping and wheeled transportation, there is no resource so optimized in ease of storage and power
density as good old petroleum. And given
that jet fuel constitutes the Defense Department’s largest single energy
expenditure, improvements in this field would not only close the widest gap in civil transportation
requirement, they would simultaneously make the largest improvement in defense propulsion vulnerabilities.
At the International Maritime Propulsion Conference in May, scientists and researchers will debate the viability of crude oil alternatives and will likely conclude that
CTL processes offer the most feasible short-term solution. Similar studies in Europe have concluded that hydrogen and biofuels are
unlikely short-term successors. Hydrogen is an energy storage option, not a source, and current generation biofuels are competing with food supplies — the principal
reason that a gallon of milk still costs more than a gallon of gasoline. While CTL is cost-effective now, the process of liquefying coal requires significant
amounts of water and produces significant carbon emissions, two sensitive areas that need to be addressed hand-in-hand with energy needs, not at the expense of one
another. Climate change and associated political pressures mean that proposed solutions must increasingly utilize a comprehensive well-to-wheel analysis, not only in
terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental consequences. National security has always held the trump card over environmental factors, and this is
unlikely to change, but the bar for playing this hand is rising. As we begin to capture more of the hidden costs of energy, cheap solutions will
become harder to find, further emphasizing the need for expanded research.
***Topicality***
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (1/2)

1. We meet: The plan says alternative energy. The government interprets this to include
CTL. The advantage stems from a topical mandate.
2. Counterinterp: Alternative energy is non-petroleum fuel and any non-fossil fuel for
electricity production
A. Alternative fuel is alternative energy – This category includes non-renewable, traditional

fuel sources
Warkentin-Glenn 6 (Denise, “Electric Power Industry”, http://books.google.com/books?id=ivtsqD692DoC)
Alternative energy includes alternative fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and
diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is traditional. It also includes the use of
traditional energy sources, such as natural, in untraditional ways, such as for distributed energy at the
point of use through microturbines or fuel cells. Finally it also encompasses future energy sources, such as
hydrogen and fusion.
B. Alternative means untraditional – Coal is not traditionally used as fuel

American Heritage 6 (dictionary.com)
Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative
newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
3. Reasons to prefer
A. Overlimits: They exclude fuels cells, hydrogen, natural gas, and nuclear power, all of which
are critical areas for topic education.
B. Aff predictability: Govt definitions statutorily define CTL as alternative energy. They’re
the most obvious standard for inclusion
DOE 93 (Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/financial/020693.pdf)
Nothing illustrates the volatility of the FRS companies' investment targets during the past two decades better
than the waxing and waning of their activities and investments in alternative energy in the late 1970's and
1980's. Alternative energy includes renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy),
cogeneration, and the production of refinable hydrocarbons from tar sands, oil shale, and coal. At first,
FRS companies viewed many alternative energy technologies as promising. For example, Exxon and
Suncor (Sun Oil's Canadian subsidiary) had synfuel (tar sands) operations. Unocal and Coastal had
geothermal operations. In 1982, a dozen FRS companies invested more than $1 billion in oil shale
development.
C. Grammatical precision – Alternative energy is distinct from renewables – It’s
intentionally broader
NEPD 7 (Natl Energy Policy Directorate, executive branch advisory, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Chapter6.pdf)

Alternative energy includes: alternative fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and
diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is traditional; the use of traditional energy
sources, such as natural gas, in untraditional ways, such as for distributed energy at the point of use through
microturbines or fuel cells; and future energy sources, such as hydrogen and fusion. Both renewable and
alternative energy resources can be produced centrally or on a distributed basis near their point of use.
Providing electricity, light, heat, or mechanical energy at the point of use diminishes the need for some
transmission lines and pipelines, reducing associated energy delivery losses and increasing energy efficiency.
Distributed energy resources may be renewable resources, such as biomass cogeneration in the lumber
and paper industry or rooftop solar photovoltaic systems on homes, or they may be alternative uses of
traditional energy, such as natural gas microturbines
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (2/2)

This distinction has legal importance and grammar is critical to predictability
Andrews 7 (Edmund L., New York Times reporter, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/business/coal.1-

63507.php?page=1)
President George W. Bush has not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the
importance of coal as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline
consumption by 2017, he has carefully referred to the need for "alternative fuels" rather than
"renewable fuels." Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal.
4. Their limits arg is bad

A. No explosion: We only add coal and natural gas and we only do so for fuels. The increase
is small.
B. “Uncommon” checks: Prevents any general electricity, clean coal, or improved oil affs.
These aren’t uncommon uses, just uncommon outcomes. We’re still required to invest in massive
infrastructure changes and compete with oil like all renewables.
C. “Oil good” and mechanisms check: The combination of general arg’s in favor of oil and
free market vs. command and control CP’s provides a solid balance of neg generic ground. Their
appeal is only to basic neg ground, which we don’t decrease.
5. Their ground arg is bad:

A. Err aff: The neg gets too many generics, PICs, K’s w utopian alts, consult, conditions, and
actor CPs, the neg block, and no risk neg theory. The aff empirically loses more elims in modern
debate.
B. Ground is variable: The aff is always reducing neg ground intentionally. They have no right
to any particular DA, CP, or K.
C. CTL increases ground: We deplete traditional coal stocks, meaning we trade off with any SQ
coal uses. Any “coal good” DA they had before still applies to the aff bc of the uncommon use in
the aff.
6. Counterinterp: The plan must say alternative energy.
7. Our interp is superior:

A. Predictable: It’s the word in the resolution, the clearest brightline.
B. Neg ground: Allows the “renewable energy” PIC, which competes based on the disads to dirty
alternatives.
C. Limits: Prevents the aff from overspecifying thousands of different emerging technologies which
explodes the topic and crushes limits. The generic category is more predictable and bounded.
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (1/6)

They conflate renewable and alternative – Synfuels are alternatives to gasoline
Philadelphia Inquirer 7 (6-4)

As America develops substitutes for gasoline, it should value environmental protection equally with its
quest for energy independence. These two vital goals can come into tension; this tension can't be eliminated
by exalting one goal over another. It should be managed through a balanced approach.
What's needed now is a focus on renewable rather than simply alternative fuels _ terms that politicians
in Washington and Pennsylvania too often use interchangeably.
Clean, renewable energy can be harnessed in all 50 states from resources such as wind, solar, water and
biomass. It creates jobs in rural America and in manufacturing, provides energy at stable prices that will
never run out, and reduces urban smog and pollution that contributes to global warming.
CTL is alternative energy – It’s an oil-substitute
Rauber 7 (Paul, Sierra, Sep/Oct)

Alternative energy is all the rage these days. But buyers beware! In a brazen application of lipstick to a pig,
coal companies are branding liquefied coal as an "alternative fuel." True, it is an alternative to oil; the
problem is, it's a significantly worse one.
Most predictable govt definitions of “alternative” include CTL
Congress Daily 7 (2-8)

Republican leaders offered a motion to recommit the bill to the House Science Committee to specify that it
deals with "alternative fuels," as a way to ensure that coal-based liquids are included.
"By leaving this out, this bill discriminates not only on coal-to-liquid technologies … but also natural gas and
hydrogen," said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who offered the motion. He said the word "alternative" has been
accepted by the House since Democrats led an effort to pass an energy bill in 1992.
Alternative clearly includes coal – Congress uses the more restrictive term biofuels to
exclude coal
Congress Daily 7 (2-8)

But Science Chairman Gordon, the bill's sponsor, said the motion was "another effort to try to undermine this
good bill today." He said that while "clean" coal will be a future part of the energy mix, it "is not available
now," and the bill is intended to be a "very narrow" quick fix to help existing infrastructure.
Gordon's spokeswoman added that the term "alternative" was changed to "biofuels" in a manager's
amendment before the committee unanimously approved the bill during a markup last week. The idea was to
make Gordon's bill consistent with the 2005 energy law, the spokeswoman said. The GOP motion failed on a
207-200 vote. The overall bill passed easily, 400-3.

CTL is an alternative fuel-Federal context
Laumer`7John Laumer is an independent consultant who joined TreeHugger. His recent service with a multinational chemical firm included
environmental management systems development, training in product stewardship, product introduction management, scenario planning, and risk
assessment., Coal-To-Liquid Diesel Fuel: A Bipartisan Issue That Unites Environmentalists With
Farmershttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/coalto_liquid_f.php
The Treehugger.com, 1.26.07,
The Wall Street Journal has an article titled Energy Mandates Fuel a Rift (subscription only) that reminds us of the madness that breaks out when fans pour
Bush's push for domestic alternatives to imported oil has ignited a
onto a soccer field to mix it up:- "...President
battle between coal interests and environmentalists -- and underscored tension between the goals of increasing U.S. energy security and curbing global
warming." And, an unusual 'coal-ition of the unwilling' seems to have been forged, now that the President mentioned coal-to-
liquids (CTL) diesel as an "alternative fuel": "Environmentalists are backed by the ethanol industry, which doesn't want the
coal industry muscling in on a fuel mandate that ethanol producers now have to themselves". Prominent Democrats favor CTL. For example:- "Sen. Barack
Obama, an Illinois Democrat and White House hopeful, is a sponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, which provides more tax incentives and
federal loan guarantees for companies interested in making coal-based fuels". A few of us TreeHugger writers who are US citizens
have
conversed about the linkage of CTL, climate, and conservation and have come up with what we hope will be
seen as constructive criticisms for evaluation of alternative liquid fuels. Good for any party. Have a look
below the fold.
Coal is an alternative fuel and alternative fuels don't have to be renewable
Halcrow 7 (Stephanie D., Major and student at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Green
Energy for the Battle Field, December, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A475991&Location
=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Alternative fuels are also a key component of meeting the energy crisis. Alternative fuels include biodiesel,
ethanol, natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, hydrogen and electricity.
Not all alternative fuels are renewable (natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels) nor emissions free, but
these alternative fuels offer other benefits such as reducing the dependence on foreign sources of
energy. Alternative fuel use is the backbone behind a recommendation by the Southern States Energy Board,
which suggests the U.S. can achieve energy security and independence through using a combination of
domestic fossil fuel resources, renewable energy sources and most importantly, alternative fuels (American
Energy Security, 2006).
CTL is alternative energy
Thomas 2 (Larry, author of “Coal Geology”,

http://books.google.com/books?id=4oYWx90ybY8C&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=%22alternative+energy%22,+c
oal,+statutory&source=web&ots=2phn_rF1d1&sig=UWiyCaItCciNPvGdGO83bENAVJw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book
_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA47,M1)
The essential property that distinguishes coal from other rock types is that it is a combustible material.
In the normal course of events, coal is burnt to provide warmth as a domestic fuel, to generate electricity as a
power station feed stock or as a part of industrial process to create products such as steel and cement. Coal,
however, is more versatile than this and has been, and still is, able to provide alternative forms of
energy. This may be from its by-products such as gas, or through chemical treatment to become liquid
fuel, and by in situ combustion to convert coal to liquid and gaseous products.

Their all-or-nothing position on oil is unsustainable
Elhefnawy 6 (Nader, Toward a Long-Range Energy Security Policy," Parameters, Spring 2006)
A third problem is the tendency to view the matter as a choice between the outright replacement of
fossil fuels or nothing at all. The reality, however, is that partial solutions can provide a cushion until a
more complete transition can be brought about. This being the case, it matters little if renewable energy production will
at first be undergirded by more traditional supplies. Solar cells and wind turbines will be made in factories powered
by oil-burning plants. To state this as proof that alternatives to oil are unrealistic is nonsense. The
energy base of the future will have to be created using the energy base existing now, just as the oil-
based economy was built using previously existing sources. Of greater concern, many schemes for a hydrogen
economy involve the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas or other fossil fuels, with power supplied by traditional electricity sources
like oil, coal, and nuclear generators. Hydrogen, however, also can be extracted directly from water through photoelectrochemical
processes or electrolysis, which could be powered by cheap wind and solar energy.12
Liquid coal is alternative energy.

Ng 08 (Eric, South China Morning Post, June 24,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4129689669&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4129689672&cisb=22_T4129689671&tr
eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=11314&docNo=1)
Alternative energies could include wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power, ethanol, methanol and fuel
derived from liquefied coal.
Liquid coal is alternative energy.
Andrews 7 (EDMUND L., The New York Times, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview

/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4129729074&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resu
ltsUrlKey=29_T4129729078&cisb=22_T4129729077&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=4)
Some debates are over basic questions that seem obvious but are not. Does ''clean'' and ''renewable''
energy include nuclear power? Should the government subsidize only ''renewable'' fuels, like wind or
ethanol, or should it subsidize ''alternative'' fuels, including coal-based liquids, that might substitute for
oil and reduce dependence on foreign oil?

Congressional definitions include CTL
Pfeiffer 7 (Eric, The Washington Times, June 22, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview

/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4130674578&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resu
ltsUrlKey=29_T4130674581&cisb=22_T4130674580&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8176&docNo=6)
The provision passed by Ways and Means would allow the proceeds from tax credit bonds to be used for
alternative energy projects that "promote the commercialization of technologies for the capture and
sequestration of carbon dioxide." A former Ways and Means staffer said the process for converting coal
to liquid fuel meets the requirements of the resolution's language.
Alternative energy means fuel substitutes from petroleum – CTL is included
DEDE, no date (Department of Alternative Energy Development Efficiency,

http://www.dede.go.th/dede/index.php?id=126)
Alternative Energy means energy used for fuel substitution; divided in 2 categories of theirs original
resources; alternative energy from depleted resources such as coal, natural gas nuclear, peat and oil sand
etc. and the other alternative energy from non-depleted resources which can be renewable such as
solar, wind, biomass, hydro and hydrogen etc. In this article, it will only state about potential and status
of alternative energy application.
Synthetic fuels are alternative energy
GAO 8 (General Accounting Office, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT Overarching Organizational Framework Needed to Guide
and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations,March 2008,
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ZJ9rEZ9gFqQJ:www.gao.gov/new.items/d08426.pdf)
In addition to these demand-reduction initiatives, the Air Force is pursuing efforts to increase supply
through the research and testing of new technologies, as well as renewable and sustainable resources.
Through the Air Force’s synthetic fuel initiative, jet fuels made from alternative energy sources, such
as coal, natural gas, and biomass, are being evaluated for use in military aircraft with the goal of
reducing future fuel costs and ensuring fuel availability. The Air Force completed initial testing of a
synthetic blend of fuel in the B-52H bomber and certified the use of this fuel blend for this aircraft in August
2007. The service has begun testing on the C-17 cargo aircraft, the B-1 bomber, and the F-22 fighter, with
certification expected in 2008. Air Force officials said that they expect the entire fleet to be certified to fly on
the synthetic blend of fuel by 2011.

Executive Branch definitions prove CTL is AE
Montague 7 (Peter, September 20, http://www.rachel.org/lib/07/prn_coal_news.070920.htm)

Big Coal played a crucial role in getting George Bush elected, and Mr. Bush is loyal to a fault. The
President has said he wants the nation to adopt "alternative energy" -- being careful not to say
"renewable energy." Coal fits the President's definition of "alternative" energy.
Legally, coal synthetics are alternative fuels
American Jurisprudence 96 (2nd Ed. A Modern Comprehensive Text Statement of American Law, Vol. 27A,
Energy and Power Sources to Escheat. 1996, pg. 22-23)
The term "alternate fuel" has several statutory meanings. Most generally it means electricity or any fuel other
than natural gas or petroleum, and includes petroleum coke, shale oil, uranium,biomass and municipal,
industrial, or agricultural wastes, wood and renewable and geothermal energy sources, liquid, solid, or
gaseous waste by-products of refinery or industrial operations which are commercially unable to be
marketed, and waste gases from industrial operations. In terms of energy development policy, the term
"alternative fuel" means methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or
more (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, by
rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol,
denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels such as natural gas, liquefied petroleum
gas, hydrogen, coal-derived liquid fuels, fuels (other than alcohol) derived frombiological materials,
electricity (including electricity from solar energy), and any other fuel that the Secretary determines, security
benefits as well as substantial environmental benefits. The term "conventional energy source" means energy
produced from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear fuels.

Common usage supports coal-synthetics as alternative energy
Brittanica Concise 5 (http://www.answers.com/topic/coal)

Solid, usually black but sometimes brown, carbon-rich material that occurs in stratified sedimentary deposits.
One of the most important fossil fuels, it is found in many parts of the world. Coal is formed by heat and
pressure over millions of years on vegetation deposited in ancient shallow swamps (see peat). It varies in
density, porosity, hardness, and reflectivity. The major types are lignite, subbituminous, bituminous, and
anthracite. Coal has long been used as fuel, for power generation, for the production of coke, and as a
source of various compounds used in synthesizing dyes, solvents, and drugs. The search for alternative
energy sources has periodically revived interest in the conversion of coal into liquid fuels; technologies
for coal liquefaction have been known since early in the 20th century.
DOE supports our interpretation
US Dept of Energy 7 (9-18, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/emerging_coal_liquids.html)

Coal to liquids is a term describing processes for converting coal into liquid fuels. Coal-derived liquid fuels
are considered alternative fuels under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).
More ev…
DOE 8 (3-11, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind_fed.php/afdc/391/0)

The following fuels are defined as alternative fuels by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992: pure
methanol, ethanol, and other alcohols; blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline; natural gas and liquid
fuels domestically produced from natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas (propane); coal-derived liquid fuels;
hydrogen; electricity; pure biodiesel (B100); fuels, other than alcohol, derived from biological materials; and
P-Series fuels. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to designate other fuels as
alternative fuels, provided that the fuel is substantially nonpetroleum, yields substantial energy security
benefits, and offers substantial environmental benefits.
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: AE = RE

Alternative energy is distinct from renewable energy
Damien 8 (3-6, Renewable Energy Devt – industry tracker, http://greenfuelpower.blogspot.com/2008/03/renewable-

energy.html
Renewable energy is any source of energy that can be used without depleting its reserves. It is distinct from
alternative energy because alternative energy may or may not be renewable. It is also distinct from green
energy which refers to clean, low or nonpolluting energy such as solar and wind power. Renewable energy
simply refers to the fact that the sources used to create power can replenish themselves. These sources
include sun, wind, biomass and hydro energy.
Contextual evidence from state energy policy
Texas State Energy Conservation Office 3 (http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/energy-ed_curriculum.htm)

In 2000 AFRED produced a second edition of the supplement and offered additional workshops. The
renewable energy section of the curriculum was expanded, and an additional section on global climate
change added. The curriculum supplement was retitled Alternative Energy to reflect its broader scope.
CTL is alternative fuel and alternative fuels don’t have to be renewable
Halcrow 7 (Dec, Major Stephanie Halcrow is a student at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Green
Energy for the Battle Field http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A475991&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Alternative fuels are also a key component of meeting the energy crisis.
Alternative fuels include biodiesel, ethanol, natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels,
liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, hydrogen and electricity. Not all alternative fuels are
renewable (natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels) nor emissions free, but these alternative
fuels offer other benefits such as reducing the dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Alternative fuel use is the backbone behind a recommendation by the Southern States
Energy Board, which suggests the U.S. can achieve energy security and independence
through using a combination of domestic fossil fuel resources, renewable energy sources
and most importantly, alternative fuels (American Energy Security, 2006).
Alternative energy is broader than renewable energy
Jetson Green 7 (May 29, http://www.jetsongreen.com/2007/05/alternative_ene.html)

First of all, recall the difference between renewable and alternative fuels. Don't conflate the two. We
should now recognize that the term "alternative" includes dirty forms of energy. Second, in my humble opinion,
I'm going to have to side with Marc Gunther. Previously, if I were to vote Democrat, I would have gone with Obama or Edwards. But, recently, I've gone
away from Obama, but not for any single issue. Why, you ask? Because it is clear he makes decisions based on money or popularity, or both. Coal is big in
his state, and the lobby is really strong. But he capitulated to the lobby and made a decision that was unhealthy for the American people. That's illustrative
of character. Who's going to be the politician that will stand up to the lobby and say, "I'm sorry, but that's not right for America." If we're going to be serious
about bandying support for Al Gore's documentary, supporting coal-to-liquid is a blatant contradiction. You can't support efforts to stop global warming and
support coal-to-liquid (in its current form). And I say that because no one is putting the cleaner variety of coal-to-liquid on the table. It's a bad joke on the
American population. I'm embarrassed that we argue so much about supporting solar and wind, but our politicians jump on the coal-to-liquid bandwagon so
quickly. What is wrong with this situation?
Alternative energy is intentionally designed to include coal as a fuel substitute
Andrews 7 (Edmund L. - The New York Times Media Group; International Herald Tribune; FINANCE; Pg. 9; Lexis)
President George W. Bush, meanwhile, has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to oil
and deliberately referred to the need for ''alternative fuels'' rather than simply ''renewable fuels.''
Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal. The political momentum to subsidize
coal-based fuels is in odd juxtaposition to simultaneous efforts by Democrats, who are also drafting bills to address global warming that
would place new restrictions on coal-fired electric power plants. The move reflects a tension, which many lawmakers gloss over,
between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Many analysts say the United States' huge coal
reserves could indeed provide a substitute for foreign oil.
CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: 50-50 = Oil

100% synthetic fuels are possible
O' Sullivan 8 (Jacqui Group Communication Manager, Thomson Reuters,April 9,www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS192283+09-

Apr-2008+PRN20080409)
The world's leading producer of synthetic fuels from coal and natural gas, today announced that it has
become the first company worldwide to receive international approval for its 100% synthetic jet fuel
produced by its proprietary Coal to Liquids (CTL) process. Sanctioned by global aviation fuel
specification authorities Sasol CTL will be the first fully synthetic fuel to be approved for use in
commercial airliners. This marks a significant development in the adoption of clean burning
alternative fuels for the aviation industry; engine-out emissions of Sasol's jet fuel are lower than those
from jet fuel derived from crude oil due to its limited sulphur content. Approval of Sasol's CTL fuel for
commercial aviation is also a milestone in the effort to secure domestic energy supply for South Africa and
other countries with significant domestic coal and natural gas reserves; Sasol's transformative technology
will allow these countries to monetize natural resources and increase energy security. Commenting on the
announcement, Pat Davies, CE of Sasol said, "This is an historic breakthrough -- winning approval for a
transportation fuel that is 100% synthetic. This approval by the international aviation fuel authorities
recognizes the absolute need to develop aviation fuel from feedstocks other than crude-oil in order to
meet the world's growing needs. Sasol is the global leader and pioneer in advanced synthetic fuel
technology and this is a huge step forward toward integrating a viable alternative transportation fuel
into the energy mix and showing the way forward for countries seeking security in a world that is
thirsty for energy."
Overlimits: Excludes all biofuels – They’re blended too
New Scientist 8 (3-8, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19726463.400)

Despite their green intentions, buyers of blended biofuel may not be getting quite what they are paying for.
Chris Reddy, an environmental chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, has
developed a test which reveals the proportions of biodiesel and conventional diesel in the fuel mix. It works
by detecting the radioactive isotope carbon-14, which is present in biodiesel but not in fossil fuel.
Overlimits: Excludes fuels cells – They use hydrocarbons
FC Tech 7 (http://www.fctec.com/fctec_basics.asp)
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy of a fuel (hydrogen, natural gas, methanol, gasoline,
etc.) and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into electricity. In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a
battery however, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as
long as fuel and an oxidizer are supplied.
CTL Good – T – Incentives

25-year contracts for coal-based jet fuel are viewed as an incentive for alternative energy
The Independent 7 (“U.S. lawmakers promote coal as an alternative fuel”, 5/29,

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/business/coal.1-63507.php)
Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy
independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed
those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol. Among the proposed inducements winding
through House and Senate committees are these: Loan guarantees for 6 to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants,
each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through
2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the U.S. Air Force to
sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel. Coal companies have
spent millions of dollars lobbying on the issue, marshalling allies in organized labor, the air force and fuel-
burning industries like the airlines. Peabody Energy, the world's biggest coal company, urged in a recent
advertising campaign that people "imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America
instead of the Middle East." Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, whose district is dominated
by coal mining, is writing key sections of the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of coal-to-liquid
fuels include Barack Obama, the Illinoisan who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, and Jim
Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans. President George W. Bush has not
weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to
foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has carefully
referred to the need for "alternative fuels" rather than "renewable fuels." Administration officials say
that was specifically to make room for coal.
25 year contracts are an incentive
Athias 7 (Laure, Yale visiting scholar, “Political Accountability, Incentives, and Contractual Design of Public Private Partnerships”, 9/19-21,
http://extranet.isnie.org/uploads/isnie2008/athias.pdf)
The recent experience of the British government with school dinners offers a good example of the
incentives provided by an availability contract, i.e. a contract in which the private provider does not
bear the demand risk. According to Ellman (2006), “In the aftermath of a series of television reports on
school diners by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver in early 2005, the government rushed to quench mounting public
discontent over low quality committing to make improvements. However, new schools locked into 25-year
contracts through private finance initiatives (PFIs) are finding that they cannot rid their menus of junk food
despite the government’s pledge”.
Long-term contracts are incentives
Sierra Club 7 (“Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global Warming”, April http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/downloads/2007-
04liquidcoalfactsheet.pdf)
Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. There are currently no operating liquid coal plants in the U.S.,
which means this new industry would require huge government incentives to develop the technology and
build plants that would operate with a meaningful capacity. These incentives range from subsidies to long-
term purchasing contracts to price guarantees that eliminate any financial risk to investors.
CTL Good – T – Increase

5-year contracts hurt investor confidence in liquid coal – longer contracts would increase
the incentive to companies to sign on
Wall Street Journal 7 (“Energy: Coal Industry Hopes Pentagon Will Kindle a Market --- Use as Liquid Fuel Is an Aim, but Cost,
Pollution Are Issues”, 9/11, p. A15)
The military faces a five-year limit on how long it can sign contracts for supplies. Without the certainty
that the military will be there to buy this product, regardless of what happens to oil prices, investors are
unlikely to back coal-to-liquids plants.
5-year limits investment
Coal International 7 (“Coal-to-liquid (CTL) interest spurs many projects”, Vol. 255, No. 1, p. 24, Jan./Feb.)
Mr Bollinger stressed that the current five-year limit on military energy contracts must be expanded to
allow DOD to sign, at a minimum, 15-20 year supply contracts. Long-term contracts would make it
easier for developers to secure the financial backing needed to construct FT plants, as developers could
point to the lengthy contracts as evidence of a viable marketplace for such fuels.
Increasing contract length increases incentives
University of Sussex 8 (Procurement Guide, Section 3, p. 39, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/procurement/documents/pgsect3.pdf)

These are not strictly contracts as the University or various Consortia initially do not agree to purchase
anything. The promise of consideration and acceptance of the offer, both essential components of a
contract, do not occur until an order is actually placed. The resulting contract is limited only to that one
order. Provided the supplier does not withdraw the offer, the University may place any number of subsequent
orders for any quantity of goods or services covered by the arrangements, thus creating as many or as few
contracts as required. Such arrangements are referred to as either framework arrangements or standing
offers; they are not call-off contracts, for which they are sometimes mistaken. Framework arrangements are
essentially pricing agreements with suppliers. They are often based on an estimate of the goods and services
likely to be required. Whilst making no firm commitment to purchase, framework arrangements enable the
identification of competitively priced suppliers in advance of actual demand. In many cases, they enable day-
to-day material or service acquisitions to be carried out effectively at user points. Framework arrangements: •
reduce the purchasing effort by involving only one tendering exercise for the duration of the agreement •
produce more competitive prices than would result from individual purchases • give the opportunity to
devolve to the users a call-off ordering facility, thus reducing delay and paperwork • improve availability
from suppliers • give the opportunity to improve commitment to, and relationships with, suppliers • require a
mechanism of control enabling invoice payment and cost allocations. The major considerations are I. The
length of the arrangement Too long a period may result in missing out on new offers from more competitive
suppliers. Too short an arrangement may mean there is insufficient incentive for tenderers to submit
their best offers.
***Inherency & UQ***

CTL Good – Inherency – American Energy Production Act of 2008

The plan hasn’t passed – It’s in committee
GovTracker 8 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2958)
American Energy Production Act of 2008
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate,
investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of
committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those
cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Jul 5, 2008]
Last Action: May 1, 2008: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may
undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:
Senate Energy and Natural Resources
CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (1/3)

The SQ leads to backstopping – Only incentives solve
Lexington Herald-Leader 7 (6-10)

Nationally, Congress is considering a massive incentive package for producers of alternative fuels. Coal-state
lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning of Southgate, have proposed measures that would guarantee
minimum prices for fuels produced from coal, create demand for the fuel through guaranteed government
contracts and use taxpayer money to co-sign billions of dollars in construction loans.
Such guarantees are necessary given the volatile price of oil, said Bill Caylor, President of the Kentucky Coal
Association. Recent government studies have shown that facilities turning coal into diesel fuel while
capturing carbon dioxide, a key instigator of global warming, could generate a 20 percent return on
investment if oil prices stay above $60 a barrel.
"Everybody is scared to death that the Arabs will drop the price of oil between the break-even point for a
coal-to-liquid plant, and that would bankrupt the plant because they wouldn't be able to sell their product on
the open market," Caylor said.
Incentives necessary for commercialization
Denton 7 (David, 5-24, Biz Devt – Eastman Gasification Service, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
Contrary to arguments made in the MIT study The Future of Coal, gasification technology is not
``commercial`` today. We at Eastman have the country`s most experienced and successful practitioners of
industrial gasification. But our experience of more than 20 years at Kingsport is, by itself, inadequate to
persuade A&E firms and financiers to reduce the risk premiums they are currently charging for first-of-a-kind
gasification projects in the US. This premium is currently about twenty percent higher than the cost of such
plants is expected to be after the first dozen or so are successfully deployed and operated in commercial
service.
Incentives, such as Section 48A and 48B tax credits, are necessary to encourage commercialization of
gasification projects. The use of gasification will cause the substitution of coal, petcoke and other materials
for natural gas, thus resulting in decreases in demand (and presumably prices) for natural gas. The benefits to
all Americans from lower and stable natural gas prices will pay for the expense of the Section 48A & B tax
credit programs in short order. The other benefits previously noted make these tax programs even more
compelling. However, none of these benefits accrue directly to the first adopters of gasification technology.
In fact, first adopters of industrial gasification technology, operating in a globally competitive market, would
be taking on more cost and risk than their competitors absent the Section 48B incentives. Financiers will be
more likely to lend money to such ventures if there are external incentives to ``buy down`` the risk and cost
for a novel project.
Only incentives solve commercialization

Today, I will discuss the key problems and policy issues associated with developing a domestic coal-to-
liquids industry and the approaches Congress can take to address these issues. My main conclusions are as
follows. First, successfully developing a coal-to-liquids industry in the United States would bring significant
economic and national security benefits by reducing energy costs and wealth transfers to oil-exporting
nations. Second, the production of petroleum substitutes from coal may cause a significant increase in carbon
dioxide emissions; however, relatively low risk research opportunities exist that, if successful, could lower
carbon dioxide emissions to levels well below those associated with producing and using conventional
petroleum. Third, without federal assistance, sufficient private-sector investment in coal-to-liquids
production plants is unlikely to occur because of uncertainties about the future of world oil prices, the costs
and performance of initial commercial plants, and the viability of carbon management options. Finally, a
federal program directed at reducing these uncertainties; obtaining early, but limited, commercial experience;
and supporting research appears to offer the greatest strategic benefits, given both economic and national
security benefits and the uncertainties associated with economic viability and environmental performance,
most notably the control of greenhouse gas emissions.

Only incentives solve market irregularities

The prospects for a commercial coal-to-liquids industry in the United States remain unclear.
Three major impediments block the way forward:
1. Uncertainty about the costs and performance of coal-to-liquids plants;
2. Uncertainty about the future course of world oil prices; and
3. Uncertainty about whether and how greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide
emissions, might be controlled in the United States.
As part of our ongoing work, RAND researchers have met with firms that are promoting coal-toliquids
development or that clearly have the management, financial, and technical capabilities to
play a leading role in developing of a commercial industry. Our findings are that these three
uncertainties are impeding and will continue to impede private-sector investment in a coal-toliquids
industry unless the government provides fairly significant financial incentives, especially
incentives that mitigate the risks of a fall in world oil prices.
The SQ cant solve energy market distortions

As a company we believe that the U.S. cannot achieve energy independence without utilization of its many
diverse natural resources, including both renewable and fossil fuels. Given the current level of our
dependence upon imported oil we must consider all realistic options in solving this problem. But achieving
this goal will take guidance and support from the federal government to protect investors from the
consequences market manipulation by the oil cartel. We must remember that the oil markets are not free
markets and it is not unreasonable to believe that if we begin to succeed in ending our addiction to foreign
oil, the nations that produce it will try to undermine our efforts at energy independence by cutting prices.
Relying on affordable, abundant domestic coal helps to mitigate strategic concerns, but does not eliminate the
risk of a price cut intended sustain our addiction to imported oil.
Market inevitability is too slow
Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)

As long as oil prices remain high or climb higher, market forces will lead to the development of a coal-to-
liquids infrastructure in the United States. But that development will come slowly and in measured steps. If
for energy security reasons, the United States would like to speed development of a capability for making
transportation fuels from our most abundant domestic energy resource, then incentives for the first coal-to-
liquids project are appropriate.
More ev…
Lubold 7 (Gordon, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, USA; Pg. 3; December 28, Lexis)
The Air Force would like to increase the amount of synthetic fuel it uses by that time, but recognizes that the
private sector's push to get there will largely determine how fast the Air Force can move towards its goal or
accelerate beyond it. "[T]he market isn't moving fast enough yet for us to move any quicker," says William
Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. The Air Force
hopes to stimulate the private sector to embrace the move toward synthetic fuels, which will help private
firms as much as it does the Air Force, says Mr. Anderson. "We believe that we need domestic sources of
aviation fuel to assure the American taxpayer long term that we can fight tonight and fight tomorrow," said
Anderson during a recent roundtable for defense reporters. "And that requires that a domestic synthetic or
alternative aviation fuel market grow in this country."

There’s no market for synthetics now
Wagner`7 (Breanne, Air Force energy-saving plans face technical, financial hurdles, May 2007,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm)
In a separate effort to reduce reliance on foreign fuel, the Air Force will seek within the next decade to
substitute 50 percent of its aviation fuel consumption with a synthetic blend produced domestically,
Wynne said. “To provide an assured source of fuel…we are particularly interested in making synthetic
aviation fuel,” he added. Right now the market for these fuels is relatively immature. There are no
commercial companies in the nation working on synthetic fuels, Anderson said. “Companies such as
Syntroleum, Rentech and Baard Energy are all in the alternative energy business, but none of them has an
operating commercial synthetic fuel plant in the United States,” said Paul Bollinger, an Air Force spokesman.
“We are watching the market, listening to commercial producers” who come up with new technology,
Anderson said. To date, the Air Force has completed two much-publicized B-52 bomber flight tests
using synthetic fuel developed by Syntroleum, based in Tulsa, Okla. The company has since closed its
Tulsa plant, Bollinger said. The first flight — in September 2006 — used a 50/50 blend of JP-8 jet fuel and
synthetic fuel in two of the bomber’s eight engines. The fuel was derived from natural gas using a conversion
method called Fishcher-Tropsch. The most recent test in December 2006 used the 50/50 blend in all eight
engines.
Government incentives and financial support are key to military use of CTL
MacPherson 7 (James, Associated Press, Tulsa World. “Air Force lacks source for coal-based 'synfuel'”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=071016_5_E4_spanc48573)
The Air Force wants to power half its in-country flights with a synthetic fuel made from domestic coal by
2016. But it has yet to figure out how to get the fuel. No commercial plants exist in this country to make it, and industry
officials say the government has not offered enough incentives to build a plant. The idea also faces environmental questions.
"The bottom line is if the government doesn't choose to support the creation of this industry financially, then
the government won't have enough domestically produced fuel in the time frame they've set," said John Ward, a
vice president with Headwaters Energy Services, a division of Headwaters Inc., of South Jordan, Utah, which has been considering a North
Dakota plant to convert coal to jet fuel. "The industry will still develop, but not fast enough for the military to meet its
goals," Ward said. The Fischer-Tropsch fuel eyed by the Air Force is named after the two German scientists who developed the process in 1923
of converting natural gas or coal into liquid fuel. Germany used the process to convert coal to fuel during World War II.
CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (Fuel Use Down) – Fuel Use Up (1/2)
Don’t buy the DOD’s decrease in consumption. Vehicle consumption is up.
Karbuz 7 (May 20, Sohbet, Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925)

Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD's total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by
electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3]
accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.
The good news is that between 1985 and 2006, DoD's total site delivered energy consumption declined more
than 60%. The bad is that the reduction came from the decline in energy consumption in buildings and
facilities. Vehicle energy consumption went up. The ugly news is that even though the DoD is proud of
having reduced its energy consumption, in fact the main factor behind that reduction was the closure of some
military bases, privatization of some of its buildings, and leaving some energy related activities to
contractors.
Most consumption in the DoD is by vehicles.
Karbuz 7 (May 20, Sohbet, Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925)

According to the DoD's Federal Energy Management Report for FY2006, the DoD spent approximately $3.5
billion on facility energy and $16.5 billion on energy for tactical vehicles. To this we should add 238 million
spent on non-tactical vehicles.[6] Overall, total actual cost[7] for DoD energy consumption is over $20
billion. By the way, remember that a billion has nine zeros.
Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like).
Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5] And yet all DoD/Federal energy conservation
and efficiency efforts, initiatives, directives etc target almost completely buildings (called standard buildings
in DoD jargon). Note also that standard buildings account for almost 90% of total buildings and facilities
energy consumption.
Air Force fuel costs are up even though use is down
Dreazan 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)
The problems are particularly acute for the Air Force, which uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year,
or 10% of the entire domestic market in aviation fuel. The Air Force's fuel costs neared $6 billion last year,
up from $2 billion in 2003, even as its consumption fell by more than 10% over the same period because of
energy-savings measures, including a campaign to shut off lights and lower thermostats at bases.
CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (Fuel Use Down) – Fuel Use Up (2/2)
Air force fuel use and military oil dependence are up
Bender`7 (Bryan, Boston Globe Staff, Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military Urges development of alternative
fuels, May 1, 2007, Lexis)
The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could
influence broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to
the growing chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil
fuels poses a serious risk to national security. "The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge
impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy
consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight
operations. The Navy and Army are close behind. Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half
consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel. The military's
energy consumption has steadily grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces
have had to travel farther distances. In World War II, the United States consumed about a gallon of fuel per
soldier per day, according to the report. In the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, about 4 gallons of fuel per soldier
was consumed per day. In 2006, the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan burned about 16 gallons of fuel
per soldier on average per day, almost twice as much as the year before. Higher fuel consumption is a
consequence of the US military's changing posture in recent years. During the Cold War, US forces were
deployed at numerous bases across the world; since then, the United States has downsized its force and
closed many of its former bases in Asia and Europe. The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a premium
on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from bases in the United States. The National
Defense Strategy, which lays out the Pentagon's anticipated missions, calls for an increased US military
presence around the globe to be able to combat international terrorist groups and respond to
humanitarian and security crises. But aviation fuel consumption for example, has increased 6 percent
over the last decade. And the report predicts that trend will continue. "The US military will have to be
even more energy intense, locate in more regions of the world, employ new technologies, and manage a
more complex logistics system," according to the report. "Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by
combat units and the supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption."
The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's
budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says,
and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not
be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems. Ensuring access to dwindling oil supplies also carries a
big price tag. The United States, relying largely on military patrols, spends an average of $44 billion per
year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. And the United States is often dependent on some of
the same countries that pose the greatest threats to US interests. Achieving an energy transformation at
the Department of Defense "will require the commitment, personal involvement, and leadership of the
secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report says.
CTL Good – Non-UQ – Incentives Now

Limited-scale CTL incentives exist in the SQ

In the United States, for example, the government is already providing incentives that relate to CTL
development. The 2005 Energy Policy and Transportation Equity Acts encourage the development
of CTL by creating a new loan guarantee program for innovative CTL technologies. The U.S. Clean Coal
Power Initiative provides loan guarantees for companies wishing to develop clean coal-fired power
generation. This can be applied to a polygeneration CTL and power plant, where emissions of CO2, NO,, and
SO, are lower per megawatt than a conventional coal-fired plant. The WMPI CTL project in Gilberton
(PA) has recently secured a $100-million federal loan guarantee under the U.S. Clean Coal Power Initiative
and started construction in 2006- Pennsylvania also is looking to support the venture with tax credits and a
purchase agreement for a portion of the fuel produced at the facility. The project will produce 5,000 barrels a
day of diesel fuel and use lowgrade waste coal from the region.
Private partnerships are the SQ
Dubois 3 [Raymond, deputy under Secretary of Defense, Before the subcommittee on Readiness House Armed Service Committee United
States House of Representatives, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_hr/03-03-18dubois.htm, March 18, 2003]
A key part of our energy program is our utilities management efforts, focused on modernizing systems
through utilities privatization. By incorporating lessons learned and industry feedback, the
Department has strengthened efforts to take advantage of private sector innovations, efficiencies and
financing. We have over 2,600 systems with a plant replacement value of approximately $50 billion. Thirty-
eight (38) systems have been privatized using the utilities privatization authority in current law. Another 337
systems were privatized using other authorities, and privatization solicitations are ongoing for over 850
utility systems. The Services plan to request privatization proposals for the remaining 450 systems over
the next two years. We are on track to complete privatization decisions on all the available water, sewage,
electric and gas utility systems by September 2005. Congressional support for this effort in fiscal year 2004
is essential to maintain the procurement momentum and industry interest, as well as maximize the benefits of
modernizing the Department’s utility infrastructure.
More ev…
Dubois 4 [Raymond, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, STATEMENT OF MR. RAYMOND F. DUBOIS DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040330-dubois.htm, March 30, 2004]
The Department has reaffirmed its preference to modernize military utility systems through
privatization. Following on revised guidance signed by the Deputy Secretary of October 2002, the DoD
Utilities Privatization Program has made solid progress. The Services have greatly simplified and
standardized the solicitation process for obtaining industry proposals. The Request for Proposal templates
have been clarified to improve industry’s ability to obtain private sector financing and manage risks. Of
2,602 utility systems serving the DoD, 435 systems have been privatized and 739 were already owned by
other entities. Over 900 systems are currently under solicitation as each Service and the Defense
Logistic Agency continue aggressive efforts to reach privatization decisions on all systems by
September 2005.
CTL Good – Non-UQ – RE Up (1/2)

Alternative fuels up now
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 2 [Department of Defense (Environmental Security), U.S.
Department of Defense: Cliamte Change, Energy Efficiency, and Ozone Protection, http://www.p2pays.org/ref/21/20958.htm, September 20,
2002]
Fossil fuels emit GHGs, degrading air quality. As technology advances, alternative fuel sources such as
biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, natural gas, and fuel cells are becoming valid substitutes. DoD is moving
towards a vehicle fleet, including both tactical and non-tactical vehicles, increasingly powered by
alternative fuels. The Department owns 10,000 alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)—one of the largest fleets in
the world. DoD is demonstrating the ability for an organization to incorporate the use of these vehicles
while maintaining performance and efficiency.
AF use of RE up now
Air Force Press Release 5 (4/25, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010348)

The Air Force continues to lead the way in helping to drive the development of new renewable energy
sources for electricity generation,” Maureen Koetz said. “And we continue to seek new projects and
purchases to further expand use of green power to benefit the environment while we carry out the Air
Force global mission.” Green power is electricity from environmentally renewable resources such as solar,
wind or geothermal power. Green power currently accounts for about 2 percent of America’s electricity
supply, but voluntary purchasing of renewable energy is accelerating renewable energy development,
officials said. Some of the green power commitments made by individual Air Force bases participating in the
Green Power Partnership include: -- Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., purchased 138,000 MWh of green
power, enough to meet 60 percent of its power needs. This purchase mitigated the energy price increases
occurring during the California energy crisis with cost avoidance projections of $42 million during the
five-year contract. -- Dyess AFB, Texas, is the first Department of Defense installation to be 100-percent
powered by renewable energy and was a 2003 Green Power Partner of the Year. Consuming about 76 million
kilowatts of wind energy annually, all the electrical power it uses is pollution free. In 2003, it was the largest
purchaser of green power at a single site in the nation. -- Fairchild AFB, Wash., is nearly 100-percent green
power. The focus behind the base’s purchase was to support wind farms in the region. This commitment is a
cost-effective way to support renewable energy while meeting goals of executive orders encouraging
federal agencies to purchase their energy from clean sources. -- Minot AFB, N.D., purchased 13,960
MWh of green power, representing more than 12 percent of the base’s annual electricity load. Two newly
constructed wind turbines located just south of the base supply the power. -- Ellsworth AFB, S.D., purchased
five years of output from a 750 kW wind turbine from a local Sioux tribe starting in 2003. -- Cannon AFB,
N.M., began purchasing 1,800 MWh of wind power in 2002. -- Goodfellow AFB, Texas, joined the Green
Power Partnership in 2003 and is purchasing 10,418 MWh of green power annually. -- Sheppard AFB, Texas,
makes annual purchases of 3,284 MWh of electricity generated from wind. In addition, it received a Federal
Energy Saver Showcase Award in 2003 for energy efficiency upgrades made to its central hot/chilled water
plant. The Green Power Partnership is an EPA voluntary program working to standardize green power
procurement as part of best practice environmental management. The Green Power Partnership currently
includes more than 550 partners, including Fortune 500 companies, states, federal agencies, trade
associations and universities.
More ev…
Kane 6 (Michael, Wilderness Publications, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_military_prepares.shtml)

For more than a year I have been documenting the military’s ongoing development and embrace of
renewable energy technologies. The Air Force has been doing the same by forming the Renewable
Working Group (RWG) to assess all renewable technologies within 100 miles of domestic military
installations including those located on-base. They have also just announced that they are the largest
purchaser of renewable energy in the nation.
CTL Good – Non-UQ – RE Up (2/2)

The AF is using RE now
Renewable Energy Online 6 (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44417)
Atlanta, Georgia [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Sterling Planet, a portfolio company of GreenShift, is
supplying the U.S. Air Force, the nation's largest purchaser of renewable energy, with 530 million
kilowatt hours (kWh) of this clean energy source, representing enough electricity to power 51,000 average
U.S. homes for a full year. The U.S. Air Force was honored in October 2005 as a recipient of a 2005
Green Power Leadership Award for its commitment to renewable energy. The Air Force is also the
largest purchaser of renewable power in the federal government, accounting for 41 percent of all green
power purchases by the federal government. The annual awards were presented during the National Green
Power Marketing Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department
of Energy and the Center for Resource Solutions to recognize organizations whose actions help advance the
development of the nation's green power market. Jim Snook, Air Force renewable energy program manager,
said the Air Force strategy is to lock in long-term contracts at fixed prices to ensure reasonably priced rates in
the future
( ) Air force is embracing small initiatives now – larger scale action is key to get them on
board.
Weckerlein 6 (Staff Sgt. Julie, USAF, Department of Defense, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1442)
Air Force Making Progress on Alternative Fuels
The Air Force is embracing an energy strategy that uses alternative sources of power and conservation, a top
Air Force official said here recently. "I think we're making progress, but we certainly need your help and we look
forward to increasing partnerships and taking advantage of the good ideas and products you are developing," Air
Force Undersecretary Dr. Ron Sega told a group of civilian energy engineers during a World Energy Engineers
Congress luncheon Sept. 15. The undersecretary said energy is an important topic to Air Force leaders, as the
service alone consumes about half the fuel purchased by the U.S. government. "It's important to us to pay
attention to this issue," he said. Sega pointed out the great strides the Air Force has made toward fuel and
energy conservation. In fiscal 2005, the service was the largest buyer of renewable energy in the country. "I'm
proud to say the Air Force is a leader in the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources," he said.
Sega said the test flight of a B-52 Stratofortress, in which two of the bomber's eight engines used a fuel that was
almost 50 percent synthetic, was a first for the Air Force. Sega said four Air Force installations currently are
meeting 100 percent their electrical energy needs from renewable energy sources, and cited other ongoing
energy conservation efforts: At Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., officials will use a solar farm to provide the base with
some of its energy needs; At F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., officials will get additional power from a wind farm;
and At Hill Air Force Base, Utah, base officials have used land gas production as an alternative source of energy
since 1994. Whether conserving fuel on the flight line or building more energy efficient buildings, the Air Force is
working to use energy better and at less cost to taxpayers, Sega said. "At every level, we are encouraging our
airmen and civilians to adopt energy-efficient habits," he said. "That could be something as simple as turning
off the lights of the office and the computer screen at the end of the day. So with everything we do, we are
looking at energy as an important consideration."
( ) Air force taking initiatives now – long-term project key.

REWO 6 (Renewable Energy World Online, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44417)
Sterling Planet, a portfolio company of GreenShift, is supplying the U.S. Air Force, the nation's largest
purchaser of renewable energy, with 530 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of this clean energy source, representing
enough electricity to power 51,000 average U.S. homes for a full year. The U.S. Air Force was honored in
October 2005 as a recipient of a 2005 Green Power Leadership Award for its commitment to renewable
energy. The Air Force is also the largest purchaser of renewable power in the federal government, accounting
for 41 percent of all green power purchases by the federal government. The annual awards were presented
during the National Green Power Marketing Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Department of Energy and the Center for Resource Solutions to recognize organizations whose actions help
advance the development of the nation's green power market. Jim Snook, Air Force renewable energy program
manager, said the Air Force strategy is to lock in long-term contracts at fixed prices to ensure reasonably
priced rates in the future.
***Readiness Adv Links***

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (1/4)

Oil price increases drain the military budget and make the AF vulnerable to hostile govts
Defense News 7 (10-8)

The Air Force said it spent $5.8 billion on fuel in fiscal 2006. When the price of a gallon of jet fuel increases
$1, it costs the Air Force $60 million, Billings said.
More than half of the crude used to make military jet fuel comes from foreign sources, such as the Middle
East and Venezuela, Billings said.
“It comes from a lot of places in the world where people don’t necessarily like us that well and that creates a
set of vulnerabilities for the Air Force,” Billings said.
Plan solves high oil costs
Dreazen 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal Reporter, 5/21,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country.
The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available --
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past
four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made
from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-
produced.
More ev…
Bates 8 (Staff Sgt. Matthew, Air Force News Agency, March 20, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123090913)
Each time the price of oil goes up $10 per barrel, it costs the Air Force an additional $600 million for fuel. The
FT process gives the Air Force a cleaner, more cost-efficient fuel source. Synthetic fuel created using the FT
process costs an estimated $30 to $50 less per barrel than its petroleum counterpart.Still, saving money is not
the only reason the Air Force is looking to use synthetic fuel. "A lot of people are quick to point to the cost-
efficiency of alternative fuel," Major Rhymer said. "But this innovative domestically-produced fuel will also
help alleviate our dependence on foreign energy sources." Alternative fuels can be produced from
domestically available hydrocarbon products like natural gas, coal and shale, and then gasified and converted
into any number of liquid fuel products. These fuels are also proven to burn cleaner, reducing combustion-
related emissions and particulates in the air -- all without compromising performance. "There was no
noticeable difference flying with this fuel," said Capt. Rick Fournier, the B-1B synthetic fuel flight mission
commander. "I would have no problem flying an aircraft using this fuel in peacetime or combat." It's great to be
part of an Air Force initiative that is also helping the environment, Captain Fournier said. "Using a fuel that is
cheaper and cleaner ... what could be better?"

Oil use siphons military funds
Pugliese 7 (David, CanWest News Service; http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/news/story.html?id=f54f9abb-0da5-40e9-8797-

b8b96afaff8f&p=3)
It was that vulnerability, and the growing casualty list from such attacks, that prompted U.S. Marine Corps
Maj.-Gen. Richard Zilmer to submit an urgent request last July for the solar and wind-driven power stations.
The officer pointed out that without a renewable energy system for bases, more lives would be lost from
insurgent attacks on fuel trucks. In the Canadian Forces, the fuel supply issue is just starting to be looked at. In
June, the military created a new directorate to co-ordinate information and fuel-related projects. That office is now
starting work on putting in place an information system to monitor how much fuel the military uses, domestically
and overseas, as well as the consumption rates for specific equipment. It also wants to set standards for the use of
alternate fuels, such as bio-diesel. In addition, the fuel and lubricants directorate is available to advise on the fuel
efficiency of new equipment that is going to be purchased. But Lt.-Col. Bernard Poulin, head of the new office, said
setting up a system from scratch will take time. "We're slowly establishing a structure that will make a difference,"
he added. Poulin said the Canadian Forces is also keeping an eye on the research being conducted by its U.S.
counterparts. One such project, for instance, involved tests in September and December using a B-52 bomber
operating on a blend of regular jet fuel and natural gas. The tests showed there was no difference in performance
compared to a plane using straight jet fuel. The U.S. air force is planning further tests to see how the synthetic fuel
behaves in extreme cold. "We're looking at the B-52 issue and the impact it has on the fuel they're using - and if it
can be transferred to us and how we can use it," Poulin said. If the B-52 experiments ultimately prove successful, the
U.S. air force hopes that within the next 10 years about half of its fuel budget will go to domestically produced
synthetic fuel. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that being more efficient with fuel could save the
Pentagon at least $10 billion a year, partly through reducing the need for an expensive supply system to move
that fuel to the front lines. "We pay in some cases 20 to 40 times as much to deliver a gallon of fuel as we pay
to buy the gallon," explains Pugh. "Most of the cost is in the logistics and the delivery of the fuel, not in
buying fuel, and that doesn't make financial sense."
Air Force dependence leaves them open to price increases-This hurts air power and causes
budget shortfalls
Shalal-Esa`8 (Andrea, Reuters oil specialist, Every $10 oil rise ups Air Force costs $610 million, May 22,
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2252728920080523?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)
The U.S. Air Force operates the "world's largest airline" and every $10-per-barrel increase in crude oil
boosts its annual operating costs by $610 million, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said on Thursday.
The Air Force's bill for aviation fuel was about $6 billion in fiscal 2007, Wynne told a defense industry
group. He declined to predict what the total would be for 2008. U.S. crude oil futures soared to a record
above $135 a barrel on Wednesday, more than double the price of one year ago. "We are very concerned
about the instability in oil prices because it wreaks havoc on how we manage our flying-hour program
across the Air Force, just as it is wreaking havoc on the pricing statistics for an airline," Wynne said.
The jump in fuel prices has hammered the U.S. commercial airline industry, forcing seven small
carriers to file for bankruptcy or to close their doors in the past five months.

The DOD is the largest consumer of oil in the world.
Karbuz 7 (February 17, Sohbet, Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194)

The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, almost all military fleet
(including the ones that will be joining in the next decade) run on oil.
Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its oil consumption for aircraft,
ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By
the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil
per day than the Pentagon.
An interesting point is that even though there are only a few data sources, how much oil the Pentagon really consumes is still kind of
puzzle, at least to me.(5)
According to recently released “Annual Energy Management Report”, in Fiscal Year 2006 the Pentagon consumed 320,000
barrels per day of site delivered oil, compared to about 360,000 barrels per day in 2005. Note that these and all other official
figures do not include fuel obtained at no cost overseas(6), fuel consumed by contractors(7), fuel consumed in some leased and
privatized facilities, and not last but least oil consumed by certain leased and rented fleet vehicles.
While the official figures for military oil consumption went down in 2006, the costs went to the sky. In 2005 DoD had spent slightly
over $8.5 billion for oil but this figure reached $17 billion in 2006. Note that oil accounts for 85% of the DoD’s $20 billion energy
consumption costs in 2006.
Fortunately at least the cost part of US military oil consumption has recently been getting attention. For example, Senator Dick Lugar’s
website contains a section on “Oil and the Military.”(8) In there it is stated that “Some of the energy related costs to the military include
protecting shipping lanes, ports, and fuel delivery convoys, as well as transporting the fuel that provides power at military bases. In total,
the Department of Defense estimates that each $10 per barrel increase in oil prices costs the U.S.
military an additional $1.3 billion dollars.”
I don’t know what that $1.3 billion really contains but certainly not the items listed. Because a) “every 10 dollar increase in the price of a
barrel of oil costs the United States Air Force $600 million” (9) only, b) the US military [in 2003] “allocated $49.1 billion annually to
maintaining the capability to assure the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf,” (10), & c) DESC alone spends $1 million per day just for
transporting the fuel to delivery point (11), among others.
Since oil is a vital strategic commodity and since “DOD’s consumption of oil represents the highest
priority of all uses, there will be no fundamental limits to DOD’s fuel supply for many, many
decades.”(12) However, once the global peak is reached things will get a bit complicated. In best case oil costs will bite the
military budget harder.
The good news is that the Pentagon is getting aware of its energy problem and working towards finding solutions. For instance, the
Department of Defense is committed to achieving the energy reduction goals set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order
13123 “Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management,” and the new (January 2007) Executive Order 13423
“Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” To that end several efforts are underway in an
increasing pace and aggressiveness.
The bad news is that most of those efforts concentrate mostly on reducing energy use in buildings and
facilities, whose share in total DOD energy consumption is 25%, whereas mobility energy use accounts
for 75%.
In buildings and facilities it is electricity that accounts for almost half of the total energy use. Oil
accounts for only 12%. Overall, however, with its 77% share oil is the major fuel consumed by DOD in
2006. Amongst the oil types, jet fuel followed by distillate and heavy fuel oil make up the majority.
Searching for solutions, developing alternative fuels, working towards mitigation, reducing energy costs, increasing renewable power
supplies, researching new power transmission, advanced battery as well as propulsion technologies, decreasing energy dependency, and
increasing energy security etc are surely nice objectives that should be pursued and promoted. But with moderation and by not forgetting
the most effective tools such as efficiency, conservation and change in habits.
More importantly, DoD should get its priorities right for its energy strategy (if there exists any) and should concentrate its efforts more
on where the biggest pain is. That pain is oil. The time has come to wake up because Peak Oil is around the corner and now time is oil.

Fuel costs crush readiness
Kebede 7 (Rebekah, Reuters, HY MARKETS, http://www.hy-markets.com/html/news/2007/12/7/1197059025nN07332362.html)

New U.S. military energy conservation measures could cut escalating war costs and the number of deaths for
troops transporting fuel in combat zones, according to experts. Spending on fuel for U.S. combat forces in Iraq
surged 27 percent over the past year to $1.17 billion, according to the Defense Energy Support Center, a figure
dwarfed by the associated costs of transporting and protecting the fuel on its way to the troops. "The Department
of Defense's problem with petroleum is that they use too much of it. So much of it, that it is a burden on our
operational forces," said Tom Morehouse, an energy consultant affiliated with the Institute for Defense Analyses. The U.S. military is
working on cutting fuel demand by insulating tents with spray foam and by using hybrid generators to produce electricity, according to Dan
Nolan of the U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force. "You talk about those things and everyone thinks about the Birkenstock wearing tree-huggers,"
said Nolan, who heads up the military task force charged with cutting energy use. "What we have the opportunity to do is change the culture,
change how people think about this." The military currently pays around $2.23 a gallon for fuel, but that skyrockets to
over $20 a gallon when the cost of shipping to the Middle East and protecting it until it arrives is added,
experts said. "The delivered price of fuel is about 10 times more than the actual price," said Sherri Goodman, a
member of the Defense Science Board which advises the U.S. Department of Defense. By reducing fuel use, Nolan
hopes to not only ease the military's energy budget but to reduce the number of casualties from improvised
explosive devices against troops convoying fuel in the war zones. "At the tactical level, they are looking at the
burdened cost of fuel in blood," said Nolan. "There are a lot of people working on convoy protection and a lot
of it is more armor, more guns, more surveillance."
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Natural Disasters

Oil dependence causes jet fuel supply disruptions from natural disasters
Houston Chronicle 7 (6-17)

"We have a multitude of weapons systems. We don't rely on one," said Paul Bollinger, a special assistant to
the assistant secretary for the Air Force.
But the nation has been relying on a single fuel source -- crude oil, largely imported from unreliable or even
hostile parts of the world, Bollinger said.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 also demonstrated the vulnerability of the nation's refining capacity,
located so heavily along the Gulf Coast. The two storms caused a severe jet fuel supply crunch, Bollinger
said, prompting Air Force officials to look for supply sources away from the nation's coastlines.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Fuel Simplification/Tactical

Supplies
Only CTL fuels simplify fuel sources and generate tactical fuel availability

The Department of Defense has been a leader in advancing the development of a U.S.-based Fischer-Tropsch
fuels industry. As part of several conjoined programs, the Department is seeking to encourage the
development of a domestic alternative fuels industry that can provide a reliable source of fuel for their
aircraft, tanks, ships and other vehicles while reducing emissions. For the sake of simplifying logistics, these
initiatives also aim to reduce the multiple types of fuels that our military must carry to the battlefield -
approximately 9. This new fuel also must be capable of being stored, transported and distributed using
existing infrastructure. Only fuels produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process are able to meet all of these
requirements.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Supply Shx UQ)
Oil supply disruptions are likely, increasing US resentment proves
Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an
old dog new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)
Instability and hostility towards the United States characterizes most of the oil-producing world. An oil-
supply crisis no longer can be dismissed as a low-probability event. Hostile governments and terrorist
organizations are well aware of America’s and her allies’ vulnerability and could use the oil supply as a strategic weapon to
attack the United States. Oil-supply disruptions to the United States could happen in several ways, occurring singularly or combined. These
include disruptions in world production by natural disaster, politically motivated embargo, terrorist
attack on production and transmission infrastructure, or closure of world oil transit choke points. Any
longterm disruption in oil supply to the United States is a national security issue that is unacceptable to the US government. However, most of these
scenarios assume a major worldwide upheaval or political and other major changes in the primary oil production regions of the world. These scenarios also
go beyond the scope of this paper.
Oil supply lines are targeted and vulnerable to terrorist attack
Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an
old dog new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)
Additionally, if a catastrophe shuts down world oil flow, our government will ensure the DOD has priority access to domestic oil
production and the 700–1,000 million barrels of oil in the strategic petroleum reserve. However, scenarios of supply
disruptions to DOD installations through the US oil and gas transmission pipeline system or to deployed operational forces through fuel logistics
distribution networks are not completely far fetched. Almost one-half million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline serve the United States.
These pipelines are integral to the US energy supply and have vital links to such other critical infrastructure as power plants, airports, and military
installations. The pipeline networks are widespread, running through remote and densely populated regions, and are vulnerable to accidents and terrorist
attack. Roughly 160,000 miles of pipeline carry more than 75 percent of the nation’s crude oil and around 60 percent of its refined petroleum products. The
US natural gas pipeline network consists of about 210,000 miles of pipeline for field gathering and transmission nationwide.3
Pipelines are
vulnerable to vandalism and terrorist attack with firearms, explosives, or other physical means. Some also may be vulnerable to
cyberattack on computer control systems or vulnerable to an attack on the electric grid supplying power to them. Oil and gas pipelines have
been targeted extensively by terrorists outside and within the United States. Rebels have targeted one
oil pipeline in Colombia more than 600 times since 1995. In 1996, London police foiled a plot by the Irish Republican
Army to bomb gas pipelines and other utilities. Since 9/11, federal warnings about al-Qaeda have specifically
mentioned pipelines as possible targets. The 800-mile-long Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which runs from
Alaska’s North Slope oil fields to the marine terminal in Valdez, Alaska, delivers nearly 17 percent of US domestic oil production. The
TAPS already has been targeted numerous times, and in January 2006, federal authorities acknowledged a detailed posting on a Web site
purportedly linked to al-Qaeda that encouraged attacks on US pipelines, especially TAPS, using weapons or explosives.4 Deployed
operational forces are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions. Fuel is delivered by convoy to Iraq from Jordan,
Kuwait, and Turkey. In FY 2006, more than 156 million gallons of fuel were delivered to US/coalition
forces in western Iraq. In the north, more than 103 million gallons of fuel were delivered through
Turkey, utilizing 17,802 trucks that, if positioned end to end, would stretch from Washington, DC, to Wilmington, Delaware.5
In July 2006, US Marine Corps major general Richard Zilmer, commander of the multinational force
in western Iraq, submitted a priority request for a self-sustainable energy solution to reduce the
number of fuel logistics convoys in Iraq that were increasingly vulnerable to attack (fig. 3).6
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (1/7)

Oil supply fundamentally limits US military effectiveness
Bender 7 (Bryan, Globe Staff, May 1,

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/)
A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood
of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around
the world "unsustainable in the long term." The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes
that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy,
including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative
and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies
that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military
operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
Oil demand creates long logistics chains that make the military vulnerable
Eastwood 7 (Brent M., PhD, President of Personal Identity Solutions Inc (PISI), 1/17,
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/january/0117-energy-conservation-comes-of-age-on-the-battlefield/)
Today, the same figure carries a GPS device, night-vision goggles, and a close-combat optical with a
laser designator on his M4 carbine. All these gadgets require scads of batteries. Some of today’s
soldiers can even pull out a solar array and use a photovoltaic process to recharge them. The
millennium grunt comes back from the night’s patrol to his CHU (pronounced “chew”)—a containerized
housing unit made in Dubai—that serves as a 21st century foxhole complete with air conditioning,
power outlets, and an Internet connection. He receives his operations orders in an air-conditioned
command tent that attempts to blast cold air in the middle of a 130-degree inferno—the epitome of
energy inefficiency. Our soldiers and marines deserve these modicums of comfort, but at what cost?
Power generators need diesel fuel to keep the cold air pumping and the Internet humming, not to
mention the fuel needs for combat essentials like Humvees, Abrams tanks, and Apache helicopters.
This quest for fuel and mega-watts costs money, time, and personnel. The military calls it a “tooth-to-tail
ratio.” Remote forward operating bases (FOBs) that house the grunts (the teeth) require an increasing amount
of logistical support (the tail.) This puts logistical and support personnel in the line of fire. They man fuel
convoys and run the gauntlet on a daily basis—convoys that must be alert for the next improvised
roadside explosive, the next ambush, the next RPG, the next shaped charge, the next suicide bomber.
More and more soldiers, marines, and civilian contractors are getting wounded and are dying to “keep
things more like home.”
Terrorist attack on oil supply cripples the military

Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic
threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring
countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil
refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the
dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

Oil dependence drains military funds and introduces supply line vulnerabilities
Miles 7 (Donna, American Forces Press Service, DoD, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_1_36/ai_n27158522)

The Defense Department is exploring ways to make its weapon systems and facilities more fuel-efficient and
less vulnerable to market fluctuations and controls, senior defense officials told Pentagon reporters today. John
J. Young Jr., director of defense research and engineering, said DoD is putting more emphasis on improving
the efficiency of its operations--for national security as well as financial reasons. DoD is the United States'
biggest energy consumer, using more than 300 million barrels of oil every day. At those levels, a $10-a-barrel
price hike puts a $1.3 billion dent in the defense budget and the funds appropriated to support the fighting force.
"When oil goes up $10 a barrel, there's a billion dollars in things we don't get to do ... [for] the warfighter,"
Young said. But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The United
States imports 58 percent of its oil, so there's no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy it
needs. A major goal in DoD's energy program "is making sure we ... have multiple options in a changing
marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation's
security," Young said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic
vulnerability, Young explained. The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to
deliver it, and the more frequently they expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats.
He cited "a desire to have renewable-type [energy] sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we ... potentially have
to take less fuel to the deployed forces and therefore put fewer convoys at risk." About three-quarters of DoD's oil
consumption goes toward keeping the military on the move: its aircraft conducting sorties, its ships patrolling
the seas, and its wheeled and tracked vehicles patrolling the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan. The military is
working to make these systems less oil-dependent without sacrificing capability, Young explained. It is looking into
composite materials that make vehicles lighter and more efficient, and fuel-efficient engines and alternative fuel
sources to decrease its dependence on fossil fuel. The Air Force, DoD's biggest energy user, is considering setting a
goal to reduce its fuel consumption in a way that doesn't shortchange training or operations, he said. The Marine
Corps recently issued a solicitation for a new heavy truck that includes "a very specific and precise goal that
decreased fuel consumption something like 15 to 20 percent" over its current Logistics Vehicle System. "And so in
each program space, we are going to set ... fairly aggressive goals for achieving additional efficiencies" that
apply technological advances, he said. "And we have already been doing that." Many of those same strategies are
already proving successful as DoD reduces the fuel needed to keep its 570,000 buildings and facilities around the
world humming, Philip Grone, deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, told reporters.
These facilities consume about 22 percent of DoD's energy requirements, but more than 8 percent of the electricity
they use comes from renewable energy sources, he said. DoD hopes to raise that level to 25 percent by 2025,
setting the standard for the rest of the federal government as well as industry, Grone told reporters. Throughout
the military, Grone said, he sees a continued trend toward tapping diversified energy sources--particularly more
renewable sources--that offer more efficiency and reliability to the fighting force. "That is where I see us headed in
the course of the next 10 to 25 years," he said. "Conceptually, that is where we want to be." Whether from an
operational or support viewpoint, all energy conservation ultimately supports the fighting force because it
frees up defense dollars for critical training and equipment, Grone said. As these initiatives increasingly take
shape, "resources will be freed up to go for higher priority efforts in supporting the mission ... [and] the pointy
end of the spear," he said.
Oil dependence creates logistics and supply vulnerabilities

Miles`6 (Donna, American Force Press Service, Defense Department Documents and Publications
October 4, 2006, Lexis)
But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The United States
imports 58 percent of its oil, so there"s no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy it
needs. A major goal in DoD"s energy program is making sure we C have multiple options in a changing
marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation"s security,
he said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic vulnerability, Young
explained. The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to deliver it, and the
more frequently they expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats. He cited a
desire to have renewable-type (energy) sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we C potentially have to
take less fuel to the deployed forces and therefore put fewer convoys at risk.

Military dependence on foreign oil risks total paralysis
Dreazan`8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic
threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring
countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil
refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the
dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. Some Pentagon officers
have embraced planning around the "peak oil" theory, which holds that the world's oil production is about to
plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of the most oil-rich regions of the Middle
East. Earlier this year, they brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for a
presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, "energy security becomes an oxymoron." House
Democrats have proposed creating a new Defense Department position to manage the military's overall
energy needs. Alternative fuels are part of a broader -- and not so long ago unlikely -- conversion by the
military to "green" initiatives. Producing synthetic fuel itself can cause more pollution than conventional
fuel if the emissions aren't captured. But Army engineers also are pushing contractors to build armored
vehicles with hybrid engines. The Air Force is experimenting with making engine parts out of lighter metals
such as titanium to boost fuel efficiency.
Oil dependence increases costs, diverts troops, strains alliances, and undermines the
industrial base critical to readiness
Scire 8 (John, Professor of Political Science at UNR, Nevada Appeal, Oil dependency, national security, February 10, 2008,
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244)
Military Costs
The 2003 NDCF study estimated fixed costs to maintain U.S. forces to keep the oil flowing from the
Persian Gulf at about $49.1 billion per year. This figure does not include costs of the current war in
Iraq, only the annual portion of the DoD budget dedicated solely to the Persian Gulf area. The figure
climbs to $137 billion per year when Iraq war costs are added into the equation. National Security
Impacts of Oil Dependency DoD's dependency on oil as a primary motor fuel makes military operations
much more costly than if it had alternative fuels. Oil dependency also requires that we dedicate military
forces to the Persian Gulf area, reducing our ability to use those forces in other places. Furthermore, the
U.S. military presence in the Middle East raises the potential for military conflicts with other importing
nations as world demand increases and supplies decrease. Our oil dependency also strains military
alliances, such as NATO, as members compete for oil. Witness the French and Germans working with the
Iranians to increase oil production and Pakistan building a port to import Iranian natural gas while we are
trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Their need for oil and gas trumps our need to stop Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons. The last and perhaps most serious impact on national security of our oil
dependency is that the chronic weakening of the U.S. economic base will inevitably weaken our
military; we cannot sustain a strong military with a weak economy.

Oil dependence leads to vulnerabilities that undermine readiness
Lengvel 7 (Gregory Colonel, USAF) http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf

The United States’ unique ability to project military power anywhere on the globe requires incredible
quantities of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Today, the primary source of fuel is imported oil from an
economically and politically unstable world oil market. The true cost of fuel is much more than it appears
on the purchasing receipt. The DOD’s never ending need for fuel comes with a high price tag which
includes not only the bulk purchase price of the fuel itself, but also the cost of a fuel logistics system
that includes tens of thousands of personnel, storage facilities, tanker trucks, and major weapons
systems such as the KC-135 whose primary mission is to deliver fuel. Additionally, fuel has a significant cost
in combat capability that is almost impossible to quantify. There are numerous outstanding energy
programs within the Department of Defense. Rising energy costs have given new emphasis to saving fuel in
each of the Services, and the DOD facilities energy management program is a model for the federal
government. Recent energy studies by military and energy experts provide volumes of recommendations to
improve efficiency and save energy. However, there is no existing comprehensive DOD Energy Strategy,
and no single energy senior official or energy advocate in the Department. The military’s dependence
on vast amounts of fuel and electricity creates vulnerabilities. Disruption in the flow of fuel and
electricity due to natural disaster, sabotage or physical attack on 53 the petroleum or electricity
infrastructure cannot be dismissed as an unlikely event. Also, the fact that so much of US and other
countries energy needs rely on imported oil creates foreign policy and economic vulnerability.
Inevitable oil shortages end US leadership
Cohen 5 [Dave, Energy and Military Readiness, http://journals.aol.com/jdc2485/EnergyMatters/entries/2005/09/11/military-readiness/364,

September 11, 2005]
We sometimes do not seem to realize that our formidable military strength is driven almost entirely by
petroleum derived energy. Without fuel, our military readiness will cease to exist. The only exception to this
rule is our small nuclear powered naval fleet. With a shortage of petroleum fuels, our military transportation,
supply, and communications networks will stagnate. Ships, aircraft, tanks, trucks and other vehicles will
become unusable. Our ability to project our military power worldwide will be at an end. This problem will be
compounded by an energy shortage induced shortfall in industrial and agricultural output, severely limiting
our ability to keep the military establishment supplied with hardware or even food. I believe that there is no
question that our military planners are aware of this. If they are not, then we are living in a fool’s paradise. The
coming drop in worldwide petroleum production, only 2-3 decades from now, can paralyze us as a world
power at a time when world population has increased by 50% or more. It will be an extremely dangerous time
in world history. Are we prepared to go back to a mounted cavalry, horse drawn artillery, and sailing vessels?. Are we prepared to
manufacture weapons by blacksmiths? Are we prepared to hand deliver messages by pony express? I think not. That is where we were at the time
of the American Revolution. It was just prior to the start of the fossil energy driven industrial revolution. This raises the question, “What are we
going to to about it?” I ask that question of our President, our Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, and our Departments of Transportation,
Interior, Commerce, Agriculture and Energy. I also ask that question of our representatives in Congress and ourselves. Do I have any ideas about
how to proceed? Yes, I certainly do. Am I qualified to suggest a course of action? I don’t know, but I will proceed to make suggestions anyway.
The first issue to consider is our aircraft fleet. Most aircraft require a petroleum derived fuel or its equivalent. Synthetic petroleum can be
produced from a mineral known as oil shale. The US has an abundance of oil shale in our western states, enough to meet our own country’s fuel
needs for an estimated 250 years. We must embark on a crash program to produce fuel from shale, especially aircraft fuel. We must start this
without delay. The process is well known. Production cost can be worked out by merging initial output streams with natural petroleum
production. The next issue is hydrogen production. Hydrogen can meet all of our needs as a transportable energy carrier. Surface vehicles can run
on hydrogen with internal combustion engines, hybrid power systems or fuel cell engines. However hydrogen is not an energy source. It must be
manufactured from water with a native energy supply. The military is in a unique position to do this with nuclear power. Using breeder type
reactors supplied with our existing stocks of fissionable plutonium, it is possible to produce electrical energy for the on site manufacture of
hydrogen from water. All nuclear powered ships can be floating hydrogen factories that store and distribute hydrogen worldwide. Our large
seaports and military bases can also set up stationary nuclear power systems that produce hydrogen on base from water 24 hours a day and 7 days
a week. By producing their own hydrogen from nuclear energy, the military will not have to wait for commercial production from renewable
energy and the infrastructure needed to go with it. Again, the process is well known and without technical risk. We know how to do this right
now, if needed.

Oil dependence undermines coalitions, leads to hostage holding by aggressive powers,
increases the trade deficit and reduces US industrial competitiveness, and makes the
military vulnerable to price spikes
Foreign policy issues are daily concerns for the White House and the Department of State, but the DOD is typically the department called upon
when foreign policy goes awry. In his article, “Energy Security: The New Threats in Latin America and Africa,” David L. Goldwyn, a senior
fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that current US energy dependency challenges US power in five ways. First,
dependency on consuming imported oil makes many nations reluctant to join coalitions led by the United
States to combat weapons proliferation, terrorism, or aggression. Examples include French, Russian, and
Chinese resistance to sanctions on Iran; Chinese resistance to sanctions against Sudan; and US tolerance of
Middle East repression that would otherwise have been sanctioned were it to occur in any other non-oil-
producing part of the world.20 Second, high oil revenues in the hands of oil-exporting nations allow
governments to act with impunity against their own people and work against the United States and its
neighbors. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Latin America’s loudest anti-American cheerleader, has used
oil revenue to build support for his economic vision by providing subsidized oil to neighboring countries and
gaining advantage over them by purchasing bonds to finance their debt. Russian president Vladimir Putin
has renationalized his energy sector, restricted foreign access to his pipeline system, and demanded open
access to Europe. Iran has reduced its international debt and increased foreign reserves to prepare for
possible sanctions. Goldwyn remarks that “Even Saudi Arabia’s economic reform movement, born in the
days of $10 oil in 1998, evaporated when oil reached $30 per barrel in 2000. Enrichment of America’s
competitors or adversaries harms US security interests in every part of the globe.”21 Third, the global oil market is
far from being a fair, free-market system. Governments that do not allow free-market access to develop, exploit, and expand supplies control most
of the world’s major oil reserves. Most free-market commodities allow the market supply to expand to meet demand. As oil prices rise, many
governments are less receptive to foreign investment, preventing supply from responding to demand and driving prices even higher.22 An
increased price of imported goods increases the US trade deficit and exports wealth to foreign lands. In 2005,
imported oil accounted for one-third of the country’s $800 billion trade deficit.23 Fourth, the highly
competitive world oil market enables the political competitiveness to undermine the fluidity and fairness of
the market for available supplies. Goldwyn adds that “New competitors like China and India are trying to negotiate long term
contracts (at market prices) to ensure they have supplies in the event of a crisis or supply disruption. . . . From an economic point of view it may
not matter if China lends Angola $3 billion at low interest to gain part of an exploration project as long as the oil is produced. But China gains an
enormous geopolitical advantage by this act.”24 Fifth, the problem oil dependency creates for America and directly
impacts the DOD is vulnerability to price volatility that results from supply and demand shocks.25 From fall 2005
until gasoline prices started to decline in fall 2006, the price of gasoline had replaced the weather as America’s favorite subject of conversation
with a stranger. The price of standard crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange was under $25 per barrel in September 2003, but by 11
August 2005, the price had increased to more than $60 per barrel; the price topped out at a record $78.40 per barrel on 13 July 2006.26 Experts
attributed the spike in prices to many factors, including the war in Iraq, North Korea’s missile launches, the crisis between Israel and Lebanon,
Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, and Hurricane Katrina. None of these factors, except for the war in Iraq, could be controlled by the
US government.

Oil dependence kills US hegemony and breeds terrorism
Eggers 8 (Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff. Was director for combating terrorism at national security council
“Armed Forces Journal” “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
The events of January highlight a national security cycle that is now fully closed and rapidly tightening. The pattern has been evolving for nearly a century as Western
powers, reliant upon Middle Eastern oil to power their warships and economies, developed a persisting interest in the region. That interest evolved into a major
presence and, fueled by past resentment and a war in Afghanistan, drove the eventual creation of al-Qaida to expel the “infidels” from the holy land. The ensuing war
against al-Qaida has increased America’s footprint in the Middle East, concerns of instability are growing and oil prices are on the rise. As Saudi revenues grow, more
money is funneled to Wahhabi madrasas, another generation is taught to resist the West and the cycle of deterioration continues, clearly underscoring an imperative for
change.
Conservatively stated, our reliance on Middle Eastern oil has severely distorted and crippled our
foreign policy options abroad. More squarely, oil has become a catalyst for terrorism. Discussions on the severe national
security consequences stemming from the U.S. “addiction” to petroleum are well trodden. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that “the lack of
sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.” Going back 50 years, President Eisenhower cautioned that importing
more than 20 percent of our oil would severely undermine U.S. security. Attention is now beginning to focus on a less discussed
vulnerability: the natural but ironic predicament that our national security apparatus is as addicted to oil as
our country is. Of the 84-plus million barrels of oil consumed globally each day, more than half is moved to market by ships, most of which pass through one
of the ocean’s major strategic chokepoints. All such waterways are special nodes of global power, but the Iranians reminded us
again that certain straits, particularly those of Hormuz and Malacca, play a critically strategic role because
one-third of the world’s oil consumption flows through these two narrows daily. This channeling, coupled with diminishing
excess supply, elevates the likelihood that future conflicts will be over energy resources and might occur in such locations.
And the U.S. warships that patrol strategic chokepoints are fully dependent on the resource they might be expected to safeguard. In fact, with few
exceptions, the U.S. military is powered, fueled and transported by petroleum-derived commodities. A
significant oil disruption not only threatens our national economic security, it endangers the national security
machinery itself.
High oil prices fund regimes that undermine US foreign policy and allow countries to evade
US diplomatic efforts

Further, this anticipated reduction in world oil prices also yields a major national security benefit.
At present, OPEC revenues from oil exports are about $700 billion per year. Projections of future
petroleum supply and demand published by the U.S. Department of Energy indicate that, unless
measures are taken to reduce the prices of, and demand for, OPEC petroleum, such revenues
will grow considerably. These high revenues raise serious national security concerns, because
some OPEC member nations are governed by regimes that are not supportive of U.S. foreign
policy objectives. Income from petroleum exports has been used by unfriendly nations, such as
Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, to support weapon purchases or to develop their own
industrial base for munitions manufacture. Also, the higher prices rise, the greater the chances
that oil-importing countries will pursue special relationships with oil exporters and defer joining the
United States in multilateral diplomatic efforts.
Oil dependence hurts hard power
Morehouse, Sheets, Hulme, and Schroeder 5/8 (Thomas, David, Karen, Christopher): Strategic Studies Institute of
the US Army War College (SSI) )5/8 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?v21=108732&lng=en&id=56036
Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges. Our energy sources both contribute to
climate change and are at risk from climate change. Our security is threatened both by our high dependence on foreign sources of oil and
by the climate change that high energy use helps bring about. To formulate effective climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, climate
change must be a factor in our national security planning processes. If we look to unconventional fossil sources that increase carbon
emissions to meet short-term fuel needs, it will be at the expense of investments in greater use of renewable sources and efficiency,
putting us at greater long-term risk. DoD’s reliance on high energy intensive operations compromises our
military effectiveness in a number of ways. It creates operational vulnerabilities, jeopardizing mission
success; and increases casualty rates, undermining popular support for the mission. It creates an
unbalanced force structure, driving an unnecessarily large support “tail” at the expense of our
operational “tooth.” In some important ways, DoD’s energy problem is like the nation’s energy problem—
we use too much.

Oil dependence is the root cause of our Middle Eastern interventions
Duffield`4 (John, Dept of Political Science, Georgia State University, “The Military Costs of Foreign Oil Dependence,” Paper
delivered at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2 - September 5, Political
Research Online)
Even in the Persian Gulf, which has figured most prominently in American efforts to secure access to
foreign oil supplies, the United States has had multiple interests. Graham Fuller and Ian Lesser (1997), for
example, have identified two other primary purposes of U.S. military activity in the Gulf: preserving regional
stability and preventing the emergence of hegemonic powers. To these interests should be added ensuring the
security of Israel and moderate Arab states in the region [NSS 1990, 13] and, prior to the end of the cold war,
resisting Soviet expansion [Acharya 1989, 16]. When the costs of U.S. military programs cannot be attributed
entirely to the goal of ensuring access to foreign oil supplies, how should they be apportioned? The simplest
approach would be to divide them evenly among the various objectives. A more sophisticated method,
suggested by Koplow and Martin, is known as Ramsey pricing, whereby “costs are allocated based on the
relative strength of demand for the products co-produced...” [Koplow and Martin 1998, 4-12]. Nevertheless,
this approach requires judging each objective’s relative share of the total demand, which may itself be a very
difficult, if not impossible, task. At least in the central case of the Persian Gulf, however, U.S. interests,
with the exception of the security of Israel, may boil down almost entirely to access to oil. Certainly, a
number of regional experts and other informed observers have suggested as much. In the words of
Kenneth Pollack, which are representative of a number of other statements, “the primary U.S. interest in
the 3 Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at
large...” [K.Pollack 2003; see also Fuller and Lesser 1997, 42, Byman and Wise 2002, 2-3; DeLucchi and
Murphy 1996, 3] As the U.S. Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999 stated, “in the
Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the
region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.” [Quoted in Delucchi and Murphy 1996,
5]. Indeed, even during the cold war, the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote that among the U.S. interests of oil
security, regional stability, and Soviet containment, “continued access to oil on reasonable political and
economic terms is the most important to US and allied security” [JCS FY1982, 12: quoted in Delucchi
and Murphy 1996, 4]. Thus even when American officials have offered other rationales for U.S. actions
in the region, such as the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War and, especially, the 2003 Iraq War, it is important
to consider the broader context of U.S. involvement in the region, which is inextricably bound up with
the dependence of the United States and its economic partners on foreign oil.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Terror)

Oil dependence creates the motive and resources for terrorism
Scire 8 (Dr. John Scire is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at UNR, Oil dependency, national security
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244)
Oil dependency forces the U.S. to support oil regimes that oppress their citizens. As a result, other states and
the citizens of oppressive oil regimes see the U.S. as their real enemy. It isn't surprising that Osama bin
Laden's first Fatwah was against the U.S. for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oppressive
Saudi Royal Family. U.S. oil dependency also strengthens worldwide Islamist terror campaigns as funding for these
groups comes primarily from Middle Eastern Islamic charities, located primarily in Saudi Arabia. Because of oil dependency, we both
motivate the terrorists and provide the money to fund their attacks on us. American oil dependency also strengthens other
states opposed to American foreign policy interests, such as Venezuela and Russia. Foreign policy options are further reduced when other oil
importing countries, such as China, block our UN Security Council resolutions targeted at their sources of oil. This has already occurred in regard
to Sudan and Myanmar.
Oil Dependence perpetuates a cycle of terrorism

Egger`8 (Jeffery W., Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff, The Fuel Gauge of
National Security, 2008, http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
The events of January highlight a national security cycle that is now fully closed and rapidly
tightening. The pattern has been evolving for nearly a century as Western powers, reliant upon Middle
Eastern oil to power their warships and economies, developed a persisting interest in the region. That
interest evolved into a major presence and, fueled by past resentment and a war in Afghanistan, drove
the eventual creation of al-Qaida to expel the “infidels” from the holy land. The ensuing war against al-
Qaida has increased America’s footprint in the Middle East, concerns of instability are growing and oil
prices are on the rise. As Saudi revenues grow, more money is funneled to Wahhabi madrasas, another
generation is taught to resist the West and the cycle of deterioration continues, clearly underscoring an
imperative for change. Conservatively stated, our reliance on Middle Eastern oil has severely distorted
and crippled our foreign policy options abroad. More squarely, oil has become a catalyst for terrorism.
Discussions on the severe national security consequences stemming from the U.S. “addiction” to petroleum
are well trodden. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that “the lack of sustained attention
to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.” Going back 50 years,
President Eisenhower cautioned that importing more than 20 percent of our oil would severely undermine
U.S. security. Attention is now beginning to focus on a less discussed vulnerability: the natural but ironic
predicament that our national security apparatus is as addicted to oil as our country is.
***Readiness Adv Internals***

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (1/4)

Air power is critical to deter and win conflicts in Asia and the Middle east
Khalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Analysts At RAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)
REGIONAL CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE This
subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses
relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key
implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will
continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is
justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale
conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree,
in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the
Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air
power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of
these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American
politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range
of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country
or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context
of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms.
These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the
political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic
warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-
STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies
will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built
around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf.In
addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the
U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of
WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention,
chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in
the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with
ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic
missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India
will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key
implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function
as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two
major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas
of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the
United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past
experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of
discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already
broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for
regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity
be the primary instruments constituting the American response.

Air dominance key to heg
Melinger`3 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. (ret.), Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html)
This is a good news, bad news story. The United States is the world’s first and only air and space nation.
That fact is evidenced in our dominance of air and space technology and infrastructure, as well as in
the future visions shared by our political, economic, military, and cultural leaders. This domination has
important implications for our national security. Unfortunately, many Americans have come to view air
and space dominance as their birthright. It is not, and troubles are brewing, so we must take steps now to
ensure our dominance in the future. Americans have always looked to technology to ease their
problems, so they took naturally and quickly to air and space power- the epitome of advanced
technology. America was the birthplace of aviation, and it is now difficult to imagine life without our
television satellites, cell phones, Internet, and air travel. Indeed, US airline-passenger traffic has tripled over
the past 25 years (fig. 1). Speed is the engine of commerce and economic growth. Rapid means of
transportation have been essential for nations seeking economic dominance. The rise of Britain in the
eighteenth century was based on global trade carried by its large merchant fleet, which in turn was protected
by the Royal Navy, the world’s largest and most powerful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the
United States was also a maritime power, possessing a sizeable merchant fleet and navy. As the twentieth
century progressed, however, speed became synonymous with aircraft, and expanding American
aviation began to push out the ship. Over the past 40 years, the growth of the US airline industry has
been dramatic, in contrast to the decline of our shipping industry. Since 1960 the number of airliners has
quadrupled (and aircraft have more than doubled in size), while the size of the US merchant fleet has dropped
84 percent, a mere 2 percent of the world’s total (fig. 2). In addition, airport expansion is under way at
many airports because airline-passenger travel is expected to double over the next decade. As for cargo,
95 percent of the world’s air-cargo capacity resides in Boeing airframes, and the value of goods shipped is
telling. In 1997 the average pound of cargo traveling by boat was worth seven cents; by rail it was 10 cents,
but by air it was $25.59. When Americans have something important and valuable to ship and it needs to get
there quickly, they send it by air. Air and space trade has significantly increased over the past several
decades. In 1999 America’s air and space industry contributed $259 billion to the nation’s economy.
The black ink in the air and space balance of trade rose to over $32 billion in 2000, making it the largest net
exporter in the US economy (fig. 3). At the same time, the overall US trade balance has been negative for 27
of the past 30 years, and the deficit now exceeds $250 billion annually. Given these statistics, it is apparent
that the United States has now become an air and space nation- indeed, the air and space nation.
Air power key to US military dominance
Meilinger 3 (Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, “The Air and Space Power Nation is in Peril” Air and Space Power Journal Spring 2003.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXL/is_1_17/ai_100727610/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)
Within the US military services, one finds an increasing reliance and emphasis on air and space power. According
to an old saying, if you want to know what's important, follow the money. In the American military, that trail is clear. The backbone of the
Navy is the aircraft carrier, which costs over $5 billion each (without its aircraft and support ships), and the Navy spends
nearly as much on aircraft each year as does the Air Force. The top funding priority of the Marine Corps is
the tilt-rotor V-22 cargo plane, which will cost $85 million apiece. The Army has major production and modernization
programs for Comanche, Apache, and Black Hawk helicopters that will total $70 billion. Indeed, over the past
decade, the Army has spent more on aircraft and missiles than it has on tracked combat vehicles. In sum, over
60 percent of the US defense budget is devoted to air and space forces. In fact, a comparison of our four air arms with those
of the rest of the world shows that each individually is greater than the military air assets of most major countries (fig. 5). The qualitative
superiority of American aircraft makes our air and space dominance even more profound. The reason for this
emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military
operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. Indeed, the major
disagreements that occur among the services today generally concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those
assets, but their differing views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the authority of the
joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the question of which service should command space,
and the question of whether the air or ground commander should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance ofjoint
operations, and air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon.

Air power is key to US military capabilities in Asia
Khalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand, “Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,”
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)
The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to
remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact
that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This
potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and
the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear
treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force
assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas.In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at
the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian
continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability
unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity,
particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air
Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual
operations until the political objectives are secured.The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers,
electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are
relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations
against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case
in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan,and the Persian Gulf.
Air Power is key to military ground capabilities
Peck 7(General Allen G Peck, Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower’s Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07 /peck.html)
Although the capabilities and effects that America’s airpower brings to the fight are not as visible to the
casual observer as the maneuvers of ground forces, airpower (including operations in the air, space, and cyberspace domains)
remains an invaluable enabler for those forces. Airpower can also serve as a powerful Irregular Warfare
capability in its own right, as it did early in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. No one should dismiss IW as falling
strictly within the purview of ground or special operations forces. Understanding the IW environment and, in
particular, airpower’s immense contributions is critical for America’s future Air Force leaders, who will
prove instrumental in ensuring that the service continues adapting to an ever-changing enemy and bringing
relevant capabilities to bear in an ever-changing fight.
Air power key to US military power
Khalilzad and Shapiro 2 (Zalmay, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jeremy, RAND, Ph.D. candidate,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.A., Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, “United State Air and Space
Power in the 21st Century,”)
Aerospace power has become the archetypal expression of the U.S. ability to project force in the modern
world. Throughout the world, U.S. aerospace power—and thus, the U.S. Air Force (USAF)—plays a critical,
and often primary, role in securing U.S. interests, in promoting American values, and in protecting human
rights. While the
USAF has had significant success in employing aerospace power in the recent past, emerging trends in
international relations, in technology, and in our own domestic society will create a wide variety of new
challenges and new opportunities for U.S. aerospace power. Meeting these challenges and exploiting these
opportunities will require careful planning, wise investments, and thoughtful training, as well as difficult
cultural adaptations within the USAF. This book identifies many of these challenges and opportunities in a
wide variety of issue areas and assesses the degree to which the USAF is prepared to meet them.
Air Force transformation is key to operational dominance in the future

Johnson`7 ((David E., Ph.D. and M.A. in history, Duke University; M.S., Industrial College of the Armed Forces; M.M.A.S.,
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College; B.A., Trinity University, RAND, “Learning Large Lessons: The Evolving Role
of Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era,” EB, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG405-
1.sum.pdf)
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of air power at the operational level of war is clear. Also clear is that the
United States must prepare for potentially sterner tests than it has faced since the end of the Cold War.
It is also obvious that U.S. military transformation plans and programs to meet the challenges of the
future must reflect the reality that U.S. air forces have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to dominate
adversaries at the operational level of warfighting and the fact that Army deep attack systems—in the current
inventory or that planned for the future—are not adequate to the task of shaping the large ground AOs called
for in Army doctrine. Consequently, the task of shaping the theater— strategically and operationally—
should be an air component function, and joint and service doctrines and programs should change
accordingly. However, a clear transformation challenge for the United States remains: to ensure that
air power can operate effectively against future, first-class opponents, who will undoubtedly pose
significantly more formidable challenges to its employment than has been the case in the post–Cold
War conflicts discussed in this study.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key – Terrorism

Air Power solves terrorism
Peck`7 (Allen G Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower's Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07/peck.html)
In an IW environment, the traditionally recognized ability of airpower to strike at the adversary’s “strategic
center of gravity” will likely have less relevance due to the decentralized and diffuse nature of the enemy.3
The amorphous mass of ideological movements opposing Western influence and values generally lacks a
defined command structure that airpower can attack with predictable effects. Still, airpower hold)s a
number of asymmetric trump cards (capabilities the enemy can neither meet with parity nor counter in
kind). For instance, airpower’s ability to conduct precision strikes across the globe can play an
important role in counterinsurgency operations. Numerous other advantages (including information
and cyber operations; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance [ISR]; and global mobility) have
already proven just as important. These capabilities provide our fighting forces with highly
asymmetric advantages in the IW environment. Innovation and adaptation are hallmarks of airpower. Cold
War–era bombers, designed to carry nuclear weapons, can loiter for hours over the battlefield and deliver
individual conventional weapons to within a few feet of specified coordinates. Fighter aircraft, designed to
deliver precision weapons against hardened targets, can disseminate targeting-pod video directly to an
Air Force joint terminal attack controller who can then direct a strike guided by either laser or the
global positioning system (GPS). Unmanned systems such as the Predator, once solely a surveillance
platform, now have effective laser designation and the capacity for precision, kinetic strike. Airborne
platforms offer electronic protection to ground forces, including attacking insurgent communications
and the electronics associated with triggering improvised explosive devices (IED). Exploiting altitude,
speed, and range, airborne platforms can create these effects, unconstrained by terrain or artificial
boundaries between units. Forward-thinking Airmen developed these innovations by using adaptive
tactics, techniques, procedures, and equipment to counter a thinking, adaptive enemy. To be sure, our
IW adversaries have their own asymmetric capabilities such as suicide bombers, IEDs, and the
appropriation of civilian residences, mosques, and hospitals as staging areas for their combat
operations. However, they lack and cannot effectively offset unfettered access to the high ground that
superiority in air, space, and cyberspace provides.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Air Power =/= Key – Jet Fuel K to All
Jet fuel is critical to more than just planes
Young 6 (John, Defense Research and Engineering,

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT DOD, September 26, 2006, Leis)
Worldwide demand for oil is rising, particularly in emerging far eastern countries. Globally, about 85 million
barrels of oil are used daily, with the U.S. consuming about 21 million barrels per day. About 58 percent of
the oil used by the U.S. is imported. The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy
in the United States, at slightly more than 0.3 million barrels per day. Looking to the future, the
International Energy Agency estimates the worldwide consumption will grow to 100 million barrels per day.
A large part of the worldwide demand growth is projected to come from India and China. Globally, oil supply
and demand are roughly in balance. Hence, short-term perturbations to the supply or distribution sources
result in significant perturbations in price. In addition, worldwide refining capacity is at 97 percent, which
results in a market that can have wide price fluctuations with small changes in the end-to-end oil availability.
The Department of Defense consumption of energy represents about 1.2 percent of the total used in the
United States. In fiscal year 2005, the Department spent $10.9 billion on energy - equating to 919 trillion
British Thermal Units (BTUs) and roughly 125 million barrels of oil. Figure 1 shows the energy use by
application. Mobility fuels - for aircraft, ships, and vehicles - account for 74 percent of the
Department's total energy usage. Buildings and facilities add another 22 percent. Figure 2 shows the
energy use by fuel type. As is seen with this figure, jet fuel accounts for 58 percent of DoD's consumption.
This does not all go to aircraft because to reduce logistics requirements on the battlefield, jet fuel is
used for a variety of "non-aircraft" platforms, including tanks, other ground vehicles, and generators.
Thirteen percent of DoD's energy usage is for marine diesel to power ships, with electricity accounting
for 11 percent of the consumption. Since 71 percent of the DoD consumption is in the form of fuel, crude
oil price levels becomes an important factor to the DoD. For every $10 per barrel increase in the cost of
fuel, DoD operating costs increase by roughly $1.3 billion in the year of execution. So, as crude oil
fluctuated from $40 to $70 per barrel over the last year, the Department's energy bill increased significantly.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Fuel Key

Fuel is key to the military
National security depends on the timely movement of military personnel and equipment. Estimated
Department of Defense use of petroleum exceeds 500,000 barrels per day. Technological innovations have
dramatically increased the efficiency of American air, naval, and land forces, but without liquid fuels theses
advances would be worthless.
Fuel is critical to speed and agility – Oil hamstrings our operational effectiveness – RE
solves
Broehl 4 ( Jesse, Editor, Renewable Energy Access.com, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=19841)
Retired Admiral Dennis McGinn, former deputy chief of Naval Operations, knows a thing or two about war. Not only does McGinn see
renewable energy technologies as a means to increase U.S. energy independence but also as a way to directly
improve the effectiveness of the military itself. "We need investment in new technologies for increasing the
efficiency of the military," McGinn said. "Speed and agility are the key successes so anything you do to make
the military lighter, faster and less reliant on a huge liquid fuel infrastructure makes you more
effective."McGinn came to this realization while orchestrating remote naval training exercises on small Pacific islands where fold-out,
flexible, thin-film photovoltaic sheets and a hydrogen-powered fuel cell proved themselves indispensable for powering their electronic and
communications systems. R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Clinton Administration said the U.S.
is waging a war against three totalitarian movements: the Shiite and Sunni Islamists, and the ranks of Al Qaeda. "I fear we're going to be at
war for decades, not years," Woolsey said. "It will last a long time and it will have a major ideological
component. Ultimately we will win it but one major component of that war is oil."
More ev…
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Col, USAF, masters in aerospace engineering from Stanford “WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE TRANSFORMATION”
http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)
In addition to the direct consumption of petroleum to power combat systems,
there are four under-recognized DoD petroleum dependencies: 1) military
industrial supply, 2) contractor support, 3) commercial logistics, and 4)
installation requirements. While most policy makers and analysts will focus on the 1.5 percent of
national petroleum consumption directly used by the DoD when studying DoD petroleum dependency (94 percent
of which is for mobility/ transportation),47 this approach ignores the indirect dependencies of a highly
intertwined military/industrial complex necessary for modern high-technology
warfare. While it may be virtually impossible to quantify and categorize the
amount of petroleum specifically required to create/support every activity or
procured end item within DoD, the fact that DoD relies upon an industrial base for medical syringes, M-
16s, and C-17 parts serves to illustrate that the DoD is just as reliant upon petroleum-fueled
civilian and governmental institutions as the rest of American society.
Recognizing the fact that fueling national defense goes beyond just the direct use
of petroleum by armed forces and into a much deeper supply chain dependency is
fundamental to understanding the vulnerability of America’s security to strategic
petroleum supply disruptions or declines. This military/industrial dependency
necessarily links civilian and military future energy solutions.
Fuel is critical to contractors who perform essential military services
The second under-recognized DoD petroleum dependency exists in the realm of
increasingly ubiquitous contractor support. DoD relies upon service contractors to fulfill a
broad spectrum of requirements ranging from base maintenance to military interrogations. With
the exception of DoD-provided combat zone fuel, the vast majority of DoD service contracts
expect the contractor to independently acquire all fuels necessary to fulfill his obligations. This
presents another accounting category that is not represented on DoD total fuel tally sheets nor is
it easily projected into the minds of military leaders as a potential Achilles’ heel should their
contractors ever be unable to economically or physically purchase fuel during a strategic or even
operational energy shortage or crisis.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Costs Key (1/2)

Cost-savings ripple to overall force effectiveness improvements
Nygren et al 2006 (November, Kip, Darrell D. Massie, Paul J. Kern, http://w3.umh.ac.be/pub/ftp_aspo/Nygren_novembre_2006.pdf)

A reduction in fuel requirements can, therefore, cause a ripple effect throughout the DoD that can
ultimately result in a better design of our military forces to significantly increase the ability of the
Army to provide the most capable force to the combatant commanders. Using the actual weight and
volume data, it would be possible to estimate the sensitivity of ground force effectiveness to a reduction in
fuel requirements. The authors believe that this sensitivity is more significant than intuition might presume.
The other factor in designing future force structure is the almost certain knowledge that the cost of
liquid petroleum fuels is going to substantially increase; some experts predict a 200% increase in the
next five years. Therefore, without a reduction in fuel requirements, more of the resources allocated to
the DoD to design our military forces will go into fuel and less into enhancing the mission effectiveness
of the force.
More ev…

Due to the ripple effect discussed earlier, saving a gallon of fuel in our tactical vehicles results in more
than a gallon of fuel saved overall. This savings at the end user is compounded by the savings in the
distribution system, not just in terms of fuel required to transport fuel, but also in the people who operate and
administer the distribution of fuel from the well to the battlefield. Since it is estimated that 70% of the
initial deployment and the resupply weight required by an Army unit is fuel, this cascading effect may
be as large as 1.5 gallons saved overall for each gallon saved due to increased fuel efficiency in a
tactical vehicle.
Budget shortfalls kill readiness

Dalhman & Thaler`2 (Carl Dahlman and David Thaler, READY FOR WAR BUT NOT FOR PEACE: THE
APPARENT PARADOX OF MILITARY PREPAREDNESS, 2002,
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:O_JY53nwWf4J:rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1314/MR1314.ch12.pdf+To+unde
rstand+why+overall+readiness+has+slipped+in+recent+years,+it+is+useful+to+make+a+distinction+between+planned+and+unp
lanned+readiness+problems&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Then, decisionmakers on the Air Staff decide which validated requirements the USAF can afford to fund (authorize).
At this point in the programming process, very difficult and sensitive judgments are necessary, because the
anticipated top line in the presidential or congressional budget cannot possibly fund all the validated requirements.
There are still too many requirements for the budget sack to hold, and decisionmakers have to decide what
the bag can actually carry and what they have to leave out. Since all requirements, at this stage, have been
validated—that is, they should be funded if the Air Force is to be as capable and ready as desired, given the best
judgment of the organization as a whole—decisionmakers face only very difficult decisions. All accounts get
shaved, including readiness. In practice, this means that not even first-to-go warfighting units, and the units
that support them, receive full funding. As noted above, SORTS designates units at C-1 status when resources
managers have provided funding at 90 percent or better of all validated requirements. The Air Force makes it a
practice to fund most units at low C-1 (close to 90 percent)—the only major exceptions being certain critical
activities for which risks are simply not allowed, such as special operations and nuclear-capable units. Shortfalls
are spread like peanut butter across most operational units. This is the essence of planned readiness
problems. Readiness cannot be funded to the extent desired. Top-line budget constraints force deliberate risk-
taking, even in such a critical area. This is how and why the Air Force (and its sister services) actually plans for
certain readiness shortfalls. There is nothing absolute about readiness when resource programmers and financial
managers look through all the program elements; at that stage, everything is a “requirement,” and almost
everything will take a beating because almost every activity must be fair game when there is a top line that
simply cannot be exceeded.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Costs Key (2/2)

( ) Extra fuel costs are forcing budget cuts in other areas, disrupting the ability for the
airforce to work successfully.
Ott and Norris 7 (James and Guy, Aviation’s Green Agenda; Aviation Week & Space Technology Pg. 65 Vol. 167 No. 8, Lexis)
Wynne says every $10 increase per barrel of fuel means an additional $600 million per year in Air Force costs. In
2006, USAF’s fuel bill topped $6 billion, compared to $2.5 billion in 2003. Extra costs are forcing budget cuts
in other areas, he says, and disrupting efforts to recapitalize the USAF?s aging fleet, with an average aircraft
age of 25 years. ?Our fuel bill is eating our seed corn, and potentially reducing our ability to replace our
aircraft,? he said.
Wynne certified the B-52 for synthetic fueling on Aug. 8, and he is pushing to increase the pace of certifying
the fuel for other aircraft. ?We plan to qualify the mix on the C-17, which is a much more important, and
some say significant, step, because qualifying will allow commercial airlines to fly with synthetic fuels,? he
said, referring to the FAA helping to clear the fuel for use in the C-17?s commercial Pratt & Whitney PW2000-based
F117 engines.
Wynne stressed the need to develop a larger market for synthetic fuels. ?To be successful, we have to
collaborate with the commercial airlines fleet, and they have to see an advantage that is perhaps larger than
what we see.? Wynne also hints that clearing the use of the fuel on some larger jet engines could widen
synthetic-fuels use to power stations.
?I?m not suggesting a panacea or silver bullet, but I?m suggesting progress will come when industry and
government get together to overcome the development problems,? he said.
Larry Burns, program manager of the joint government-industry Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine
effort, says VAATE?s technology plan is ?focused? on synthetic fuels. He says projected 2007 ?burdened? fuel costs
for the U.S. military are estimated at $20.8 billion.
The new research focus on biomass technology raised questions at the AIAA conference. James T. Bartis, a senior
policy researcher for the Rand Corp., asked why the manufacturers and Darpa are pursuing these
technologies when coal and natural gas-derived synthetic fuels, developed through the Fischer-Tropsch process
and tested by the Air Force, have already proven themselves ready for burning in military aircraft.
Bartis advocates federal cost-sharing of fuel plant design projects that, when operational, would clarify issues of cost
and environmental impacts, particularly in CO2 production, from processing coal and natural gas into kerosene. The
operation of a site-specific plant meeting local, state and federal environmental guidelines is a critical step, he
believes, to a full-blown, congressionally approved program. ?The key is diversity,? says Darpa?s Douglas
Kirkpatrick, program manager of the Strategic Technology Office. Research should explore multiple sources and
allow the marketplace to decide on any one or several sources of combustible materials, he says. The agency is
investigating algae, soy and other renewable resources, and the University of North Dakota and GE Global
Research are among the institutions conducting experiments.
Boeing?s Hadaller agrees with Kirkpatrick that the alternatives investigation should be wide-ranging.
Fuel budgets are competing with the rest of DOD operations
December 09, 2006]
This study finds that the greatest leverage on DoD fossil-fuel use is exerted by patterns of DoD fossil-fuel use.
Recent and present doctrine, tactics, and practices evolved during a time when fuel costs represented an insignificant
fraction of the U.S. national-defense budget, with fuel costs entirely dominated by the associated O&M logistical
supply chain costs and not by those of the fuel itself. While O&M costs continue to dominate, actual fuel costs
have recently risen rapidly, attaining a significant recent visibility. At present, fuel budgets are in competition
with other DoD non-fixed costs, such as research, development, and engineering (RD&E), and other
discretionary funding, of which they are a much larger part.28
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Weight Requirements Key

Fuel reductions lead to critical weight reductions in deployment

However, the most important national security reason for the reduction of energy use is to decrease the
weight requirements for the deployment and resupply of Army Units. The Army desires to be an
expeditionary and campaign quality force, and its ability to attain these goals resides to a great extent
with the ease of deployment and the logistics requirements to maintain that force in a remote area of
the world. Therefore, the requirements process must be stimulated to acquire equipment and vehicles
that include fuel efficiency constraints on the design process to optimize not only weapon system
performance, but also the ability to achieve the expeditionary and campaign quality strategic Army
goals. The design tradeoffs necessary to realize these competing goals in a complex system of systems
context can probably only be accomplished through the use of high fidelity war-game and security operations
simulations that include the fully integrated logistical support processes that accounts for the entire system of
systems life cycle costs.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Key

Missiles hamstring the US military
Franks May 16 (2008, Representative Trent, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/az02_franks/mdfunding.html)

We now live in a post-Cold War world where ballistic missile proliferation is becoming rampant and
where terrorists are not deterred by the threat of mutually assured destruction. In 1972, nine countries had
ballistic missiles; today, 27 countries possess ballistic missiles and some contain hostile regimes that
actively support terrorists.
Chief among these is Iran, whose ballistic missile program is substantial and continues to be
aggressively expanded. Already, Iran holds our forward-deployed forces in the Middle East at risk
with short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
Our close ally, Israel, faces the existential threat posed by longer-range Iranian ballistic missiles. The Israelis have every cause to be
alarmed when these missiles are coupled with the apocalyptic rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our intelligence
estimates indicate that Iran could field a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe and the eastern continental United States as early as
2015, and the Israelis estimate it could be much sooner than that. Iran also continues to enrich uranium in defiance of international law,
and the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported with high confidence that “Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial
capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.” Iran continues to defy calls to comply with international
standards of transparency.
North Korea poses another threat to our security through its development and proliferation of ballistic
missiles and advanced technological knowledge. We already know that in addition to the North Korean nuclear weapons
program, the xenophobic regime of Kim Jong Il possesses a long-range ballistic missile capability that
could hold Alaska and Hawaii at risk, as well as the short-range ballistic missiles that could threaten
our forces and our South Korean allies. Deploying Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense to the Korean peninsula will
extend further protection to our forces, in addition to our current deployment of the Patriot air and missile defense system and Aegis
cruisers and destroyers. Furthermore, Japan’s decision to collaborate with the United States in deploying its own fleet of Aegis Ballistic
Missile Defense ships signifies its realization of the potential threat posed by its neighbor, North Korea.
The four-star leadership of our geographic combatant commands — those responsible for monitoring separate slices of the globe and for
conducting military operations should trouble arise — have testified before Congress that they need more “near-term systems,” such as
THAAD batteries and Aegis ships, than the present budget can provide. Congress has responded to this need by authorizing more funds
for THAAD and Aegis than the president’s budget request for fiscal 2009. Yet there is still a need, and Congress must do
more to stay ahead of our enemies’ quickly advancing missile technology. Although sea-based systems
such as Aegis and land-based systems such as THAAD have sufficiently matured, we remain
vulnerable to an attack from a missile launch with multiple warheads and countermeasures.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Up (1/2)

Missile proliferation increasing around the world: Iran and North Korea prove.
Phillips July 10 (2008, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/wm1985.cfm)

Iran's missile demonstrations also reinforce concerns about the proliferation of missile and nuclear
technology by North Korea. The Shahab-3, like many other Iranian missiles, is based on technology
provided by North Korea's rogue regime. The revelation that North Korea was involved in constructing the Syrian nuclear
facility bombed by Israel last September has raised suspicions that North Korea also could be assisting Iran's nuclear program. Iran's oil
and cash resources are a major enticement to the bankrupt and energy-poor Korean communists. Moreover, North Korea has
provided tunneling technology for hardening Iranian missile production and nuclear sites. Clearly, the Axis
of Evil is alive and well long after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Heat-seeking missiles pose an increasing threat to aircrafts in the status quo.
Global Security.org No Date Given (“Infrared Countermeasures Systems”,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htm)
The US military has recognized the increasing threat to its tactical aircraft from anti-aircraft infrared
(IR) guided missiles. By one estimate more than 500,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles exist and
are available on the worldwide market. The lethality and proliferation of IR surface-to-air missiles (SAMS) was
demonstrated during the Desert Storm conflict. Approximately 80% of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft losses in Desert
Storm were from ground based Iraqi defensive systems using IR SAMS. Both IR SAMS and IR air-to-air missiles
have seekers with improved Counter-Countermeasures (CCM) capabilities that seriously degrade the effectiveness of current expendable
decoys.
Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) are the most serious threat to our large, predictable,
and slow flying air mobility aircraft. These systems are lethal, affordable, easy to use, and difficult to
track and counter. According to a 1997 CIA Report, MANPADS have proliferated worldwide, accounting
for over 400 casualties in 27 incidents involving civil aircraft over the previous 19 years. This proliferation has forced air mobility
planners to frequently select less than optimal mission routes due to lack of defensive systems on airlift aircraft.
All Infrared [IR] direct threat weapons require line of sight [LOS] to be established prior to launch and the in-flight missile must
maintain LOS with the target heat source until impact (or detonation of the proximity fuse). IR missiles require the operator to visually
detect the target and energize the seeker before the sensor acquires the target. The operator must track the target with the seeker caged to
the LOS until it is determined that the IR sensor is tracking the target and not any background objects (natural or man made objects to
include vehicles, the sun, or reflected energy from the sun off clouds, etc.). The IR sensor is also susceptible to atmospheric conditions
(haze, humidity), the signature of the aircraft and its background, flares, decoys, and jamming.
When an aircraft has been detected, targeted, locked-on, and the missile fired, the emphasis has to shift to defeating the in-flight missile.
Of course, except in the case of autonomously guided missiles, countermeasures against the ground (or hostile aircraft) tracking and
command guidance system could still be effective (as in the case of conventional RF countermeasures). There are already a number of
countermeasures against RF seekers.
Man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) which are shoulder launched missile systems typically
include heat seeking or infrared (IR) missiles and are a threat to aircraft and other types of
transportation. IR missiles include an IR detector, which allows the IR missile to detect and track a target. More particularly, IR
missiles detect the heat signature (i.e., infrared light) which is emitted by hot structures, for example,
engines of the aircraft, to track the aircraft in an attack.
Synthetic fuels make our planes safer by decreasing their radar profile and by increasing
their efficiency.
Bunning 7 (Jim, United States Senator, West Virginia Coal Association, http://www.wvcoal.com/content/view/61/61/)
The Air Force is a strong supporter of these fuels and has engaged an aggressive testing program in B-52 bombers and will start tests on
additional jets soon. They have an outstanding evaluation so far. These fuels burn cleaner and at lower temperatures,
which reduces the radar profile and heat signature of our jets. And it has a higher efficiency, allowing
jets to fly faster and farther on the same tank of fuel.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Up (2/2)

Iran is raising tensions through firing missiles.
Xinhua July 11 (2008, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/11/content_8525904.htm)

Iran has successfully test-fired both medium- and long-range missiles in two consecutive days, in what
many analysts described as a move to trigger grave concerns over stability in the region.
By testing a long-range missile capable of reaching targets in Israel as well as U.S. military facilities in the region, Iran has
delivered a signal that it is capable of hitting back in case of an Israeli or U.S. attack, analysts say.
Iran is firing an increased amount of missiles.
NPR July 10 (2008, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92399124)

Iranian state media reported that Iran test-fired more missiles in the Persian Gulf on Thursday, and the
United States pledged to defend its allies from an Iranian attack.
Iran state television reported that the missiles have what it called "special capabilities," but the report did not elaborate on what those
were. The missiles were launched throughout the night, with another report saying the new tests included the Shahab-3 missile.
Officials have said the Shahab-3 could reach targets almost 1,250 miles away. It was the second day in a row
that Iran conducted missile tests.
It’s almost impossible to avoid a heat seeking missile.
Sebastian 6 (Jason M, “Heat-seeking missiles”, http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aerospace-Aviation-2437/Heat-seeking-missiles.htm)

IR missiles are so dangerous because they are fast. They are very portable and able to be carried by
one man on foot. They are hard to see from the air. Finally, when they are fired, you have only a second
to react as many of the missiles fly faster than the speed of sound. By the time you see the smoke trail it may be too
late.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Allied Coop Key

Allied cooperation is critical to military readiness
Office of Technology Assessment 1 (Congress, http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9106/9106.PDF)

The size and capability required of U.S. forces is related to their autonomy. The U.S. forces stationed in
Germany or South Korea would have no hope of defending those countries alone and were never intended to.
Clearly, if allies are fighting alongside, the requirement for U.S. forces is reduced. The logistical burden on
U.S. forces is also reduced by host-nation support and the existence of secure lines of resupply. Required
readiness levels are also affected by the degree to which the United States is willing to depend on allies to
defend common interests. A rational division of responsibilities could leave quick response to those allies
nearer the threat, while the United States maintains its huge reserve potential. The composition of U.S. forces
will depend on the degree of allied cooperation. In many cases, efficiency calls for specialization. NATO is
an example of how individual nations in a group have-to a limited extent-divided up military responsibilities
so that each can become more expert at their tasks or geographic areas. For example, Denmark has special
responsibilities to maintain control of its straits, which are important to all of NATO; the United States has a
disproportionate responsibility in air power because it can be reinforced across the Atlantic quickly; and
Belgium and the Netherlands have special logistical responsibilities in their harbors. The division of these
tasks maybe obvious and straightforward, but no nation’s forces could do its job smoothly without the other
nations’ doing theirs. The disadvantage of such a division of labor is that without the cooperation of the other
members of the alliance, any single member may become vulnerable. As a simple illustration, if one navy
were good at protection against submarines and the other at protection against missiles, then the two may be
able to work together but each would face major problems working alone.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Interventions Key (1/2)

( ) Interventions destroys military readiness
Layne 98 (Christopher, Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, World Policy Journal, “Rethinking American grand
strategy: Hegemony or balance of power in the twenty-first century?” Volume 15, Issue 2, Summer, Proquest)
Of course, America did not really solve the problem because today there is widespread concern that if the United States were to withdraw from
Europe militarily in the future, the Europeans would revert to their bad old geopolitical habits and economic interdependence would collapse. 12
This example illustrates a larger point. The strategy of preponderance requires the United States to maintain an
international security environment that is conducive to interdependence. This is a burdensome and
often dangerous responsibility. At best, the strategic requirements of economic interdependence
compel the United States to assume costly security commitments; at worst, those commitments can
lead to war. Two cases, one historical and one current, illustrate how, far from leading to an increase in
American security, economic interdependence can have adverse strategic consequences. The two cases
are America's role in Indochina from 1948 to 1954, and its current intervention in Bosnia.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, America's Cold War strategic imperatives required Japan's
economic recovery, which was believed by U.S. policymakers to depend on its access both to export
markets and raw materials in Southeast Asia. 13 The Truman and Eisenhower administrations
understood that, for this strategy to succeed, the United States had to guarantee Japan's military and
economic security. This connection between security and economic interdependence--specifically, the American strategic interest in
defending Japan's economic access to Southeast Asia--helped propel America's deepening involvement in Indochina.
Notwithstanding its lack of intrinsic economic and strategic importance, Indochina became the focal point of U.S. policy because of "domino
theory" concerns. 14 The United States regarded Indochina as a fire wall for preventing the more economically vital parts of the region--
especially Malaya and Indonesia--from falling under communist control. Washington's concern was that the economic
repercussions of toppling dominoes would have geopolitical consequences: if Japan were to be cut
off from Southeast Asia, the resulting economic hardship might cause domestic instability in Japan
and result in Tokyo's drifting out of the U.S. orbit (and thus becoming vulnerable to Soviet
penetration).
The connection between Japan's geopolitical orientation, its economic recovery, and its access to
Southeast Asia--that is, the belief that core and periphery are economically and strategically
interdependent--catalyzed America's support of France during the First Indochina War and, after 1954, its
support of a noncommunist state in South Vietnam. In retrospect, the United States crossed the crucial
threshold on the road to the Vietnam War in the early 1950s, when Washington concluded that
interdependence's strategic requirements (specifically, Japan's--and by extension, Southeast Asia's--
security and prosperity) necessitated that containment be extended to that region.
The Bosnian Case
America's 1995 military intervention in Bosnia also illustrates how economic interdependence can
cause nonpeaceful strategic effects. The parallels between Indochina and Bosnia are striking,
notwithstanding that unlike the perceived interdependence between Japan and Southeast Asia in the late
1940s and early 1950s, the Balkans' economic importance to Western Europe is minimal, and there
is no geopolitical threat in the Balkans that corresponds to the Vietminh, who, according to
Washington's (mistaken) belief, were the agents of a monolithic, Kremlin-directed communist bloc.
Given these differences, the case for intervention was even less compelling strategically in Bosnia than in
Indochina. Nevertheless, the rationale for intervention has been the basically the same. U.S. Bosnia
policy has been justified by invoking arguments based on domino imagery and the need to protect
economic interdependence.
Although a few commentators have contended that U.S. intervention in Bosnia was animated by
humanitarian concerns, this is not the case. American policymakers, including President Bill Clinton,
made clear that their overriding concerns were to ensure European stability by preventing the Balkan
conflict from spreading and to reestablish NATO's credibility.
Indeed, some of the proponents of preponderance believe that U.S. intervention in Bosnia alone is
insufficient to prevent peripheral instability from spreading into Western Europe. To forestall a
geopolitical snowball, they contend, NATO must be enlarged to incorporate the states located in East
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Interventions Key (2/2)

Central Europe. These expressed fears about the "spillover" of instability from Bosnia (or East Central
Europe) into Europe are often hazy when it comes to stating what the precise consequences of this spillover will be. However, some U.S.
policymakers and analysts have detailed their concerns: they fear that spreading instability could imperil economic interdependence. In 1992,
William Odom, the former director of the National Security Agency, explicated the perceived significance of the link between U.S. interests in
interdependence and its concerns for European stability and NATO credibility: "Only a strong NATO with the U.S. centrally involved can prevent
Western Europe from drifting into national parochialism and eventual regression from its present level of economic and political cooperation.
Failure to act effectively in Yugoslavia will not only affect U.S. security interests but also U.S. economic interests. Our economic
interdependency with Western Europe creates large numbers of American jobs." 15
Indochina and Bosnia demonstrate how the strategy of preponderance expands America's frontiers
of insecurity. The posited connection between security and economic interdependence requires the
United States to impose order on, and control over, the international system. To do so, it must
continually enlarge the geographic scope of its strategic responsibilities to maintain the security of
its already established interests. As the political scientist Robert H. Johnson observes, this process
becomes self-sustaining because each time the United States pushes its security interests outward,
threats to the new security frontier will be apprehended: "Uncertainty leads to self-extension, which
leads in turn to new uncertainty and further self-extension." 16
Core and periphery are interdependent strategically; however, while the core remains constant, the turbulent frontier in the periphery is constantly
expanding. One does not overstate in arguing that this expansion is potentially limitless. Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
recently has suggested, for example, that NATO expansion is just the first step toward creating an American-dominated "Trans Eurasian Security
System" [TESS], that ultimately will embrace Russia, China, Japan, India, and other countries--a security structure "that would span the entire
[Eurasian] continent." 17
There is a suggestive parallel between late Victorian Britain and the United States today. The late-nineteenth-cenury British statesman Lord
Rosebery, clearly recognized that economic interdependence could lead to strategic overextension:
Our commerce is so universal and so penetrating that scarcely any question can arise in any part of
the world without involving British interests. This consideration, instead of widening, rather
circumscribes the field of our actions. For did we not strictly limit the principle of intervention we
should always be simultaneously engaged in some forty wars. 18
***Readiness Adv Solvency***

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Missiles

CTL reduces heat making infrared detection less likely, eliminating missile targeting

The fuel also offers increased turbine engine life through lowered peak combustion temperature. This reduces
stress on hot components in the turbine engine thereby increasing the life of those components. Fuels that
burn cooler may also help to reduce the heat signature of aircraft, making them less vulnerable to infrared
missile attacks. (Figure 3 shows some of the many applications for F-T jet fuel in military equipment ranging
from tanks to fuel cells to spacecraft.) Also critical to meeting the needs of aviation, F-T fuels are truly
“drop-in replacements” for their petroleum-based counterparts, requiring no new pipelines, storage facilities,
or engine modifications, barriers that have stalled other alternative aviation fuels programs.
Synthetic fuels reduce heat signature of jet engines.
Bunning 7 (March 8, Jim, United States Senator,

http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=cf65561f-1321-0e36-ba15-
a4159c08d062&Region_id=&Issue_id&IsPrint=true)
The results of these tests so far are nothing short of outstanding. We already knew that these fuels are nearly zero-
sulfur, very low in N.O.X., and low in particulate matter. But we are learning new benefits. For example, the
lower-burn temperature of synthetic fuels reduces the heat signature of jet engines.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Maintenance

Coal-to-liquid reduces maintenance costs while biofuels increase these costs.
Bollinger 8 (1-25, Paul, Staff, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/1716/54657)

The Fischer Tropsche produced synthetic fuel the Air Force has been testing has zero SOx and almost zero
particulate matter. It is so clean that the engines produce no coking and are expected to have better
maintenance characteristics. The FT diesel has 50-80% less NOx emissions which is being tested and
certified in our ground vehicles.
More ev…
Air Force Link April 25 (2008, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123096037)

Other factors must also be accounted for, said Secretary Wynne. For instance, he encouraged the audience to consider how using bio-
fuels on a large scale could affect food prices, land use and water resources. He also suggested that much is unknown about how various
synthetic fuels affect aircraft engine life. For instance, due to residual deposits and gumming problems, bio-based
fuels increase maintenance costs. However, cleaner burning coal-to-liquid based fuels can substantially
reduce maintenance costs.
Equipment maintenance is key to military readiness
Peppers 4 (Jerome: Air Force Institute of Technology http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jul-

aug/peppers.html)
Throughout his existence on this planet, man has found it necessary to develop weapons of many kinds to protect
himself from animals and other men. Warfare has been a major concern to him in all his levels of development as it
is today to us. Not all men have required offensive forces; some armed themselves only for protection. Even so,
mankind has found some form of armed might essential, and this has caused the maintenance of weaponry to
be of serious concern for society’s leaders. Man’s weapons of defense and offense, through technological
advancements, have become more powerful and more complex. As this has occurred, so, too, has an increased
concern about their readiness for use. Maintenance of military weapons and equipment is an integral part of
defense capability. In today’s world, the ability of military forces to react instantaneously is essential to
national survival. This ability cannot exist unless an optimum quantity of mission-essential equipment is
maintained in a mission-ready state. It is impossible to predict when, where, or in what manner our military
strength might be needed. The requirement may come during a cold-war tension period or in a limited-war
commitment. The threat of sudden attack and the possibility of general war add other uncertainties to the situation.
Because of this uncertainty we must be prepared to meet the worst conceivable situation that would require
instantaneous response ability. This places a great burden on the tactical commander and emphasizes the urgent
requirement for effective equipment maintenance. The burden of the readiness mission is borne by maintenance,
and it is essential that each maintenance manager and technician understand his responsibilities to his unit and his
country. Maintenance capability is developed to acquire and retain a specified state of equipment readiness for the
tactical unit. The measure of maintenance success is the achieved state of equipment readiness. Therefore,
maintenance receives its reason for being and its measure of success from the same source: equipment
readiness. There is no more valid reason for maintenance in the tactical organization, and maintenance
effectiveness thus becomes a primary factor in determining unit capability. This places the maintenance
manager in a position of great importance and largely explains the growing command interest in maintenance
operations.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Budget

Syn Fuel saves USAF 3 billion each year.
Reid 7 (Clayton B., Staff Writer for NewsMax, November 6, http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/air_force_fuels/2007/11/06/47114.html)
The U.S. Air Force is slashing $3 billion from its fuel bill and reducing its reliance on foreign oil by weaning
gas-guzzling aircraft off pure petroleum products and taking to the skies with cutting-edge synthetic fuels.
The goal is to have all Air Force planes sipping synthetic petrol by 2011, according to Pentagon officials.
Already, all Air Force B-52 bombers have been certified to fly on mixed synthetic fuels. Late last month, a
massive C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane took off from California's Edwards Air Force Base powered for the first
time with a mix of traditional jet fuel and synthetic fuel. Officials called the test flight a roaring success.
“Everything’s going great,” an Air Force official familiar with the project tells Newsmax. “The secretary of the Air
Force says he wants us to develop a domestic source of alternative fuel to lessen dependency on foreign oil and
give the Air Force sovereign options to fly, fight and win. We’re doing it, and it works.” The Air Force is the biggest
gas-gulper of all of the services by far, sucking up a whopping 2.6 billion gallons of fuel in 2006 at a cost of more than $5.7 billion. For every $10
increase in a barrel of oil, Air Force costs jump $610 million annually, according to assistant Air Force secretary William Anderson. Last year,
the cost of jet fuel jumped from 75 cents a gallon to $2.01. That's a $71,000 increase for just one fill-up of a B-
52, which holds 47,000 gallons of fuel. “Oil is selling for $94 a barrel right now,” the official, who asked not to be
named, tells Newsmax. “The cost of synfuel is estimated to be between $45 and $60 a barrel. You do the math.”
With 42 gallons per barrel, that’s an annual savings of up to $3 billion.
The plan saves money on fuel, maintenance, and parts
Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)

The House and Senate approved a conference report, which President Bush quickly signed into law, for a
fiscal year (FY) 2007 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5631) that urges DOD to ensure future budget requests
contain sufficient funding to permit continued and expanded testing of alternative fuels, such as CTL fuels.
The conference report, approved in September 2006, notes that the Navy is launching its own testing
programme based on the results of successful Air Force tests. The report said the Air Force tests
demonstrated that the use of coal and natural gas-based synthetic fuels could result in savings of “up to
two-thirds of the cost” of a gallon of conventional jet fuel, and that such fuels burn cleaner and produce
savings as a result of lower maintenance and engine replacement costs.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (1/2)
CTL use is inevitable – The DOD will purchase it abroad in the SQ

Mr Bollinger stressed that the Air Force believes synthetic FT fuels, such as those made from coal, offer an
ideal venue to reduce Air Force dependency on foreign oil. He noted the Air Force currently relies on imports
for close to 60% of its fuel needs, and that the Air Force has concluded that allowing the nation’s defence to
be so tightly linked to foreign energy supplies is untenable. He said the Air Force sees FT fuels as a viable
option for replacing imported energy given the massive amount of domestic feedstock available to produce
such fuels. Mr Bollinger said sufficient quantities of domestic feedstock exist to produce a century’s worth of
FT fuels. However, he echoed others, cautioning that other nations are racing ahead of the US in constructing
facilities capable of transforming coal into synthetic transportation fuels, saying it is possible the first FT fuel
put into service by the Air Force could be purchased abroad.
Air Force wants substantial synfuel use in 3 yrs
Engineering News-Record 5-5-8 [260(15)]

"By 2016, we want to purchase 50% of continental U.S. fuel as synfuel," says Vicki Stein, Air Force
spokeswoman. That amounts to 400 million gallons per year. "We will certify the fleet by 2011 to fly on
synfuel," she adds. In fiscal year 2007, the service successfully tested with 280,000 gallons of fuel derived
from natural gas made in Malaysia. Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Mont., is the only site offered to date for
the CTL program, but the developer will be free to sell the products on the open market, says Stein.
CTL can meet the AF’s demand
Houston Chronicle 7 (6-17)

The United States boasts more than a quarter of the world's coal reserves, enough to last 250 years at current
usage rates, industry officials say. They say their goal of producing 300,000 barrels a day by 2015 could meet
the daily domestic needs of the U.S. armed forces. That's an intriguing figure for the Air Force, which
consumed 2.6 billion gallons of fuel last year.
More ev…

The NMA reports that a typical CTL plant costs about US$1 billion for a 10,000 b/d facility and at least
US$6.5 billion for a large-scale 80,000 b/d plant with a five-to-seven-year lead-time. Based on NMA
analysis, a feasible, near-term goal would be the production of at least 300,000 b/d of high-grade
fuel by 2015 using CTL technology — a supply equal to the amount of transportation fuel consumed daily by
the US military for domestic operations.
CTL produces an assured supply for fuel for the DOD
December 09, 2006]
At a U.S. consumption rate of 7.5 Bbbl/yr, this can yield a ~260 year supply from these sources alone. The FT
process that converts one form of fossil energy into another, e.g., via coal-to-liquid (CTL) or gas-to-liquid
(GTL) processes would yield an assured domestic supply of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the DoD for many
decades into the future, albeit accompanied with large environmental burdens, as discussed below, unless carbon
sequestration and other measures are adopted with attendant increases in cost.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (2/2)
Synthetic fuels from coal solve Air Force oil dependence
ACS`7 (American Chemical Society, 2007, April 24). Synthetic Fuels From Alternative Energy Sources Can Power The U. S.
Military, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423100221.htm)
In the study, Sasol Technology's Delanie Lamprecht points out that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
has been seeking alternative ways of obtaining "Jet Propulsion 8" (JP-8). DoD uses that single kerosene-
type fuel, virtually identical to commercial aviation fuel, for almost all its gas turbine and tactical
diesel engine applications. The defense department also wants an alternative route to JP-5, a slightly
different fuel used on aircraft carriers. Invited to participate in the effort to develop alternatives, Lamprecht
studied use of so-called Fischer-Tropsch technology. Sasol is a pioneer in use of the technology to produce
synthetic fuels from coal. It can convert coal, natural gas, or biomass into a synthesis gas and
thereafter into a Fischer-Tropsch syncrude suitable for refining into JP-8, JP-5 and other liquid fuels.
The study concluded that it is feasible to use the process, together with current refining technology, to
produce a "battlefield fuel of the future" that could power the military without reliance on imported
oil.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (1/6)
CTL solves oil dependence

America’s National Coal Council wants government incentives to help produce, daily, about 2.6 million
barrels of liquid fuel from coal by 2025. That would satisfy about 10% of expected US oil demand that year.
The plan would require 475 Mt/y of coal, which represents more than 40% of current annual US production.
Certainly, US coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production. All over the US, there are calls
to embrace CTL. The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) has released the American Energy Security
Study detailing how the USA can significantly strengthen energy security by implementing a robust
plan to support the development of a domestic CTL fuels industry and other alternative fuels. The governors
and state legislators of the 16 SSEB states spent six months on this project. Specific incentives form the basis
for a comprehensive energy plan aimed at slashing US oil imports by 5% per year, every year, for the next 20
years beginning in 2010. Of the alternative fuels targeted in the study, ultra-clean CTL transportation fuels
account for 29% of the fuels that would be used to reduce American oil imports – by far the largest source of
alternative fuel promoted in the study. According to the study, a concerted effort to develop CTL and other
alternative fuels will help facilitate a renewed US industrial boom through direct new energy sector
investments of up to US$200 billion by 2030, establish a reliable domestic energy base that sustains the
global competitiveness of US industries and create more than 1.4 million new jobs over two decades.
The study also said such fuels will help achieve conservation and efficiency savings equivalent to 19 million
barrels per day (b/d) of current oil usage and will ensure new steps are taken to protect the environment by
substantially reducing total atmospheric emissions.
More ev…

Coal has a broad geographic distribution - there are coal reserves in more than 70 countries. There is also a
well-established, well-supplied and historically reliable international market. In contrast, 80% of the world’s
total oil reserves are found in just 11 countries (OPEC). CTL utilises indigenous coal resources or the
international coal market to reduce the risks associated with oil import dependence.
The plan solves oil dependence
Springer 8 (Lt. Gen. Robert, Retired Air Force General, 3/25, http://www.wral.com/news/blogpost/2625696)
Imagine flying an Air Force bomber faster than the speed of sound – and doing it while testing a 50/50 blend
of synthetic petroleum fuel. Well, that flight did take place last week, as a B-1 bomber launched from its home station of Dyess Air
Force Base, near Abilene, Texas, and flew to New Mexico, crossing the White Sands Missile Range at 680 mph. While this was not the first Air
Force aircraft and crew to test synthetic fuels in flight, it was the first supersonic flight, and like the other test flights, it came off
without a hitch. In late 2006, an eight-engine B-52 bomber made the first synthetic fuel flight, and more recently, a four-engine C-17 transport
aircraft flew across the country on synthetic fuel. This is a big deal. The goal is to have all U.S. Air Force aircraft certified
to use a synthetic blend fuel within the next three to four years. Synthetic fuel is cheaper, will reduce
dependence on foreign oil, and burns cleaner. That is significant. The Air Force is by far the largest consumer
of aviation fuel, with an appetite for about 3 billion gallons a year. So, any efficiency and cost savings are
enormous. Just what is synthetic aviation fuel? And how long has the idea been around? Essentially, it is fuel that
can be produced from coal, shale and natural gas – all hydrocarbon products that are available to us in the
U.S., significantly reducing dependence on foreign oil. I am no expert on the processing technique, but I am told that these
domestic products – coal, shale or natural gas – go through a conversion process that turns them into a liquid fuel. On last week’s B-1 supersonic
flight, natural gas was used in the blended fuel. Sounds like a 21st-century breakthrough, doesn’t it? Well, not quite. The conversion method was
first developed some 80 years ago in Germany. A couple of German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, were responsible for what would
become known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. The few test flights so far have indicated no difference in aircraft handling or performance. More
test flights with other airframes are in the offing. As I noted above, the Air Force's goal is to have all of its aircraft certified for
synthetic fuel by 2011. A cheaper, cleaner, less-dependent-on-foreign-oil aviation fuel will dramatically affect
the aviation industry. For now, it is just the Air Force out in front with this significant project of testing and
then certifying an alternative fuel. But in the near future, I visualize all of the other armed services and the commercial airline industry
taking the same route. Cheaper, cleaner and domestically available all make for a highly desirable outcome.
More ev…
Geiselman 6 (Bruce; Waste News, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; October 23, Pg. 26, Lexis)
The U.S. Air Force within 10 years wants to cut in half its use of jet fuel produced from crude oil and replace
it with cleaner-burning, domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Air Force already has large numbers of
cars running on alternative fuels, but now it wants to find alternative fuel sources for its aircraft. A B-52 bomber
containing a blend of synthetic and regular jet fuel took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California on Sept. 19, marking the first time the
U.S. military has attempted to fly a plane with nontraditional fuel. ``This test flight sets the stage for a more comprehensive
plan the Air Force has toward conservation,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Ronald Sega, a former test pilot who
flew with crew members aboard the plane. ``This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long
process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels.'' The plane appeared to function normally using a
liquid fuel produced from natural gas by Syntroleum Corp., of Tulsa, Okla., according to company and Air
Force officials. Particularly appealing to the Air Force is the fact that domestically produced coal, available in
abundant supplies in the United States, could also be used to produce the fuel. ``The feedstock for this process
could include natural gas or it could be coal or oil shale,'' Sega said. ``The United States has significant
reserves in coal and oil shale, something on the order of 2 trillion barrel equivalents.'' Using a domestically
produced fuel would make the Air Force less vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies. Also appealing
are the environmental characteristics of the fuel. The Air Force initially tested a blend of synthetic fuel with 50
percent normal jet fuel. However, tests have revealed that jet engines burning pure synthetic fuel produce about
90 percent less particulate matter and soot emissions, which also improves engine performance. ``This test is a
significant milestone for Syntroleum and is a result of more than four years of research and development
efforts with the DOD,'' said Jack Holmes, company president and CEO.
Plan solves oil dependence
Schaefer 6 [Mike, The World's Biggest Investors Moving into CTL, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/ctl-coal-energy/262#,
August 28, 2006]
For the United States, coal-to-liquid technology means energy independence. The most recent estimates show
that the United States contains roughly 267 billion tons of in-place coal reserves. That's nearly 30% of the
entire world's recoverable coal! That means there's no need to import the resources needed. We already have
a massive resource right in our backyard. Oil prices are subject to geopolitical turmoil. But not coal. Since all
the coal we'll need for quite a while is right here in America, we won't have to worry about politics. Coal-to-
liquids has only become a viable energy option in recent years. For investors this means we need to jump on
the opportunity now.
Synthetic fuels key to ending the Air Forces oil dependence
Sullivan 7 (John A., November 12, 2007 US Air Force Continues to Push Ahead with Alternative Jet Fuels, Lexis)
The US Air Force has continued moving ahead with its goal of finding alternative fuels for its jet fleets
with the latest success coming on Oct. 22 with the test flight of a C-17 Globemaster II that used a blend of
synthetic and JP-8 fuels in all four of the transport's fuel tanks. The flight at Edward Air Force Base in
California , marked the first time that a C-17 has been flown using a Fischer-Tropsch-produced fuel blended
with regular JP-8 jet fuel. Last month, a C-17 was flown using the Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend in one tank in
an experiment to test engine performance. The Fischer-Tropsch fuels are those produced from natural gas
(NGW Nov.6,'06,p1) Alternative fuels can be produced from domestically available hydrocarbon
products like natural gas and coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, which was developed in Germany in
the early 1920s. Gasification can convert any hydrocarbon feedstock into a synthetic gas that can then,
through the Fischer-Tropsch process, be converted into any number of liquid fuel products. When the price of
oil is between $60 and $65 per barrel, Fischer-Tropsch technology is economically viable, a Department of
Defense official said. With the prices bouncing above $90 a barrel mark, "it has become very viable," a
Department of Defense official said. The same technology was used by Germany to fuel their military
machine for several years during World War II after most of its other fuel sources were cut off by Allied
advances. In September 2006, a B-52 took to the air at Edwards Air Force Base, using a synthetic fuel made
from natural gas. A spokesman for the service said the use of synthetic fuels is "vital if the Air Force is to
have the means of operating without relying on foreign oil supplies." The fuel for the B-52 flight was
produced at Syntroleum's FT demonstration facility near Tulsa , Oklahoma , which has produced more than
400,000 gallons of ultra-clean products. The fuel used in the Edwards test flights has come from this
demonstration facility, which only produces 70 barrels or about 1,700 gallons per day. The October flight of
the C-17 was called a success by the mission commander. "There was no discernible difference between JP-8
and Fischer-Tropsch," said Maj. Scott Sullivan, the mission pilot on the Oct. 22 flight. Sullivan added that he
and the crew were "quite pleased" with the flight results. The C-17 certification is the next step by the Air
Force to certify synthetic fuel blends for its fleet. Last A spokesman for the Flight Test Center said the C-
17 is the workhorse of the Air Force's mobility airlift fleet and the largest user of jet fuel. Sullivan said the
four-hour test flight was designed to assess how well the aircraft performed using the special fuel
blend. He said the mission consisted of ground operation of the auxiliary power unit and evaluation of in-
flight performance of the engineers and the fuel quantity measurement system used on the C-17. The final
steps for C-17 certification include another service evaluation at McChord Air Force Base in Pierce County ,
Washington . Fleet-wide certification is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2008, making the C-
17 the second Air Force aircraft to be certified to use this particular synthetic fuel blend. The Air Force's fleet
of B-52s was the first, completing certification Aug. 8. The Air Force has been ordered to have all its
aircraft certified to use this new blend of fuel by 2011. A special office has been created at the
Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio , to manage this effort.
Synthetics keep us off foreign oil-We have the most coal in the world
Behreandt`6 (Dennis Behreandt "The promise of synthetic fuel: coal-to-liquid technologies, pioneered almost 80 years ago,
have the potential to free America from its dependence on foreign oil". New American, The. Nov 27, 2006. FindArticles.com. 09
Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996859)
If synthetic-fuel technologies are going to play a significant role in America's future energy equation,
they will be made from the nation's supply of coal. The United States has the largest coal reserves in
the world. According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States has 508 billion short tons of coal,
with 274 billion tons classified as recoverable reserves, meaning they can be recovered economically using
current technology. Commenting on the magnitude of the nation's coal reserves, the Congressional Research
Service reports: "U.S. recoverable reserves are estimated at 25% of total world reserves."
This is an enormous energy resource that could play a huge role in ensuring America's energy
independence for many, many years to come. Traditionally, this coal has been used to power electricity
generation and heavy industry. But coal liquefaction and gasification technologies could be used to
convert much of this coal to liquid fuel. In 2005, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman contacted the
National Coal Council, a Federal Advisory Committee to the secretary of energy, requesting that the council
draft a report detailing the role coal can play in the near future. The council found that "application of coal-
to-liquids technologies would move the United States toward greater energy security and relieve cost
and supply pressures on transportation fuels by producing 2.6 MMbbl/d [2.6 million barrels per day] of
liquids. These steps would enhance U.S. oil supply by 10 percent and utilize an additional 475 million
tons of coal per year."
CTL key to solve oil dependence

James`6 (Steve, Rueters, Planet Ark FEATURE - Liquid Coal: A Cheaper, Cleaner 21st Century Fuel?, December 18, 2006,
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39529/story.htm)
Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia
has oil, are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon. The technology of producing a liquid
fuel from coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German
researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during World War II to
produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day. And
coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 percent of
transportation fuel needs. In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is
environmentally friendlier and would also help America wean itself of foreign oil imports. "America
must reduce its dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid
technologies," said JetBlue's founder and chief executive, David Neeleman. "Utilizing our domestic coal
reserves is the right way to achieve energy independence." In a recent briefing to power and energy
executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offer little
in the way of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious
transmission and infrastructure" problems. In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-
burning than conventional fuels.
Coal to liquid tech will give the US oil-independence
In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a process to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal that
supplied a substantial portion of Germany’s fuel during the war. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which
syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from the partial combustion of coal which has been gasified and combined with molecular
oxygen) is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels
produced fromcoal gasification and the FT process are intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal contaminantsare removed during the
gasification process. The principal purpose of the FT process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil or
as synthetic fuel. The FT process can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually any carbon-containing feed stock, including low-
grade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the preprocessing steps would differ from the gasification process used with coal.33 Since the United
States has the largest coal reserves in the world, synthetic fuel, or synfuel, made from coal is particularly
appealing. Synfuel represents a domestically controlled resource with prices theoretically tied to the coal market
instead of the world oil market. In 1948, Congress extended the project to eight years and doubled funding to $60 million. In the end,
synthetic fuel from coal could not compete economically with gasoline made from crude oil, especially given the major oil reserve discoveries in
the Middle East at the time. In 1953,Congress terminated funding and closed the plants.35At the height of the 1979 oil crisis, when the United
States imported approximately 25% of its crude oil, President Jimmy Carter proposed an Energy Security Corporation that would use $88 billion
of windfall profits tax on domestic oil producers to subsidize development of 2.5 million barrels per day of synthetic fuels production. After much
debate, Congress passed the Energy Security Act of 1980. The law created a US Synthetic Fuel Corporation with an initial budget of $17 billion.
After four years the corporation would submit a “comprehensive strategy” for congressional approval, where the balance of $68 billion would be
made available. A combination of mismanagement, administration change from President Carter to President Reagan, and most significantly,
crude oil prices falling from a 1981 peak of $36 per barrel to $12 in 1986, effectivelykilled the US Synthetic Fuel Corporation.36 Of the 67
projects proposed in 1981, only a few carried design efforts far enough to maturity. Bad business risk became the stigma attached to synthetic
fuels. In 2006 the Secretary of the Air Force directed a project to procure synthetic jet fuel for ground testing and, if ground tests were successful,
flight testing.37 In December 2006, a B-52 conducted a flight-test mission using a 50/50 blend of manufactured synthetic fuel and petroleum
based JP-8, orsynfuel-blend, on all eight engines, and recently finished cold-weather testing at Minot AFB, ND,the last step in the testing and
certification process. Test data is being analyzed, and the final testreport is scheduled to be released in June 2007. Thus far, results have been
positive. The Air Force is committed to completing testing and certification of synfuels for its aircraft by 2010,
and aims to acquire 50% of CONUS fuel from a synfuel-blend produced domestically by 2016. At current
consumption rates this equals approximately 325 million gallons of synfuel-blend.38 This will certainly not
eliminate US dependence on foreign oil, but is comparable to a double or triple in the George Shultz baseball analogy cited at the
beginning of this chapter. Subsequent actions, such as proving the economic viability of synfuels, or improving upon FT process could
“bring these runners home” and further expand domestically produced energy supplies. Could the world’s
single largest energy consumer be the catalyst to successfully launch a new synthetic fuel industry in the
United States? Advocates say with government help FT technology could supply 10% of US fuels within 20
years. A relatively small synthetic fuel plant, processing 17,000 tons per day of coal to produce 28,000 barrels per day of fuel, 750 tons per day
of ammonia, and 475MW of net electrical power would cost approximately $3 billion.40 Ten to fifteen such plants could supply all of the DOD’s
fuel requirements.
CTL solves oil dependence
Housman 6 (Damian, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Public Affairs, October 5, www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123028544)
The Air Force Advanced Power Technology Office here is conducting research on synthetic fuel for use
in a ground environment. The use of synthetic fuel is vital if the Air Force is to have the means of
operating without relying on foreign oil supplies. The Sept. 19 test flight by a B-52H Stratofortress at Edwards AFB,
Calif., is one attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of using synthetic fuel in combat aircraft, and work on synthetic fuel done here at
Robins is focusing on synthetic fuel for ground support vehicles. The quest for alternative fuel is not new. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
synthetic fuel process is named for two German scientists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, who invented the system prior to World War
II. Germany recognized its vulnerability to a cutoff of petroleum supplies, and used the FT system extensively during the war. It is the
very same FT system that the Air Force uses in its current effort. "If oil is cut off for any reason, we need a source of
fuel to run military aircraft and vehicles," said Mike Mead, head of the Air Force Advanced Power
Technology Office at Robins.
Mr. Mead's work at Robins involves management of the fuel integration program for ground applications, while the Air Force Research Laboratory manages
the fuel program for aircraft. The Fischer-Tropsch process starts with synthesis gas produced from feed stocks such as natural gas, coal or biomass. The FT
synthesis process converts synthetic gas into clean burning liquid fuel through a process using heat and pressure. "Currently we are demonstrating both a
100-percent synthetic fuel and a 50-50 blend of synthetic and petroleum fuel for vehicles and ground equipment applications," Mr. Mead said. The fuel now
used in aircraft tests is a 50-50 blend, but the goal is to prove that 100-percent synthetic fuel can be used. The 100-percent product is slightly less dense than
current JP-8 jet fuel, according to project engineer Bill Likos. "We don't know yet that the difference in density is meaningful," he said. The two synthetic
fuel compounds are under test by the Air Force. S8 FT fuel, which is used as a substitute for JP-8, is being demonstrated at Selfridge Air National Guard
Base, Mich. S2 FT fuel, which is used as a substitute for diesel fuel number 2, is being demonstrated at Edwards AFB, Calif. "Most people were not aware
of it, but when the B-52 took off from Edwards, the bus carrying the media and VIPs was powered by S2 FT synthetic fuel. It was a double demonstration,"
Mr. Mead said. The B-52 used S8/JP8 fuel blend to run two engines, with regular JP-8 running the other six engines. S8 FT fuel is also being demonstrated
in R-11 refueling trucks as well as other support vehicles. One of the lessons learned, according to Mr. Mead, is that no modifications to any vehicles or
ground equipment are needed. "We use the fuel in this demonstration as-is, and don't have to change the vehicle at all in order to use it," he said. Another
advantage to FT fuels, testers are discovering, is that synthetic fuel is cleaner than regular fuel. "The FT process results in a 90-percent reduction in
particulate emissions and an 80-percent reduction in smoke numbers for purified fuel," Mr. Likos said. In tests of the 50-50 blend some smoke is visible, but
with the 100-percent FT fuel, no smoke is expected to be seen. Despite the positive results of synthetic fuel tests, adoption of synthetic fuel is still in the
future. "So far, we have only had Syntroleum Corporation, which makes the fuel, make 10,000 gallons of fuel available at Edwards for test, and another
2,300 gallons at Selfridge," Mr. Mead said. "Thus far, this is a demonstration program, with no manufacturing plants built yet for (mass production of) FT
fuel." Mr. Mead and Mr. Likos said while the fuel is currently produced from natural gas, it can also be produced from coal. The
U.S. has vast
coal reserves, which would go a long way toward easing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil
supplies. However, cost may continue to be an issue, even if the synthetic fuel tests successfully throughout the program.
Syntroleum estimates if the price of petroleum crude remains at its current highs, FT fuels will be cost
competitive.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Control

CTL improves oil supply resilience through regional dispersion

An auxiliary benefit of coal-to-liquids development derives from the broad regional dispersion of
the U.S. coal resource base and the fact that coal-to-liquids plants are able to produce finished
motor fuels that are ready for retail distribution. As such, developing a coal-to-liquids industry
should increase the resiliency of the overall petroleum supply chain.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Shocks

CTL solves oil price volatility

In contrast, coal remains the most abundant fossil fuel in the world and the United States has more coal
reserves than any other country. With coal-to-liquids technology, the United States can take control of its
energy destiny. Any product made from oil can be made from coal. At today’s oil prices, coal-to-liquids is
economical and has the power to enhance energy security, create jobs here at home, lessen the U.S trade
deficit, and provide environmentally superior fuels that work in today’s vehicles. By building even a few
coal-to-liquids plants, the U.S. would increase and diversify its domestic production and refining base –
adding spare capacity to provide a shock absorber for price volatility.
Oil price volatility is up in the short-term
As the world oil industry continues to operate at or near capacity, prices will exhibit greater volatility, and the
market will be prone to periodic sharp price increases if demand increases unexpectedly or if supplies are cut
off. Given the concentration of crude oil production in politically unstable regions around the world,
recurring supply shocks must be assumed for planning purposes.
***Readiness Adv A2: Take-outs***

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: CTL Drawbacks

Tests prove CTL is as good as oil

Air Force officials said they were impressed with recent tests of the synthetic fuel when it was blended with
an equal amount of traditional jet fuel. The fuel blend was tested over the past year in a B-52 bomber at
Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., in warm weather, and at North Dakota’s Minot Air Force Base in colder
weather.
The military found that it performed on par with conventional petroleum-based military aviation fuel, known
as JP-8.
“Our data showed you cannot tell the difference between the two,” said Lt. Col. Daniel Millman, an Air
Force test pilot, who flew the B-52 during the tests.
More ev…

In June 2006, the Air Force agreed to buy 100,000 gallons of artificial fuel from U.S.-based Syntroleum to
mix with petroleum for testing. The next month, military engineers bolted an engine from a B-52 bomber to a
table at Tinker Air Force base in Oklahoma and ran it for 50 consecutive hours to see how it would perform
on the synthetic blend. Engineers detected no differences from conventional fuel. The Air Force began
conducting test flights. In September 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California with
two of its eight engines burning the synthetic-fuel blend, the first time a military aircraft had flown on
artificial fuel. The plane's performance was the same as if it had flown on conventional fuel, and the Air
Force decided to push ahead.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Retrofitting/Interoperability (1/3)

No need for new jet parts or infrastructure

But the benefits of Rentech’s fuels are not limited to CO2. Rentech fuels will be the cleanest liquid
transportation fuels available. F-T diesel and jet fuel are pure paraffinic hydrocarbons. This means that they
inherently contain essentially no sulfur and aromatics, two fuel components that have long been the focus of
federal and state environmental protection policies. The fuels are clear, non-toxic, biodegradable and
completely fungible with current fuels and fuel transportation infrastructure. This means that no changes are
needed to fuel distribution pipelines or engines to use F-T diesel and jet fuel.
More ev…

More ev..

Coal-to-liquids is not a new kind of fuel. Any liquid fuel product that can be made from crude oil can be
made from coal. Products from coal-to-liquids plants include high quality gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel
that can be used in existing engines without making any modifications to the engines or distribution systems
for the fuel.
More ev…

From a product perspective, coal-to-liquids refineries are very similar to petroleum refineries. They make the
same range of products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and chemical feedstocks. These fuels can be
distributed in today’s pipelines without modification. They can be blended with petroleum derived fuels if
desired. They can be used directly in today’s cars, trucks, trains and airplanes without modifications to the
engines.

Synthetic fuels are cleaner, more stable, and work in current engines
Chandler 7 (Jerome Greer Chandler, Air Transport World, “Fueling the Future” May 2007)
OVER THE PAST YEAR, COMMERCIAL aviation suddenly has become serious about alternative fuels. Once pie-in-
the-sky popular science, the subject now is manifestly mainstream. From January 2004 through July 2006, jet fuel prices skyrocketed $1.16 per
gal., according to the Air Transport Assn., and fuel has leapfrogged labor at most airlines as the largest operating expense. But "this is not
just about price," says ATA Chief Economist John Heimlich, "it's about supply integrity. We want to make sure we have
fuel around at any price, [not just] a good price." That is why the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative came about.
Born of a Boeing workshop in May 2006, ATA, the Aerospace Industries Assn., Airports Council International and FAA are collaborating with the
Depts. of Defense and Energy to speed the transition to alternative fuels those not derived from conventional crude oil. Finally, says CAAFI
Executive Director Richard L. Altman, "We have a unified aviation sector in terms of the way we look at things." And the way it looks
right now, synthetic fuels, with considerable caveats, are the answer. Bereft of reliable supplies of crude during World War II,
Germany resorted to something called the Fischer-Tropsch process. Hydrocarbons, in Germany's case coal, were converted through gasification
to liquid fuel. Apartheid South Africa adopted FT and refined the process. Today South African firm Sasol produces a blend of
coal-derived FT kerosene and Jet A. Fuel up at Johannesburg International and you're going to get a Sasol blend, says Ted Biddle, Pratt &
Whitney's fuels technology manager. Carriers have been using a progressively higher blend (it is now in the low-30% range) of synthetics out of
JNB for the past seven years. The verdict: "Very successful," says Biddle. "No problems reported." P&W belongs to a team of
powerplant manufacturers that is putting together a protocol to propel approval for the use of 100% synthetic FT. Included in the group are
General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Honeywell and Hamilton Sundstrand. Based on 18 months of successful tests, Pratt is on track to okay 100%
Sasol by mid-2007. Biddle foresees a sign-off by the other engine makers soon after. Engine and airframe builders are high on
FTs because they are so-called "drop-in" fuels. Biddle says it is imperative "that [the transition to synthetics]
be invisible to the user so there's no required redesign at all of the engine or the aircraft." It doesn't hurt that
Fischer-Tropsch fuels also are dramatically more stable thermally; you can put more heat into them before
they break down. "What that means for legacy engines," he says, "is that you can run them longer and cleaner."
FTs also enjoy improved cold flow properties and emit reduced particulates. While Sasol shines, so does something
called Syntroleum, another Fischer-Tropsch fuel that is derived from natural gas. USAF has been running a 50/50 blend of JP-8 and Syntroleum
in a B-52 successfully. The fuel is produced at Syntroleum's FT demonstration facility near Tulsa, where the company has formulated more than
400,000 gal. of ultra-clean (90% reduction in particulates) product.
FT fuels can be used in current engines
Aviation Week 7 (“Alternative Fuels for Jet Engines” Aviation Week

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0907p3.xml)
Because synfuel can be refined from coal or natural gas (as well as biomass sources) using the F-T process
and is available now, it is expected to emerge first as a supplement to petroleum-based fuels. In this regard, its
primary purpose for the foreseeable future will be as a stopgap to ensure energy security for the United States
and other nations with large coal or natural gas reserves. However, it is not generally seen as a solution to global warming or the mitigation of
greenhouse gases, as the F-T refining process releases more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than the refining of crude oil. On the other
hand, when burned, its carbon emissions are about the same as those of conventional petroleum-based fuel. Also, as F-T fuel's energy
density and performance replicate those of conventional Jet-A and military JP-8, it can be used as a so-called
"drop-in" substitute; hence, the Air Force's interest in using it. And as a number of experts interviewed by B&CA have
pointed out, the United States still holds huge reserves of coal. The FAA's initiative to investigate alternative fuels goes back a
few years to discussions within the aviation authority's Research Advisory Committee that concluded that energy ramifications -- fuels, source
security and environmental impact -- were going to be the dominant issue facing aviation in the foreseeable future. "In May 2006, the FAA,
aircraft and engine manufacturers, refiners and airlines convened in Seattle with representatives of the Department of Defense to examine the
prospects and possibilities for alternative fuels for aviation," the FAA's Lourdes Maurice, chief scientist for energy and environment, told B&CA.
"A major consideration was the ability to use these fuels in existing aircraft and engines. After the meeting, we agreed to work together on
alternative fuels for aviation. On the military side, the work in that regard was well on its way." That October, CAAFI was conceived as a
partnership between government and industry, with airport managements now included, as well, thus embracing almost all stakeholders in the
fuels debate. The FAA then launched the studies Blakey described at Paris. "The focus is how can we make alternative fuels that are a drop-in for
existing systems," Maurice said. Answering the question that most operators of existing equipment are probably asking -- Can we burn this stuff
in our existing equipment without re-engining or major modifications? -- Maurice explained, "The concept behind drop-in is that use
of the fuel would not require modifications, only minor adjustments to engines and control software or use of
additives. We are looking at a variety of existing sources, like coal-to-liquid, as they've been using in South
Africa for some time now, all the way to fuels made from renewable sources. "In the longer term," she continued, "we are looking at how
to vary the properties of the fuel, as there are some alternatives that are attractive to expand the envelop more, new technologies that would be
different as opposed to drop-in fuels which essentially [mirror] the characteristics of what we're using today." Certification and qualification
implications are being examined, too.

FT is a drop in fuel, that wont harm current engines

The second question operators probably have on their minds is what impact alternative fuels like Fischer-
Tropsch will have on their engines' TBOs. "The expectation is that if the fuels are qualified right, there should
be no negative impact on maintenance issues," Held claimed. "The three factors we have to pay attention to are
the thermal stability of the fuel so that it won't affect the nozzles; hot-section durability, as you have to ensure there
are no contaminants in the fuel, like metallic elements that could cause corrosion in the hot section, although heat
loads should be lower with F-T fuels, which is a good thing; and finally, the lubricity of the fuels." The last,
lubricity, is not in the current specification, at least for F-T fuels. "Petroleum fuels have naturally occurring
components that contribute to lubricity for protection on metal-to-metal wear, organic acids not necessarily present
in other types of fuel," Held said. "This can be dealt with using additives, as in JP-8, which requires one. We do
materials compatibility checks to ensure there are no adverse effects with these fuels."
BioFuel cant be produced as jet fuel yet, FT fuels are the alternative

Consequently, reducing the carbon footprint will require fuel refined from renewable sources and ongoing development of more efficient aircraft
like Boeing's gestating 787 widebody, which is promised to be 20 percent more efficient than contemporary transports in the same class. As
mentioned earlier, the caveat here is that the biofuel refining process is less mature than that for synfuels. "There are
more technical challenges related to it," Adams said. "One of the challenges is that it takes a lot of biomass to make a pound of jet
fuel. Others include thermal stability, or the tendency to coke and gum up the engine components, and freeze and flashpoint issues. So some work
will be necessary in fuel controls and combustion systems." So like his colleagues, Adams believes that synfuels from the F-T process
will be the principal alternatives to petroleum "for a substantial period of time," and it will take longer to
perfect biomass-based fuels for jets -- somewhere between five and 15 years. In the meantime, operators should
expect to see increasing reliance on the F-T synfuels. "The F-T process can also use natural gas, which is more common than
coal in some regions of the world," he said. "In the United States, the predominate [feedstock] will most likely be coal, but in other locations,
natural gas is a ready substitute." Pratt has played an active role in validating F-T fuels for the past 16 years, Adams claimed, working closely
with Sasol Ltd. in South America, and expected U.S. approval for use of synfuels made from the F-T process in its engines this summer. "The
most important thing the industry can do right now is drive more efficient engine technology, [which is] the other way to lower carbon
emissions," he said. "This is where Pratt is investing most of its research -- building more efficient engines. This will have a short-term
improvement in footprint and is consistent with improving the economics of operation for our customers." Adams cited the geared turbofan Pratt
is developing for the narrow-body jetliner market as an example. Bracketing a thrust range of 14,000 to 30,000 pounds, the engine is touted as
delivering "substantially improved fuel consumption." (Gearing the fan allows significant increases in bypass ratio -- up to 12 in the initial
iteration of the engine and as much as 20 over time in follow-on versions.)
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – No Link

Empirically, dual refueling needs don’t hurt readiness
NATO Publications 6 (“Backgrounder: Interoperability for joint operations”

http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/html_en/interoperability04.html)
There are two types of aerial refuelling methods: boom and receiver and probe and drogue. A boom is a
long, rigid hollow shaft with a telescoping extension and small V-shaped wings at the end which can be fl
own into the receiver on top of the aircraft being refuelled. A drogue is a basket attached to the end of a hose
which is extended to meet with a probe, a receiver usually installed in the nose of the aircraft being refuelled.
Aerial refuelling methods vary even within air forces. The US Air Force uses the boom system, while the
US Navy and Marine Corps use the probe and drogue system. Other NATO nations also use the probe
and drogue system. This means for example that British Royal Air Force tinteroperabilitys can refuel US
Navy aircraft. To be completely interoperable at the national and NATO levels, aerial tinteroperabilitys
must be capable of refuelling using both methods. Aerial refuelling is one of the activities of the NATO-
Russia Council (NRC). The NRC Ad Hoc Working Group on Logistics is planning an air-to-air refuelling
exercise.
No need for full shift to retain interoperability
APCSS 4 (“Defense Transformation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Meeting the Challenge” Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies is a Department of Defense academic institute that addresses regional and global security issues.
http://www.apcss.org/core/Conference/CR_ES/DefenseTrans.doc)
Transformation may not be necessary to “get the job done.” Despite the fact that few Asia-Pacific militaries
are likely to transform themselves, a “modernization-plus” strategy may be sufficient to meet most of these
countries’ defense requirements, particularly with respect to their strategic context (i.e., local threat
perceptions) and available resources. These countries do not need to emulate the US model in order to derive
considerable new capabilities and benefits from their current modernization efforts – as one participant
put it, an 80 percent solution may be more than adequate. In particular, when it comes to US friends and allies
in the region, it may be enough for them to modernize sufficiently – especially when it comes to NCW – in
order to be more interoperable with US forces and to fill an important niche in coalition operations,
rather than attempt to acquire a complete set of transformational systems.
Modernizing militaries is not disruptive
APCSS 4 (“Defense Transformation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Meeting the Challenge” Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies is a Department of Defense academic institute that addresses regional and global security issues.
http://www.apcss.org/core/Conference/CR_ES/DefenseTrans.doc)
“Defense transformation” does not adequately describe current efforts by Asia-Pacific nations to upgrade and change
their militaries. If defense transformation entails a fundamental change in the concept, character, and
conduct of warfighting, then most Asia-Pacific nations are not so much engaged in transforming, as in
modernizing, their armed forces. “Modernization-plus,” therefore, emerged out of the conference as a
more apt descriptor of what is currently ongoing in most Asia-Pacific militaries (and even in most European
militaries). Many militaries in the region are in the process of buying many new types of military equipment, including precision-guided
munitions, airborne early warning aircraft, submarines, air-to-air refueling aircraft, datalinks, and improved command and control
systems. Therefore, they are certainly acquiring capabilities that they did not possess earlier, such as new
capacities for force projection and standoff attack, low-observability, and greatly improved C4ISR. However, this
modernization effort is, in general, evolutionary, steady-state, and incremental, and it is therefore not
so much a disruptive as it is a sustaining process of innovation. In particular, “modernization-plus”
does not entail much in the way of change in these countries’ military doctrine, organizations, and
institutions.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – NUQ

Aerial refueling interoperability low now
Harbottle and Schmidt 1 (“Nato Air-To-Air Refueling” Flying Safety 2001. Wing Commander Fred Harbottle
is a Royal Air Force Officer, Major Peter Smidt is a Royal Netherlands Air Force Pilot,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_3_57/ai_74407412/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1)
So, where do we go from here? There are those who believe that all of NATO should be using one
refueling manual which details standard procedures, with each country having a national annex
describing features unique to that country. The UK Air-to-Air Refueling National Instructions (AARNIs)
contain details of UK air refueling areas, MDS-specific receiver techniques and planning factors for
deployments. Any foreign crew conducting AR in UK airspace would be well advised to use ATP 56(A)
procedures and to read the information in UK AARNIs. There would then be few surprises like the one
described above. However, what chance is there for the USAF to convert to these procedures? At the
moment, the best we can hope for is that all tanker crews become conversant with the contents of ATP
56(A) and then start to carefully consider its use within their own environment. We could then see meaningful amendments being
suggested which may make the document more palatable for USAF users. As exchange officers operating with the USAF, we believe
there is little which needs to be changed. However, the boom operators who see C-5-sized aircraft filling their boom windows daily, and
who have experienced aircraft as slow as helicopters and as fast as SR-71s, need to be the ones to stamp their authority on the usability
of this ATP. They then need to embrace and enhance the regulations contained within it so that all NATO members can feel comfortable
with (truly) common NATO refueling procedures. If we fail to take this on board, we fear there will be many more
baskets replaced and probes removed as the USAF learns its lessons the hard way.
No fueling interoperability now
NATO 6 (“Interoperability for joint operations” http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/interoperability.pdf)

The first STANAGs established common standards for English and French language proficency levels. English is the military lingua
franca of NATO, and is one of the two offi cial languages of the Alliance, along with French. Being able to communicate in a common
language is a prerequisite for interoperability. One key area where standardization efforts have been necessary is
refuelling. While that would appear to be a straightforward task, there are dozens of STANAGs
covering various aspects, depending on the vehicle or aircraft involved and where it is being refuelled.
Refuelling can be done on the ground, at sea or in the air (see box on latter). There are also different
types of fuel. Fuel-related STANAGs therefore set standards for refuelling at airfi elds and ports, storage, different types of fuel and
lubricants, fi lters and fuel caps. Another standardization agreement, STANAG 4586, sets out the specifi cations of a common ground
station for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) used by NATO forces. Implementation of the agreement will allow information between
different national UAVs to be collated and shared via common ground stations, which in turn will mean that NATO and national
commanders will have far greater control over the use of UAVs in military operations.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Aircraft Carriers DA – No Link: JP-

5/JP-8 Fuels
Aircraft carriers use JP-5 fuels, not JP-8 fuels
Lamprecht 7 (Delanie, 21(3), DOD, Energy & Fuels)

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) currently uses a single kerosene-type fuel for all of its gas-
turbine and (tactical) diesel engine applications. This single battlefield fuel must currently comply with "Jet
Propulsion 8" (JP-8) MIL-DTL-83133 or JP-5 MIL-DTL-5624 fuel specifications. JP-8 is virtually identical
to the commercial aviation turbine fuel, Jet A-1, as specified in the British Aviation Turbine Fuel Defense
Standard 91-91, except for the requirement of additional additives, such as fuel-system-icing inhibitors. The
exception to the use of JP-8 is the fuel for use on aircraft carriers, which require conformance to JP-5
specifications. JP-5 again is essentially the same as JP-8 but has a higher flash point than JP-8 to provide an
additional degree of safety in handling fuels on aircraft carriers. Technological changes and advanced
propulsion and power systems, such as hypersonic vehicles, that are introduced to the battle space make the
single battlefield fuel philosophy of the DoD less viable to the use of crude-oil-derived kerosene-type fuel.
***Iran Adv***
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [1/5]

Attack inevitable-In lieu of Iran’s involvement in Iraq the current administration and both
candidates are up for it
DREAZEN`8 (Yochi, Wallstreet Journal, June 24, 2008 Weapons, Money Are Still Being Sent To Militias in Iraq
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iraq/iran-continues-to-support-shiites-u.s.-report-says.html)
The report reserved its harshest words for Iran, accusing Tehran of breaking its promise to curtail the
flow of Iranian armaments into Iraq. It said U.S. and Iraqi forces operating in Basra found large
caches of Iranian-made weapons that had been manufactured earlier this year, after Iranian officials
told their Iraqi counterparts that they would take measures to curb such shipments. The report also
noted that the number of attacks featuring a particularly lethal form of roadside bomb that the U.S.
has linked to Iran reached a high in April, while the number of attacks involving Iranian-supplied
rockets rose sharply over the same period. Iran has been facilitating the "large-scale trafficking of
arms, ammunition, and explosives," and helping to "fund, train, arm and guide numerous networks
that conduct wide-scale insurgency operations," according to the report. Iran has denied knowingly
funneling weapons into Iraq or training the country's Shiite militants. Its government derides the U.S.
accusations as propaganda designed to cover American failings in Iraq and provide a pretext for a military
strike on Iran. The Pentagon report is likely to fuel aggressive rhetoric about Iran from Democrats and
Republicans. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have each described Iran as
the pre-eminent threat to the U.S. and threatened to strike Iran if Tehran fails to abandon its nuclear
efforts. Republican Sen. McCain has long been hawkish on Iran, while Democratic Sen. Obama has
begun replacing his earlier talk of meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with
muscular comments about doing "everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon." The Pentagon report also accused Syria of contributing to Iraq's instability. Gen. David Petraeus,
the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in an interview last year that Syria was taking steps to prevent suicide
bombers and other militants from crossing into Iraq. The new report, by contrast, said that Syria was a "safe
haven and transit point for the vast majority of foreign terrorist networks now operating in Iraq."

We’re preparing to attack now
Hersh`6(Seymour, The New Yorker, April 8, http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a
nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible
major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force
planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been
ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government
ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian
regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
Diplomacy is failing like Bush planned, strikes are on their way

Symonds`8 (Peter, World Socialist Website, July 5, 2008, Bush reaffirms “all options on the table” over Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/iran-j05.shtml)
For all the denials on both sides, a top-level discussion is clearly underway in the US and Israel over the
pros and cons of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In separate press conferences on Wednesday, US
President George Bush and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, both
reaffirmed that the use of military force against Iran, either directly by the US or following air strikes by
Israel, remained an option. The comments come amid a continuing stream of barely concealed threats
from Israeli politicians and officials that action will be taken to ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear
weapons capability. The Israeli air force carried out a provocative exercise last month in which 100 war
planes, backed by refuelling aircraft and rescue helicopters, flew 1,500 kilometres over the Mediterranean
Sea in what can only be interpreted as a practice run for striking Iranian nuclear facilities. In response,
the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, warned this week: “Any
action against Iran will be interpreted as the start of a war.” In a newspaper comment last week, Jafari
stated that if attacked, Iran would respond by hitting Israel with long-range missile and taking action to close
the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s traded oil passes. The commander of
the US naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, declared this week: “We will not allow
Iran to close it.” When asked on Wednesday about the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Bush emphatically
declared: “I have always said that all options are on the table.” He added that “the first option for the United
States is to solve this problem diplomatically... That is why we’ve been pursuing multilateral diplomacy.”
Asked if he had discouraged Israel from attacking Iran, the president said that he had made it “very clear to
all parties that the first option” should be a diplomatic resolution. The president’s remarks have been
interpreted as a “no” to Israel and a commitment to a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran—in the
short-term at least. In the longer term, however, Bush has made clear that he is prepared to launch
military strikes if Iran refuses to bow to US demands. As for diplomacy, the White House has repeatedly
refused to hold direct talks with Tehran. The aim of Bush’s “diplomatic solution” has been to pressure and
bully the major European and Asian powers into imposing punitive sanctions on Iran through the United
Nations and unilaterally. Before any negotiations take place, Washington insists that Tehran shut down
its major nuclear facilities—including its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz—which Iran has
refused to do. Iran insists that its uranium enrichment program is to provide fuel for power reactors, as is its
right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Bush administration has failed to demonstrate that Iran
has an active weapons program. In fact, last December, a National Intelligence Estimate produced by 16
American spy agencies concluded that Tehran had ended any weapons program in 2003. Despite the finding,
Bush continues to claim that Iran is actively pursuing plans for nuclear weapons. The nuclear issue is
simply one of the pretexts that the Bush administration has been preparing as a possible casus belli for
attacking Iran. Washington also accuses Iran of arming and training anti-US insurgents attacking
American troops in Iraq and of supporting “terrorist groups” such as the Lebanese-based Shiite party
Hezbollah. The real reason for the continuing confrontation is that the US regards Iran as an obstacle
to American ambitions to establish its strategic and economic dominance throughout the oil-rich
Middle East.

Iran strikes inevitable
Pena`6 (Charles, Senior Fellow at the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and at the George Washington University
Homeland Security Initiative, “Collision Course With Iran”, http://antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=8973)
The most candid comments about the Ahmadinejad letter have so far been by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice. According to Rice, "This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear
issue or anything of the sort" and that it "isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete
way." But more to the point: "There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course
than we were before we got the letter." Which means the United States and Iran remain on a collision
course for eventual U.S. military action because both parties have mutually exclusive objectives.
Although Iran's nuclear program is the public reason for U.S. concerns, the new National Security
Strategy issued on March 16, 2006, reveals the real U.S. motives: "As important as are these nuclear
issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism;
threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the
aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be
resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its
political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy." In other words,
it's not just about nuclear weapons – so Iran giving up its nuclear aspirations would only be a necessary,
but not sufficient, condition. Rather, it's about regime change – which is exactly what the Iranians are
trying to prevent by seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. So the Iranians have no incentive
to give up their quest for nuclear weapons since doing so will not result in a guarantee that the regime
will remain in power. Thus, although President Bush has repeatedly claimed that he wants to resolve the
dispute with Iran diplomatically, the reality is that there is no diplomatic solution to be had.

The elections and terrorist label on the IRGC makes strikes inevitable
Afrasiabi`7 (Kaveh L, Global Research.org “US steps closer to War with Iran”, August 22, 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6595)
The Bush administration has leaped toward war with Iran by, in essence, declaring war with the main
branch of Iran's military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which it plans to brand as a
terrorist organization. A logical evolution of US President George W Bush's ill-defined, boundless "war on
terror", the White House's move is dangerous to the core, opening the way for open confrontation with
Iran. This may begin in Iraq, where the IRGC is reportedly most active and, ironically, where the US and
Iran have their largest common denominators. A New York Times editorial has dismissed this move as
"amateurish" and a mere "theatric" on the part of the lame-duck president, while at the same time admitting
that it represents a concession to "conflict-obsessed administration hawks who are lobbying for
military strikes". The political analysts who argue that the main impact of this initiative is "political"
are plain wrong. It is a giant step toward war with Iran, irrespective of how well, or poorly, it is thought
of, particularly in terms of its immediate and long-term implications, let alone the timing of it. Coinciding
with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's highly publicized trip to Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan,
the news received front-page coverage in the New York Times, next to a photograph of Ahmadinejad and his
Afghan host, President Hamid Karzai, as if intended to spoil Ahmadinejad's moment by denigrating the
Iranian regime. Just two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice implicitly put Iran on a par
with the Soviet Union by invoking comparisons to the Cold War, and in essence compared it to al-Qaeda.
Thus if an unintended side-effect of the Cold War terminology was to enhance Iran's global image, the
"terrorist" label for the IRGC aims to deliver a psychological blow to Iran by de-legitimizing the
country. Also, it serves the United States' purpose at the United Nations Security Council, where a British-
prepared draft of a new round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program has been floating around for a
while and will likely be acted on this autumn. The draft calls for tightening the screws on Iran by broadening
the list of blacklisted Iranian companies and even may lead to the interdiction of Iranian ships in the Persian
Gulf. This is indeed a dangerous move that could easily trigger open confrontation. With the window of
opportunity for Bush to use the "military option" closing because of the US presidential elections next
year, the administration's hawks - "it is now or never" - have received a huge boost by the move to
label the IRGC as terrorists. It paves the way for potential US strikes at the IRGC's installations inside
Iran, perhaps as a prelude to broader attacks on the country's nuclear facilities. At least that is how it is
being interpreted in Iran, whose national-security concerns have skyrocketed as a result of the labeling. "The
US double-speak with Iran, talking security cooperation on the one hand and on the other ratcheting up the
war rhetoric, does not make sense and gives the impression that the supporters of dialogue have lost in
Washington," a prominent Tehran University political scientist who wished to remain anonymous told the
author. The US has "unfettered" itself for a strike on Iran by targeting the IRGC, and that translates
into heightened security concerns. "The United States never branded the KGB [Russian secret service] or the Soviet army as
terrorist, and that shows the limits of the Cold War comparison," the Tehran political scientist said. His only optimism: there are "two US
governments" speaking with divergent voices, ie, "deterrence diplomacy and preemptive action", and "that usually, historically speaking,
spells policy paralysis". However, no one in Iran can possibly place too much faith on that kind of optimism. Rather, the net effect
of this labeling, following the recent "shoot to kill" order of Bush with regard to Iranian operatives in
Iraq accused of aiding the anti-occupation insurgents, is to elevate fears of a US "preemptory" strike on
Iran. Particularly concerned are many top government officials, lawmakers and present or former civil and
military functionaries who are or were at some point affiliated with the IRGC. There is also a legal
implication. Under international law, the United States' move could be challenged as illegal, and untenable,
by isolating a branch of the Iranian government for selective targeting. This is contrary to the 1981 Algiers
Accord's pledge of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US government. [1] Should the terror
label on the IRGC be in place soon, US customs and homeland-security officials could, theoretically,
arrest members of Ahmadinejad's delegation due to travel to the UN headquarters in New York next
month because of suspected ties to the IRGC. Even Ahmadinejad, with his past as a commander of the
Basij Corps, a paramilitary arm of the IRGC, risks arrest. The US has opened a Pandora's box with a
hasty decision that may have unintended consequences far beyond its planned coercive diplomacy toward Iran. The first casualty
could be the US-Iran dialogue on Iraq's security, although this would simultaneously appease Israeli hawks who dread dialogue and any
hints of Cold War-style detente between Tehran and Washington. It would also become more difficult for Syria to collaborate with Iran
with respect to Lebanon's Hezbollah, who owe much to the IRGC since their inception in the early 1980s. The consensus in Iran is that
chaos in Iraq is in Israel's interests, but not that of the US, and that the United States' Middle East policy is being held hostage by pro-
Israel lobbyists who have painted an enemy image of the dreaded IRGC that is neither accurate nor in tune with the history of US-IRGC
interaction.

Strikes inevitable-The terrorist label will eventually spin out of control
Afrasiabi`7 (Kaveh L, Global Research.org “US steps closer to War with Iran”, August 22, 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6595)
Coming 'war of attrition'? The idea of an all-out military confrontation between the US and Iran,
triggered by a US attack on the IRGC, has its watered-down version in a "war of attrition" whereby
instead of inter-state warfare, we would witness medium-to-low-intensity clashes. The question, then, is
whether or not the US superpower, addicted to its military doctrine of "superior and overwhelming
response", will tolerate occasional bruises at the hands of the Iranians. The answer is highly unlikely
given the myriad prestige issues involved and, in turn, this raises the advisability of the labeling
initiative with such huge implications nested in it. No matter, the stage is now set for direct physical
clashes between Iran and the US, which has blamed the death of hundreds of its soldiers on Iranian-
made roadside bombs. One plausible scenario is the United States' "hot pursuit" of the IRGC inside
Iranian territory, initially through "hit and run" commando operations, soliciting an Iranian response,
direct or indirect, potentially spiraling out of control. The hallucination of a protracted "small warfare
with Iran" that would somehow insulate both sides from an unwanted big "clash of titans" is just that,
a fantasy born and bred in the minds of war-obsessed hawks in Washington and Israel.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel [1/2]

Israel can and will attack
Symonds`8 (Peter, World Socialist Website, July 5, 2008, Bush reaffirms “all options on the table” over Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/iran-j05.shtml)
A Financial Times article entitled “Fear over Israel’s threat to strike Iran” on Wednesday cited one
Israel official as saying: “If you want to do it [attack Iran] you don’t talk about it.” Then he added
rather ominously that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had “adamantly requested that we all shut up”. On
Thursday, senior military figures scotched widespread suggestions that Israel did not have the capacity
to carry out a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Isaac Ben-Israel, a retired Israeli air force
major general and current member of parliament for the ruling Kadima party, told the Financial Times
that an air strike “is not a technical problem”. Retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom, a former director
of strategic planning, said: “I often read that Israel is not capable of doing it because the number of targets is
very large. That is a mistake... You just have to find the critical notes of this [Iranian nuclear] system
and hit them.”
Israel will attack Iran-They’re practicing now

Nahmias`8 (Roee, Ynet.com Middle Eastern News Agency Website, IDF: Air Force jets aren't training in Iraq, July 11, 2008,
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3566925,00.html)
According to the reports, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network Friday that Israeli
fighter jets have been flying over Iraqi territory for over a month in preparation for potential strikes on
Iranian nuclear facilities, adding that the aircraft have been landing in American bases following the
overflights. Word of Israel's alleged Air Force maneuvers in Iraq has reached Iran. The sources said the US
has boosted security in and around the bases used by Israel during the exercises. According to the
Defense Ministry officials, retired Iraqi army officers in the Al Anbar district reported that fighter jets have
been regularly entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan and landing at the airport near Haditha. The
sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases it would take them no
more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr. American officials said recently that
more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean
and Greece in the first week of June, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear
facilities.
Israeli attack is highly probable

Smith`8 (W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Posted: 07/09/2008, Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-
squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on
the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon, Will Israel Strike Iran, July 9, 2008,
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27392&s=rcmc)
Melman’s words seem enough to convince the editorial staffs of publications like the Post and the Nation.
But sources inside the U.S. intelligence and Defense communities are telling us, there is an increasing
“probability” that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will soon strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The strikes -- if
they take place -- will be far more extensive than that which occurred during the strike against Iraq’s
Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. The new strikes will target much more than just the nuclear sites. The
extent to which America will or will not provide support will depend on multiple variables. And the strikes
will not be over in a single night. “To hit the number of targets the Israelis need to hit with their force
structure would require several days,” Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (U.S. Air Force, ret.), former assistant
vice chief of staff of the Air Force, tells HUMAN EVENTS. “If they did it in a night -- with, say, 100
airplanes -- they’d probably inflict significant damage to Bushehr and other facilities, but it would be
more difficult to hit the deep bunkers at Natanz.”
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel [2/2]
The Israelis will attack before the end of 08

The same week Ahmadinejad made his comments to Fukuda, the IAF conducted a massive military air-
exercise over the Mediterranean, flying and refueling over a distance roughly equal to that which would
be required in a strike against Iran. Israel isn’t just saber-rattling. “The only one thing worse than
Israel’s having to launch an attack against Tehran's nuclear facilities is an Iranian nuclear bomb,” Brig. Gen.
Dieter Farwick (German Army, ret.), the former director of Germany's military intelligence office and the
current editor-in-chief of World Security Network, tells HUMAN EVENTS. “An Iranian nuclear bomb
would trigger a nuclear arms race in the broader Middle East. Still any attack against Iran should remain a
last resort; and timely, limited negotiations should be given a last chance." Closed-door negotiations are
continuing. But so is Iran’s nuclear program, its president’s threats, and an uncertain American
political landscape: Which is why -- in Israel’s mind -- chances, opportunities, and certainly time may
be running out. The big question remains: if Israel with it’s current force structure attacks Iran with only a
nod -- and very little direct support -- from the U.S., can the Jewish state pull it off successfully. “Yes, but
the timing of this thing is important,” says Vallely. “The Israelis know that politically they have to do it
this year, because they and we don’t know who is going to be the U.S. president next year. They also
know this thing has to be done as a regime change. If they want this to be successful -- and they do -- they
can’t just go in and only take out the nuke sites.”
Israel will attack before the inauguration of the next president

Some experts contend such a strike “must be” before the U.S. presidential elections because the Israelis know
that any operation prior to the elections would give plausible deniability to either one of the American
presidential candidates. After the election, it would be difficult for the president-elect to deny knowing
because of the access and leverage held by a president-elect. Others say it may be after the election, but
before the inauguration because if Barack Obama is elected the Israelis fear he would not support any form
of military action against Iran, whereas the Israelis are confident in both John McCain’s support of Israel and
in his willingness to use military force -- either directly or indirectly -- in support of Israel.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel – Draws In U.S.
Israeli strike will draw in the U.S. through Iranian retaliation

It’s not just the nuclear sites,” Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (U.S. Army, ret.), former deputy commanding general of U.S.
Army Forces Pacific, tells HUMAN EVENTS. “It’s regime target sites.” According to Vallely, the approximately 75
regime targets on the tier-one targeting list -- updated daily -- includes Iran’s command-and-control, the country’s air
defense network, the various Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps units and positions, as well as the nuclear sites. There
are many targets beyond those on the tier-one list. Without getting into specifics, the current plan calls for a
“takedown” that may be supported by U.S. air and naval forces in the both the Persian Gulf and the
Mediterranean. Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighters and refueling tankers will be running back-and-forth
through U.S. Central Command–controlled air corridors. Mossad agents and Iranian (anti-government)
operatives will help coordinate the strikes from the ground. Meanwhile, home-based Israeli ground forces
(with helicopter support) will reinforce defenses in northern Israel and on the Golan Heights; prepared for the
possibility of defensive cross-border operations against Hizballah in southern Lebanon and perhaps
operations inside Syria along geographic points where -- in recent weeks -- two Syrian mechanized-infantry
divisions have been reinforced. Other Israeli ground and air assets will reinforce Gaza positions. If the
Iranians -- in retaliation for strikes against their facilities -- make a move against American forces in the
region, or if they try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (the strategically vital waterway between the
Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman) as they have threatened to do, U.S. forces will “unleash hell and
more than complement what the Israelis are doing,” says Vallely. McInerney says, “The Iranians may try
to shut down the Strait, but they are deathly afraid that we’ll get involved.” An intelligence source says,
“Iran’s provoking the Americans into the game is exactly what Israel wants, because overwhelming
U.S. airpower would be able to finish the job in very short order.” McInerney agrees, adding, “That’s why
I believe if the targets are going to be hit, we need to be the ones to do it.”
An Israeli strike would draw in the U.S.

Whalen`6 (Charles Whalen 2/12/2006 (Oil Analyst) “The Iran crisis & global peak oil”,
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=75&blogid=189&archive=0)
I wish it were simply as easy as just saying that "hopefully cooler and saner heads will
prevail in Washington and Tehran & Qom", for were it only dependent on such, then I think there
might be a decent chance that all of this could be defused and Armageddon avoided, that both sides could
slowly back away from the edge of the precipice, from which we are presently staring into the abyss. But of
course it is not just dependent on Washington and Tehran & Qom because other parties
are involved and have just as large stakes in all of this, namely the Israelis, who
perceive this as an existential life-and-death crisis for them (and I wouldn't disagree with that
perception given the repeated statements of Ahmedinajad over the last several months about wiping Israel off the map, and this from a
country that is proudly boasting of its ambition and its right to develop nuclear weapons). My big fear is that the Israelis
-- with
their own exigencies, imperatives, and agendas (being very different from ours), including even the relatively
moderate Ehud Olmert and his Kadima party, who are likely to win the upcoming March election -- will see
that cooler and saner heads are indeed prevailing in Washington and starting to
defuse the crisis, upon which they (the Israelis) will feel compelled to force the issue to a
head and force it upon us whether we want it or not by precipitating a full-blown military crisis by
launching preemptive air strikes of their own on at least some of Iran's nuclear facilities,
whereupon with the resulting mayhem and devastation that will ensue (including Iranian, Syrian, and
Lebanese-Hezbollah missile strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa), it will be left to the US military to
finish the job with massive aerial bombing and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear and
military facilities. So I'm afraid that Israel is going to preemptively force our hand in this
matter and force us into a war with Iran whether we want it or not.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – CIA/Covert Ops [1/3]

The CIA’s operations in Iran have been substantially increased
AFP`8 (Agence France Passe, International News Service, US gives 'major' boost to covert ops in Iran: report, June 29, 2008,
Lexis)
The US Congress last year approved President George W. Bush's funding request of 400 million dollars
for a dramatic increase in covert operations against Iran to undermine Tehran's leadership, a US
magazine reported Sunday. The move reveals a "major escalation" in clandestine operations aimed at
destabilizing the Islamic republic's religious leadership amid concerns over Tehran's nuclear
ambitions, said the report in The New Yorker magazine citing former military, intelligence, and
congressional sources. Among the methods being used are increased US support for minority and
dissident groups and intelligence gathering about Iran's nuclear facilities, said the article, written and
reported by Seymour Hersh. Although such covert activities in Iran are not new on the part of the United
States, the magazine said the "scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly
expanded." However, US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on Sunday flatly refuted the allegation in
The New Yorker that Washington is conducting cross-border operations from Iraq into Iran. "I can tell you
flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran," he told CNN television. Congress
approved Bush's request for funding late last year, according to sources with knowledge of the top secret
Presidential Finding, which by law must be issued when covert intelligence operations get underway. The
Presidential Finding is conveyed to a select group of Congressional leaders and their intelligence
committees, otherwise known as the Gang of Eight, the report said. "The finding was focused on
undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime
change," and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money," the report said, quoting an
unnamed "person familiar with its contents." The report said some lawmakers were skeptical of the
administration's aims, and there was "a significant amount of high-level discussion" about the Finding before
the funding was eventually approved. The Bush administration's request for funding came around the same
time as the December 2007 release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which said the Iran halted nuclear
weapons work in 2003. The NIE was downplayed by Bush and other officials who called for urgent action to
counter the Iranian nuclear threat. Washington suspects Iran is secretly working to build an atomic
weapons arsenal. Iran insists its nuclear activities are for civilian energy purposes.
The CIA is working in Iran now

Symonds`7 (Peter, World Socialist Website, Bush authorises covert CIA operations to destabilise Iran, May 25, 2007,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iran-m25.shtml)
An ABC News report on Tuesday provided further evidence that the Bush administration is actively
engaged in a covert campaign of destabilisation aimed at “regime change” in Iran. According to the
American television network, Bush signed a formal “non-lethal presidential finding” earlier this year
authorising “a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda,
disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions”. Based
on information from unnamed former and current CIA officials, ABC News reported that Bush approved the
plan “about the time that [Admiral William] Fallon took over [as head of the Pentagon’s Central
Command]”—that is, about mid-March. It also stated that National Security Adviser Steve Hadley and
Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams both gave the green light for the operation. The timing
of the plan coincides with a steady stream of articles, prominently placed in the media, highlighting
Tehran’s crackdown on women’s dress, arrest of dissidents, alleged nuclear weapons programs and
support for anti-occupation militia operating inside neighbouring Iraq. While it is impossible to know
how many of these reports are direct CIA “plants,” they point to a concerted campaign of propaganda and
disinformation. Whatever the impact inside Iran, such stories serve to poison public opinion in the US
and internationally in preparation for a possible military strike.

The CIA is in Iran, backing opposition group
Ritter`5 (Scott, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of
America's Intelligence Conspiracy, Common Dreams.org Published on Monday, June 20, 2005 by AlJazeera The US War with
Iran has Already Begun http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm)
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11
September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations
inside Iran. The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen
el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence
services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations. It is bitter irony that the
CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive
assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering
American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration
condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's
terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying
notions governing the ongoing global war on terror. But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror
bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
The CIA and other OPS groups are in Iran now, stirring up trouble
It would also be wrong to conclude that covert operations are confined to the CIA. According to a
number of media reports, including detailed articles from veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the
Pentagon and other US agencies have been actively targetting Iran since at least 2004. Unlike the CIA,
which—formally at least—requires a presidential finding to mount “black” operations, the US military has,
under Bush, increasingly engaged in its own covert activities, including the dispatch of special forces
units inside Iran, without any congressional oversight. There is nothing particularly secret about the
Bush administration’s campaign for “regime change”. Last year Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
sought and received $75 million for anti-Iranian propaganda broadcasts and to fund opposition groups
inside and outside Iran. In 2005, the figure was just $10 million. Rice also established an Iranian Affairs
office last year, initially headed by Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president’s daughter, to coordinate policy
and provide “pro-democracy funding” for opponents of the regime. The Boston Globe reported in January
that a team of top officials from the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, Treasury and National Security
Council, known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG), had been working for some time
to strengthen military alliances against Iran, finance Iranian dissidents and undermine the country
economically.
Military operative groups are in Iran now

While the approved CIA activities may at present be “non-lethal,” the same cannot be said of all US
activities inside Iran. In his article last November entitled “The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less
likely to attack Iran, or more?”, Hersh provided evidence that the Pentagon was covertly supporting
minority Kurdish, Azeri and Baluchi tribal groups as a means of undermining Tehran’s authority in
northern and southeastern Iran. In particular, the US military was collaborating with Israel in backing
a Kurdish armed group—the Party for Free Life—based in northern Iraq to foment opposition inside the
Kurdish regions of Iran and to spy on “targets inside Iran of interest to the US”. A series of ABC News
reports last month stated that the US was actively backing Jundullah, an armed Baluchi group based in
Pakistan, to carry out cross-border attacks inside Iran. It reported on April 3 that the militia had been
“secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005”. The group was responsible for the
bomb blasts in the southeastern city of Zahedran in February that killed 11 members of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard.

The internal operations will lead to escalation and war by strengthening the regime
Commenting to ABC News about Bush’s secret presidential finding, Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, warned: “I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy
war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as
opposition groups within Iran. And this covert action is now being escalated by the new US directive,
and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow.” A senior US
State Department official admitted to the Washington Post that the US was funding oppositionists, albeit
indirectly. “We saw early on the problem we would pose if we tried to support them directly. We didn’t want
to get them into hot water. That’s why we’re doing it through third countries,” he said. Already the Iranian
government has seized on the US campaign to justify its own political witch-hunt, including the
roundup of political opponents as “spies” and “US agents”. US-based Human Rights Watch analyst Hadi
Ghaemi told the Washington Post last month: “Dozens of Iranian activists are paying the price since the
announcement of the $75 million and practically everyone who has been detained over the past year has been
interrogated about receiving this money. They [the authorities] are obsessed with the perception that the
US is fuelling a velvet revolution through this money.”
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Prolif

NUCLEAR IRAN CAUSE MIDDLE EAST ARMS RACE
Hanson`5 (Victor, Davis. Senior Fellow Hoover Institute. Stanford) Chicago Tribune, “Who in their right mind would play
nuclear poker with Iran?”, Feb. 11)
A nuclear Iran would ignite a new arms race in the Middle East. The nuclear guild started
amid the ashes of World War II, when the Soviet camp and the West first squared off. Since then new
members like India, China and Pakistan expanded the dangers of Armageddon, but at least created a sort of
regional deterrence against one another. India was checked by Pakistan and vice versa. China angulated with
the Soviets, India and America. All four at times were not necessarily friendlier to any one of the quartet than
another, but they matured and showed restraint in their escalating rivalries. But if Iran has nuclear
weapons--the first Middle Eastern and Islamic dictatorship to obtain them--then a Saudi Arabia,
Egypt or Syria might rush in to obtain nuclear capability and thus restore a regional
balance of power. Arab pride will not tolerate an exclusive Persian bomb, despite all
Teheran's rhetoric about a shared anti-Israeli mother of all Islamic weapons. Thus the Middle East will
inevitably witness the instability of mutual escalation not unlike the arms race during
the early Cold War.
IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT WILL LEAR TO MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR

PROLIFERATION
Goodby & Weisbrode`3 (James, former U.S. ambassador, currently affiliated with the Brookings Institution , Kenneth,
councilor of the Atlantic Council of the United States) “A nuclear arms race”, The Washington Times, October 20
If Iran joins Israel as a de facto nuclear weapon state, with three other nuclear weapon states
— Russia, India and Pakistan — nearby, it is very unlikely that other nations in the vicinity
will be able to resist launching or accelerating their own nuclear weapon programs. It
is not at all inconceivable that a Middle East with four, five, or six nuclear weapon
states — including Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — will be the reality of
the early decades of the 21st century. Nobody should want that outcome — least of all
those who put their trust in a resurrection of the Cold War model of stability. The U.S.-
Soviet nuclear standoff was stabilized by very different conditions. The United States and the Soviet Union
had no territorial demands against each other and their military forces never engaged in large-scale direct
combat with each other. That is not the case in the Middle East. Far from it.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Miscalc NW

Without strikes Iranian prolif leads to Israeli paranoia, then miscalculated or intentional
war
Schoenfeld`98 (Gabriel SCHOENFELD 1998 (senior editor) “Thinking About the Unthinkable in the Middle East,”
Commentary)
If preemption is largely ruled out as an option, what then? To reduce its vulnerability--enemy
missiles can arrive within ten minutes from firing--Israel may well be compelled to
adopt a "launch-on-warning" posture for both its conventional and nuclear forces. For
the purpose of considering this eventuality, we may assume that Israel has indeed developed a secure
retaliatory force of the kind Tucker saw as essential to stability. Even so, however, this would not offer much
reassurance. Unlike its neighbors, and unlike the U.S., Israel is a tiny country, and in a nuclear
environment it would not have the luxury of waiting to assess the damage from a first
strike before deciding how to respond. Thus, in any future crisis, at the first hint from
satellite intelligence or some other means that a missile fusillade was being prepared
from, say, Iran or Iraq, Israel, to protect its populace, would have to punch first. And it
would have to strike not only at missile sites, some of which it might well miss, but at a
broader range of targets--communications facilities, air bases, storage bunkers, and all other critical
nodes--so as to paralyze the enemy and thus rule out the possibility of attack. These are
the implications of launch-on-warning. Clearly, such a posture presents grave problems.
Lacking secure second-strike forces of their own, and aware that Israel would no
doubt try to hit them preemptively, Iran and Iraq would be under tremendous pressure
to launch their missiles first--to "use them or lose them." In other words, what this
scenario leads to is the prospect of both sides' moving to a permanent position of hair-
trigger alert. It is a nightmarish prospect. The possibility that nuclear war might
break out at any moment--by accident, miscalculation, or design--would inevitably place an
intolerable strain on Israel's freedom of military movement, and take a no less heavy toll on civilian morale.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Terrorism

Forgoing strikes puts nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist
Krauthammer`4 (Charles-Phd. Oxford, McGill, Harvard. Pulitzer Prize.) New York Daily News, July 23)
There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from
below or an attack on its nuclear facilities. The country should be ripe for revolution. But the
mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening.
Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go
nuclear during the next presidential term. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime
openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear
weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either
revolution or preemptive strike. Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000
American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away - in Iraq.
Nuclear Armed Iran Would Provide Weapons Of Mass Destruction To Terrorists

Hanson`5 (Victor, Davis. Senior Fellow Hoover Institute. Stanford) Feb. 11 2005
Chicago Tribune. “Who in their right mind would play nuclear poker with Iran?)”
A nuclear Iran of any sort is a problem. Yet, a nuclear theocratic Iran is a disaster since its zealous mullahs
are unaccountable to either an electorate or censorious press. They are fueled by religious extremism and
publicly have praised nuclear martyrdom. One or two such extremists in their dotage could well decide that
an entire state should play the role of the lone suicide bomber so frequently canonized in that part of the
world. Fourth, Iran is even more likely than a volatile Pakistan to arm terrorists. A nuclear Iran might prove
tantamount to an atomic Hezbollah or Al Qaeda--nihilists whose current problem is not their intent, but only
their capability, to annihilate.
IRAN WILL GIVE TERRORIST NUKES

Clawson`4(PATRICK, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of Middle East
Quarterly) “CHECKING IRAN’S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS” January)
Iran is the poster-child for the nexus of terrorism and WMD. It is the world's
foremost state-sponsor of terrorism, as well as one of the countries most actively pursuing nuclear
weapons. Washington is vigilant about Iran’s support for a network of Islamist terrorist organizations and
persistent in pressing Iran to end its financial, political, material, and operational support to them. At the
same time, the United States has to come up with effective strategies to ensure that Iran does not acquire
nuclear weapons. Were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, there is a grave risk it would be
tempted to provide them to terrorists. After all, mass casualty terrorism done by proxies
has worked well for Iran to date. Iranian assistance to the terrorists who blew up the U.S. and
French barracks in Beirut in 1983 was a grand strategic success, forcing the United States, and for a while
France, out of Lebanon while not bringing any retaliation down on Iran. Similarly, the 1996 bombing of the
Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia caused the Saudis to make a strategic reconciliation, and, once
again, Iran faced no retaliation.
Iran not only could, but would have incentive to provide terrorist with nuclear weapons
Gwynn`5 (Richard, Journalist, Guelph Mercury,) February 11 2005. Lexis.)
The potential nuclear threat that Iran poses is real, and it is exceedingly frightening. The true source of
the threat isn't Iran itself, though. It's Al Qaeda-type terrorists. Once it has acquired the bomb, the
Iran government would be tempted to pass it to terrorists. It is a supporter of terrorist organizations,
such as Hizbollah, (as Iraq when led by Saddam Hussein never was). As well, Iran is the only state in the
Middle East to officially refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. Terrorists would have no fears about
using a bomb since they themselves are invisible, and, anyway would be delighted to become martyrs.
Any military retaliation against Iran becomes incomparably more difficult diplomatically when Iran's
involvement can only be suspected rather than proven for certain by the flight track of its missile. The
U.S. and Israel thus are quite justified in being exceedingly alarmed. In turn, their aggressive response
is wholly justified.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Too Many Places
We only need to hit two sites

Brown`6(Drew Brown 1/26/2006 “No easy military option to stop Iran, experts say”, Knight Ridder Newspapers,
http://www.nineronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/26/43d8fa1950455)
Many analysts say that in that case, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be relatively
easy to carry out. With U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with war planes and ships scattered
throughout the Persian Gulf, U.S. forces essentially have Iran hemmed in on three sides.
U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft with precision-guided bombs likely would
overwhelm Iran's air defenses. The key questions, however, are whether such an attack would be
very effective and how Iran and the rest of the world would respond. Some experts say an attack would delay,
not destroy, the Iranian program and would only reinforce Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran,
taking lessons from the Israeli air attack that destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981, has dispersed
its atomic research and development facilities in dozens, if not hundreds, of locations above and below
ground. Regardless of the total number of Iran's nuclear facilities, Isfahan and Natanz
are the most important because they constitute the "two weak links" in Iran's
program, Cliff Kupchan, an Iran expert and former State Department official in the Clinton administration
said. Isfahan, a facility that converts uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride gas, could be bombed easily, said
Kupchan, now at the New York-based Eurasia Group, a political risk advisory and consulting firm. The other,
Natanz, is a research facility where experts are trying to master the technique of converting uranium
hexafluoride gas into enriched uranium. Low levels of enriched uranium are used for civilian nuclear plants,
and more highly enriched fuel is used in nuclear weapons. International inspectors found the facility after
they were tipped off by an Iranian dissident group in 2002. Iran recently resumed research at Natanz and said
it was for peaceful purposes, but analysts have expressed doubt because of Natanz's size and the fact that part
of it has been constructed underground. During a 2003 visit, Iran advised International Atomic Energy
Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei that it had almost completed construction of a pilot uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, according to a report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. The test
plant will consist of 164 centrifuges, machines that spin uranium hexafluoride gas at high speeds, but it isn't
fully operational, according to a January report by the Institute for Science and International Security. The
group said Iran would need six months to a year to complete the process needed for enrichment. Of greater
concern at Natanz are underground chambers that are expected to house an estimated 50,000 gas centrifuges,
enough to produce weapons-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons per year, according to experts. While
it's unclear what other capacities exist at the site, "what is obvious is that the pilot facility is above ground
and would be easy to take out," Kupchan said. Bombing the facilities at the two locations "would
set the Iranians back by two to three years," he said. "It wouldn't be that hard to do," said Kupchan.
"You'd be picking a helluva fight, though. Iran is a sophisticated country with a very sophisticated leadership.
It has a range of retaliatory options that are extremely unpleasant."
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: “Don’t know where they
are”
Satellites solve
American Thinker`6 (The American Thinker, informational magazine 2/1/2006 “Iran – to bomb or not to bomb?”,
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5210)
In contrast to the facilities required to produce biological and chemical weapons,
nuclear fuel cycle and reprocessing plants are not easily hidden nor built
surreptitiously during the dark hours of the diurnal cycle. Detection by satellite of such
projects is a near certainty. These facilities are large, expensive and, if hidden, still visible
during the construction cycle. You can’t have a major construction site without roads, excavation debris, and
a whole lot of activity. To have the building of a nuclear materials processing facility remain undetected
would demand a very slow “ship in a bottle” approach to both the excavation and plant construction.
Possible, but hardly likely. Also, buried facilities are not necessarily undetectable. The U.S.
has long had the capability to map subsurface geological features using ground
penetrating radar. Similar technology will be used to map planetary subsurface features from the Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter. These underground “maps” were used to program guidance and flight path
information into cruise missiles before the advent of the GPS system. Unlike surface soil and sand, the sub-
surface features are stable and unlikely to be affected by natural forces or human activity. This mode of
guidance may still be a backup to GPS and/or inertial systems. We may have the whole country of
Iran subterraneanly scouted. A nuclear plant buried under the sand would probably
already be on the charts. If a plant is buried in a mountain, well, I don’t believe we have any
sensors up to that task. But the Iranians still had to build it. And that would have been
extremely expensive and time consuming with the construction cycle still subject to
detection. We probably know where the entrances are located. The Iranians and their foreign
enablers still have to get themselves and materials in and the product out. Even if one cannot destroy
a facility, denying access can be just as effective and may be easier. We can certainly
obliterate any surface facilities. We’ve shown ourselves to be quite adept at that task while
minimizing, though not eliminating, collateral damage. The deeply buried bits? Well, supposedly we’ve
cancelled the development our mini-nuke, super-bunker-buster bomb program. However, that doesn’t
necessarily mean we don’t have any.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Fundamentalism

The risk of a nuclear Iran outweighs
Kittrie`4(Orde, International Releations Specialist,The Arizona Republic, December 5 2004)
Several factors, including Iran’s history of threats and attacks against the United States, provide
strong support for the legality under international law of a preemptive strike focused on
neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program. The risk of such an attack inciting the “Arab
street” or insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would be well worth taking — for an
Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat and insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere are not.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Radiation

We can strike without releasing radiation
EISENSTADT`4 (MICHAEL , senior fellow at The Washington Institute) “CHECKING IRAN’S NUCLEAR
AMBITIONS” January
While it would be preferable to target these prior to start-up to avoid exposing civilians downwind to fallout,
there may be ways to disrupt operations or destroy the reactors after start-up without releasing radioactive
material into the environment and creating a downwind hazard.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: U.S.-EU Relations
The EU is cool with strikes

Engdahl`6 (F William author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) “A high-risk
game of nuclear chicken”, 31 January, http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/a-high%11risk-game-of-nuclear-chicken-
200601313615/
That statement led to a sharp acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts, led by Britain, Germany and France, the
so-called EU-3, to avoid a war. The three told Washington they were opposed to a military
solution. Since then we are told by German magazine Der Spiegel and others the EU view has
changed, to appear to come closer to the position of the Bush administration.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Deterrence Solves

Conventional Nuclear Arms Theory Does Not Apply To Iran
Hanson`5 (Victor, Davis. Senior Fellow Hoover Institute. Stanford) Feb. 11, Chicago Tribune. “Who in their right mind
would play nuclear poker with Iran?”)
Autocracy and weapons of mass destruction are a lethal mix. Many Arab nations point to Israel and allege
Western hypocrisy, since it is small and alone in the Middle East with nuclear capability. Well, aside from its
unique creation from the ashes of the Holocaust and the proven record of its neighbors' efforts to destroy the
Jewish people, Israel--unlike North Korea and Iran --is also singularly democratic in the region. Because
consensual governments, as a rule, are hardly likely to attack like kind, their possession of terrifying weapons
tends to prove less of a threat to global peace. The old Soviet Union was more dangerous than is
contemporary Russia, despite a mostly intact nuclear arsenal. China's liberalization raises the hope that its
nukes are less prone to be dropped today than during Mao's Great Leap Forward. A nuclear Iran of any sort is
a problem. Yet, a nuclear theocratic Iran is a disaster since its zealous mullahs are unaccountable to either an
electorate or censorious press. They are fueled by religious extremism and publicly have praised nuclear
martyrdom. One or two such extremists in their dotage could well decide that an entire state should play the
role of the lone suicide bomber so frequently canonized in that part of the world.
Deterrence Cannot Solve Iran

Kittrie`4 (Orde, The Arizona Republic.December 5 2004)
Deterrence – which is predicated on the other side’s unwillingness to sustain heavy casualties – worked
during the Cold War because the United States and Soviet Union both had a sense of self-preservation that
caused them to fear mutual assured destruction. This is not true of Iran’s leadership, whose beliefs embrace
death and martyrdom. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, this same Iranian regime sent thousands of its
own schoolchildren — each armed only with a small plastic “key to heaven” — to their deaths in human
waves across minefields to clear a path for its adult troops. These schoolchildren were members of the Basij
militia, known for its religious zealotry and direct allegiance to the supreme Ayatollah. Three weeks ago, at a
peak of U.S. and European pressure on Iran to modify its nuclear program, Iran’s leadership gathered tens of
thousands of young Basij militia members together south of Teheran to chant “No to Compromise,” “Death
to Israel” and “Death to America.” The spirit of the human wave attacks is still strong.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: UN Solves [1/2]

RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE BLOCKING ANY UN ACTION ON IRAN
Chicago tribune`6 (“Diplomats at odds over Iran nuclear issue”, March 21, 2006 ln)
Britain has suggested imposing UN sanctions on Iran unless it allays suspicions about its
nuclear program, but Russia and China remained at odds with Europe and the U.S. on
Monday night on the best way to confront Tehran. Senior diplomats from six nations convened for a 4 1/2-
hour meeting at UN headquarters in New York to discuss how to persuade Iran to stop enriching
uranium, the radioactive material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon. But they still could not
overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to tough UN Security Council action.
RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL BLOCK UN ACTION TO PRESERVE ECONOMIC TIES

WITH IRAN
Magnier`6 (Mark, Times Staff Writer, “Economic Ties to Top Agenda at Hu-Putin Talks” LA Times, March 21, 2006 ln)
On political issues, the two leaders should find little to argue about. Putin and Hu are expected to
confer on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs, on which their positions are
relatively similar. Both nations have historical ties to North Korea and sizable economic
interests in Iran, leading them to favor a diplomatic solution over United Nations
sanctions or possible military options.
UN WILL NOT SANCTION IRAN- RUSSIA IS BLOCKING ANY UN ACTION

AVNI`6 (Benny, “As U.N. Talks Stall, Iran Advances Nuclear Program”, March 21, 2006 The New York Sun ln)
Reports on a new round of diplomacy stemming from a British initiative for
negotiations with Tehran were denied yesterday. And far from advancing the unity
among members of the Security Council, yesterday's high-level meeting at the British mission to
the United Nations might be a "step backward," as one Western diplomat described it.
According to reports from Vienna, meanwhile, Iran was on the verge of running a cascade of 164 centrifuges of uranium hexafluoride gas, known as UF-6.
Earlier this year, putting UF-6 into one centrifuge at Iran's Nantanz facility was considered a step toward enrichment at levels needed for weapons. Iran later
was able to string cascades of 10, and then 20 centrifuges. "Iran is on the verge of operating a 164-centrifuge cascade with UF6," an unnamed Western
diplomat at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency told AFP yesterday. Once they learn the technique, Iranian nuclear scientists will be able
to cascade thousands of centrifuges, nuclear experts agree. "Once you learn how to make one washing machine, you can make a thousand washing
machines," a senior American official told reporters recently, describing advances in Iran's weapons program. Acknowledging Iran's pace toward weapon
capabilities, top diplomats flown here from capitals of the five permanent members of the Security Council nevertheless failed to reach an agreement on
how diplomacy should proceed. "All of us agree that Iran is now traveling down the road towards enrichment and reprocessing that is fundamentally
detrimental to the interest of the world of non-proliferation and peace and security," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns after the meeting. But he
acknowledged no agreement was reached on a unified Security Council statement. "It may take a little bit of time, but it's going to be worth the time," he
said. "All of us agreed that we should stay united and stay together to send one message to the Iranians." Yesterday's 4 1 /2-hour meeting brought Mr. Burns
together with foreign ministry directors from three European powers - France, Germany, and Britain - as well as their Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Despite the high level, some diplomats said that now the main players were even less
united than in the last few weeks, when U.N. ambassadors were negotiating a united council
statement. "The discussion was on how the Council must put its weight to reinforce the authority of the IAEA
and on the level of precision of the message to be sent to Iran," French U.N. ambassador, Jean Marc de-la
Sabliere said after the meeting. "France's opinion is that this message must be strong and precise." "It's a step
backwards," said another Western diplomat, who requested anonymity. The sticking point remained
Russia's refusal to get tough with the Iranians, he added. Russia has opposed creating an IAEA
reporting mechanism to the Security Council to record Iran's failure to comply with the nonproliferation
treaty and with the agency's inspectors. Moscow insists that the main diplomatic efforts should
be conducted at the IAEA in Vienna, and not at the Security Council, where sanctions
could eventually be imposed.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: UN Solves [2/2]

UN HAS NOT COME TO AGREEMENT- RUSSIA AN CHINA ARE OPPOSED TO ANY
UN ACTION
Lynch`6 (Colum, staff writer “Security Council Fails To Reach Accord on Iran” Washington Post, March 21, 2006)
The Security Council's five permanent members and Germany failed to reach
agreement at a meeting Monday on how to respond to the Iranian nuclear crisis but said they
would forge ahead in the coming days to break the impasse. The deadlock comes as U.S. and European
officials confirmed that Britain had presented the United States with a paper outlining a possible diplomatic
strategy to resolve the crisis, including new talks and concessions. But the British representative at Monday's
talks, John Sawers, said Britain had not made such a proposal at the meeting. Undersecretary of State R.
Nicholas Burns said the United States is not going to participate in direct negotiations with Iran on the
nuclear issue. Top foreign policy coordinators for the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and
Germany issued a joint statement that echoed an agreement Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had reached
with those five governments in January. The statement expressed "deep concern" that Iran has "failed to
respond positively" to requests by the United Nations' Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency to
suspend its uranium enrichment activities and allow for more intrusive U.N. inspections of its nuclear energy
program. The impasse follows weeks of negotiations over how to respond to Iran's behavior. The United
States, France and Britain believe the threat of Security Council sanctions is required
to pressure Iran to meet international calls to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities,
which Iran insists are for peaceful purposes. Russia and China oppose sanctions, and they want
the Iranian crisis to be handled by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is
considered more likely to pursue a negotiated settlement.
NO UN SANCTIONS COMING- RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL BLOCK

Shakeel`6 (Mohammed, “International Powers Fail to Agree Strategy on Iran Nuclear Programme” World Markets Analysis
March 21, 2006)
Foreign ministry officials from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and
Germany have failed to agree on a strategy to combat Iran's controversial nuclear programme, despite four
hours of talks yesterday. The participants, who met at the British mission at the UN, confirmed that
discussions would continue, including those over a British-French statement currently up before the UNSC
that urges Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. A Western diplomat told
Agence France-Presse (AFP) that 'the talks were difficult' owing to Russian and Chinese opposition to
proposals setting out a timeline for Iran to comply. According to British Foreign Ministry official John
Sawers, the participants were agreed on the fundamental issue of putting the brakes on Iran's nuclear
activities. 'There was a lot of common ground between us...It's essential that Iran takes the steps required in
order to start the process of rebuilding confidence in its nuclear intentions,' Sawers said. However, marking
Iran's new year yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad warned that no-one had the right 'to take back'
his country's nuclear technology. Significance: The UNSC is expected to resume deliberations later today on
the British-French proposals. Given Russian and Chinese opposition, the likelihood of a
stinging rebuke against Iran, or even the potential for punitive sanctions, remains a
somewhat distant prospect at this stage. The UNSC will no doubt continue deliberating until a
compromise statement can be agreed. With Iran thus far showing little sign of backing down, a protracted
international fall-out is certainly in the offing.
RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL VETO SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

Ince`6 (Basil, 3.19.06“Actors in uranium enrichment fandango” Trinidad & Tobago Express
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=144154494)
The major actors in this fandango are the United States and the European powers, but Russia, China, India,
and Israel are involved in this fast-paced dance. Russia and China who have the power of veto in
the Security Council would prefer that the matter be returned to the 35-member
Governing Board of the IAEA. They fear that any sanctions imposed on Iran would
further aggravate Tehran.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [1/3]
SANCTIONS WILL NOT SOLVE- IRAN WILL NOT GIVE UP THE BOMB
Eland`6(Ivan Eland 1/25/2006 “Military Action Against Iran?”, Media Monitors Network
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/25758)
First, only mild international economic sanctions will likely be placed on Iran. Here the United States will
fall victim to the first consequence of its invasion of Iraq. Other countries are suspicious that a hard-line
approach against Iran will encourage the United States to do what it did against Iraq. Yet economic
sanctions, no matter how strong, will be unlikely to compel the Iranian government to
get rid of its nuclear program, which has wide public support in Iran. The second
consequence of the invasion of Iraq, a country that was not even close to getting a nuclear weapon, was that
Iran, which was much closer to that goal, saw how the U.S. superpower treated non-nuclear
“rogue” states and accelerated its nuclear program to acquire the ultimate deterrent
against the United States and Israel. No wonder Iran has been unwilling to accept
Western trade and investment goodies to negotiate away its nuclear program.
SANCTIONS NOT STOP PROLIFERATION

Ash`6 (Timothy Garton, professor of European studies at the University of Oxford Globe and Mail, “Iran's playing nuclear
chess”, February 2http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=9666)
Even if it goes to the UN, there will probably be more elaborate moves before sanctions are imposed. It's
very unclear what sanctions China and Russia would agree to. This Persian chess game is multidimensional
and exemplifies the reality of a multipolar world. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denounces
the assaults of "false superpowers," but the real point is that they are multiple great powers, with diverse
interests. Even if they agree to sanctions, those may not stop the Iranian regime going ahead,
overtly or covertly, with its nuclear program. Fortunately, nuclear experts reckon it will take
from three to eight years for Iran to reach the point at which it can decide whether to go hell-for-leather for
the weaponization of its nuclear capacity.
SANCTIONS DO NOT SOLVE

Kagan`6(Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German
Marshall Fund “It's the Regime, Stupid”, Washington Post 1/29)
But the inadequacy of the military strike option does not mean we can simply turn to diplomacy. Diplomacy
by itself has no better chance of success. The present Iranian regime appears committed to acquiring a
nuclear weapon. It has been undeterred by the prospect of international isolation or economic sanctions and
apparently deems these hardships an acceptable cost. If so, even bigger carrots will not persuade it to forgo a
program it considers vital to its interests. Fear of U.S. military action is probably the only reason Iran even
pretended to negotiate with the Europeans (and a big reason why the Europeans have negotiated with Iran),
but it has not been enough to stop their program.
IRAN WILL RIDE OUT SANCTIONS- THEY WILL NOT SOLVE
Engdahl`6(F William, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) “A high-risk
200601313615/)
It's undeniably clear that Ahmadinejad has a more confrontational policy than his
predecessor. The Iranian ambassador to Vienna, speaking at a conference in Austria where this author was
present last September, shocked his audience by stating essentially the same line of confrontational rhetoric:
"If it comes to war, Iran is ready ..." Let's assume that the Western media are correctly reporting the strident militant speeches of
the president. We must also assume that in that theocratic state, the ruling mullahs, as the most powerful political institution in Iran, are
behind the election of the more fundamentalist Ahmadinejad. It has been speculated that the aim of the militancy and defiance of the US
and Israel is to revitalize the role of Iran as the "vanguard" of an anti-Western theocratic Shi'ite revolution at a time when the mullahs'
support internally, and in the Islamic world, is fading. Let's also assume Ahmadinejad's actions are quite premeditated, with the intent to
needle and provoke the West for some reason. If pushed against the wall by growing Western pressures, Ahmadinejad's regime has
apparently calculated that Iran has little to lose if it hit back. He is also no rogue agent in opposition to the Iranian clergy. According to
the Pakistani newspaper Dawn of January 24, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the Guardian Council of the Constitution, stressed
Iran's determination to assert its "inalienable" rights: "We appreciate President Ahmadinejad because he is following a more aggressive
foreign policy on human rights and nuclear issues than the former governments of Mohammed Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani," the
ayatollah reportedly said. "President Ahmadinejad is asking, 'why only you Western powers should send inspectors for human rights or
nuclear issues to Iran - we also want to inspect you and report on your activities'." The paper's Tehran correspondent added, "The
mood within the country's top leadership remains upbeat and the general belief was
that it would be possible to ride out international sanctions - if it comes to that."
SANCTIONS DO NOT SOLVE- IRAN WILL SIT THEM OUT

Engdahl`6(F William, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) “A high-risk
200601313615/)
Iran also apparently feels well-prepared to sit out any economic sanctions. The country is the second-largest
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil producer (4.1 million barrels per day in 2005)
next to Saudi Arabia (9.1 million.) Russia with 9.5 million bpd production in 2005 takes claim to being the
world's largest oil-producing country. Iran has also accumulated a strong cash position from the recent high
oil price, earning some $45 billion in oil revenue in 2005, double the average for 2001-03. This gives it a war
chest cushion against external sanctions and the possibility to live for months with cutting its oil exports, all
or partly. That is clearly one of the implicit weapons Iran knows it holds and would clearly use in event the
situation escalated into UN Security Council economic sanctions.
TALKS AND SANCTIONS WILL NOT WORK- IRAN WILL DEVELOP THE BOMB
Ledeen`4(Michael A. Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) “Defusing the Iran Dilemma”, The Australian,
November 29
The European "solution" to the threat of Iranian atomic bombs is likely to join the
Mideast "peace process" as the most hysterical running gag in the history of show
biz. Every few months, the elegantly dressed diplomatic wizards from London, Paris and Berlin race
across a continent or two to meet Iranians dressed in turbans and gowns, and after some hours of
alleged hard work, they emerge with a new agreement, just like their more numerous
counterparts engaged in the "peace process". The main difference is that the peace
process deals seem to last for several months, while the schemes hammered out with
the mullahs rarely last more than a week or two. Otherwise, it's the same sort of vaudeville
routine: a few laughs, with promises of more to come. The latest Iranian shenanigan may have set a record
for speed. Last Monday, they announced they had stopped the centrifuges that were enriching uranium. Then,
on Tuesday, they asked for permission to run the centrifuges again. The Europeans sternly said "no". The
next scene will be at Turtle Bay, with brief interruptions for somewhat off-colour remarks about sexual
harassment at high levels (so to speak) of the UN. No serious person can believe that the
negotiations are going to block, or even seriously delay, the Iranian race to acquire
atomic bombs. The European posturing is the Western counterpart of the Iranian
deception, a ritual dance designed to put a flimsy veil over the nakedness of the real
activities. The old-fashioned name for this sort of thing is "appeasement", and was best described by
Churchill, describing Chamberlain's infamous acceptance of Hitler's conditions at Munich in 1938.
Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonour, opted for the latter and got the former as well. That
is now the likely fate of Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. They surely know this. Why do
they accept it? For starters, they have huge financial interests tied up with the Iranian regime (billions of
dollars worth of oil and gas contracts, plus other trade agreements, some already signed, others in the works).
Iran, furthermore, is the last place in the Middle East where they can play an active diplomatic role. This is
particularly acute for France, which knows it will long be a pariah to free Iraqi governments and views Iran
as its last chance to thwart the dominant U.S. role in the region. Sad to say, there is no evidence that the
Europeans give a tinker's damn either about the destiny of the Iranian people, or about Iran's leading role in
international terrorism, or about the Islamic Republic joining the nuclear club. I think they expect Iran to "go
nuclear" in the near future, at which point they will tell George W. Bush that there is no option but to accept
the brutal facts: the world's leading sponsor of terrorism in possession of atomic bombs and the missiles
needed to deliver them on regional and European targets--and "come to terms" with the mullahcracy. But if
Bush found a way to prevent Iran from acquiring atomic bombs, it might well wreck the Europeans' grand
appeasement strategy. There is certainly no risk that the UN will do anything serious, which
is why the Europeans keep insisting that it is the only "legitimate" forum for any discussion of the Iranian
nuclear menace.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Air Power Key

Air Force key to a successful Iran strike
Plesch`5 (Dan, Open Democracy.com, Political website, March 21, 2005, Iran: the coming war,
http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-2383.jsp)
The military strategy adopted under President Bush’s father, continued under President Clinton and
accelerated under the current administration is based on the idea that the US should have “full spectrum
dominance” of all aspects of warfare and be so far ahead that, in the words of the current national security
strategy, any state will be “dissuaded” from even trying to compete. An attack on Iran would have to take into
consideration a number of risks. But from the perspective of those considering a military option, Iran’s
acquisition of nuclear weapons merely makes all of these problems harder – and in that sense provides an
additional argument for pre-emptive action. Perhaps more importantly, none of the arguments made about the
consequences of an attack on Iraq – whether or not they proved true – influenced the decision to go to war;
some, such as the need to provide enough troops to prevent the outbreak of disorder, were simply ignored.
Fourth, it is sometimes claimed that the US does not have enough troops to attack Iran. But the US army
is engaged in a reorganisation to provide more frontline forces from headquarters and training units, and in
any case the US air force is wholly available for the task of blowing up Iran – and it was barely used in
Iraq beyond the first few weeks. Fifth, it is argued that the Iranians may have hidden their activities in
inaccessible parts of their huge country. This is likely to be the case – though whether these are banned
WMD programmes or permitted activities is an open question. However, as Seymour Hersh writes in the
New Yorker, special forces are already in Iran preparing the target list. An aerial attack would not involve a
ground invasion and would leave the Iranians to pick up the pieces.
Air superiority is a prerequisite to a successful Iranian campaign

Lopez`7 (Bernardo V. Lopez February 1, 2007 Thursday UPSHOT; Will the US invade Iran?, Lexis)
Wayne White, a top Middle East analyst for the US State Department said "I've seen some of the planning (in
the Pentagon?) ... We're not talking about just surgical strikes ... We're talking about clearing a path to the
targets" by neutralizing the Iranian Air Force at the onset. This saber-rattling, conveniently aired by the
Western press, whether psy- war bluff or an "announcement" to feel the global mood for or against invasion,
is a repeat of Iraq. For the Pentagon planners drawing up the blueprint for a possible invasions, a successful
strike against Iran requires paralyzing its air force before it gets off the ground. No single quick
American attack can do this. The Iranian air force is by far superior to Iraq's. This means a protracted
air war will cost the US billions of dollars in aircraft even if the US prevails. The US will not orchestrate a
ground initiative without air superiority, otherwise a lot of lives will be lost. A quick conquest of Iran like
that of Iraq will not be that easy, and the Pentagon knows it. Will America take the risk? Even the most
aggressive and creative generals have butterflies in their stomachs. The US has made a lot of successful
bluffs before. Saber-rattling is a bad habit of US foreign policy, which is natural for the lone superpower, like
a gorilla pounding its chest. For the gorilla it is a bluff to ward off enemies, but for the US we never know
until invasion happens or not.
***China Adv***
CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat (1/3)

China is an emerging military power
Frost et al. 08 (Strategic Forum, April, 2008 by Ellen L. Frost, James J. Przystup, Phillip C. Saunders, China’s rising
influence in Asia; Implications for U.S. policy,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_231/ai_n25434277/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)
China's military power has increased significantly over the last decade, creating both respect and
heightened concerns in other Asian countries. The PLA has enjoyed double-digit real budget increases
every year since 1997. The official 2007 budget was approximately $45 billion, but estimates including
military-related and off-budget spending suggest that total 2007 spending may range from $97 billion to
$139 billion. (14) This money has underwritten higher salaries, expanded training and facilities, and
the acquisition of advanced Chinese and Russian arms. Many of these weapons appear to be focused
primarily on deterring possible U.S. intervention in a Taiwan crisis, but some significantly expand PLA
ability to project power within Asia. These include development of more accurate short-range and
medium-range conventional ballistic missiles, acquisition of Kilo-class submarines and Sovremenny destroyers, deployment of
tankers and air-refueling technology to extend the range of Chinese fighters, and efforts to improve airlift and sealift capability. Chinese military
officials are now openly discussing building an aircraft carrier. China's accelerated military modernization program has
been accompanied by efforts to reassure its neighbors that a more powerful PLA will not threaten their security. China has not repeated the
military activities that alarmed its neighbors in the mid-1990s and has behaved with relative restraint
to various provocations from Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian. China has sought to demonstrate
that its military and paramilitary forces can make useful contributions to regional and global security,
including via increased participation in UN peacekeeping missions. China has also offered to increase
regional cooperation on nontraditional security issues such as disaster relief, counterterrorism, and
counterpiracy. Although the resources committed to these missions have been modest, they are intended
to showcase a constructive role for Chinese military power. In addition, China has made modest efforts to increase its
transparency on military issues as a confidence-building measure. China began publishing biannual white papers on national defense in 1998 and has
recently begun to participate in military exercises with neighboring countries.
China’s building up it’s military, and it has U.S. attack capability

Micheal`7 (William, DoD: China seeking to project military power, May 25, 2007, Marine Times,
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/military_china_dodreport_070525w/)
According to the report, China wants to advance its interests into the “greater periphery” of Central Asia
and the Middle East. It wants to secure access to resources and markets in the developing world, and secure safe
passage through critical sea lanes such as the Strait of Malacca. As it grows, it more urgently needs metals and fossil fuels. How China
might employ its military to protect those interests or pursue other national goals is somewhat unclear, but China’s military
wants to build a force that can win “local wars under conditions of informatization,” the report states. In
other words, it recognizes the role of modern information technology as a force multiplier, allowing the
People’s Liberation Army to operate with precision at greater distances from the homeland. The U.S.
estimates that China’s military budget grew an inflation-adjusted average of 11.8 percent annually from
1996 to 2006. On March 4, China announced a 17.8 percent increase in its military budget, bringing its
official total for 2007 to about $45 billion. “This development continues a trend of annual budget
increases that exceed significantly growth of the overall economy,” the report states. China is developing and
testing a formidable array of missiles, including the road-mobile, solid-propellant intercontinental-range DF-31, which achieved initial
threat availability last year and “will likely” become operational if it isn’t already, the report states. China’s primary nuclear
forces are contained on 20 silo-based, liquid-fueled ICBMs that could reach the U.S., along with more
than 80 shorter-range ballistic missiles and 10 to 14 submarine-launched missiles. As of late last year,
China also had roughly 900 short-range ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan, at least 100 more than in
late 2005, the report states. And it is acquiring conventional medium-range ballistic missiles that
possibly could be used to target distant naval ships. China’s navy, according to the report, includes 58
attack submarines, about 50 medium and heavy amphibious lift vessels and roughly 41 coastal missile
patrol craft. Late last year, China took delivery of its second Russian-made guided missile destroyer, a ship equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles
and wide-area air defense systems. It also is building and testing second-generation nuclear submarines, and took
delivery of two Kilo-class Russian diesel subs. Some analysts, the report states, predict that China could have
an operational aircraft carrier asearly as 2015. China has more than 700 combat aircraft “based within
un-refueled operational range of Taiwan,” according to the report. While many of its aircraft are older
models that have been upgraded, newer aircraft “make up a growing percentage” of the inventory. These
include the multi-role F-10 fighter and the multi-role Su-27SMK Flanker, the latter under a licensed co-
production agreement with Russia.

China’s rising militarily-They’ll be able to challenge the U.S.
Tkacik`7 (John Tkacik is a Senior Research Fellow in Asian Studies at The Heritage Foundation, A Chinese Military
Superpower?, March 8, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1389.cfm)
On March 4, China's National People's Congress announced that it would increase the country's military
budget 17.8 percent in 2007 to a total of $45 billion.[1] Despite the fact that this was the biggest single
annual increase in China's military spending,[2] the Chinese government reassured the world that this
spending hike was normal and need not worry anyone. "China is committed to taking a path of peaceful
development and it pursues a defensive military posture," a spokesman said.[3] But the evidence suggests
instead that China's intent is to challenge the United States as a military superpower. A closer look at
China's military spending raises profound questions about China's geopolitical direction. In terms of
purchasing power parity (PPP), China's effective military spending is far greater than $45 billion, or
even the U.S. Department of Defense's $105 billion estimate.[4] In fact, it is in the $450 billion range,
putting it in the same league as the United States and far ahead of any other country, including
Russia.[5] This figure reflects the reality that a billion dollars can buy a lot more "bang" in China than
in the United States. Within a decade, perhaps much sooner, China will be America's only global
competitor for military and strategic influence. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told
the Senate on February 27 that the Chinese are "building their military, in my view, to reach some state
of parity with the United States," adding that "they're a threat today, they would become an increasing
threat over time."[6] Nor is this a revelation to Washington policy-makers. McConnell's predecessor John
Negroponte testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2006 that "China is a rapidly rising
power with steadily expanding global reach that may become a peer competitor to the United States at
some point."[7] In June 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed that the U.S. must help integrate
China into the international, rules-based economy before it becomes a "military superpower."[8] Rice, with a
doctorate in Soviet studies and years of experience in the White House during the last days of the Cold War,
would not use the term "superpower" lightly.
Despite discourse, China’s military rise shows it’s not peaceful

It remains to be seen whether China's now massive stake in the global economy will result in Beijing
becoming a responsible stakeholder in global affairs, but Beijing seems poised for true global status as a
"military superpower." The latest figures from the econometricians at the Central Intelligence Agency—
whose data come from the World Bank—peg China's 2006 GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, at $10
trillion, with a nominal exchange-rate value of $2.5 trillion.[9] Despite the Chinese Communist Party
leadership's espousal of China's "peaceful rise," the unprecedented peacetime expansion of China's
military capabilities betrays a clear intent to challenge the United States in the Western Pacific and
establish itself as the region's predominant military power. With China's massive GDP and military
spending at an estimated 4.5 percent of GDP, the resources that Beijing now devotes to its armed forces
surely make it a top global power.[10] The exact methodology that U.S. intelligence agencies use to arrive
at this estimate is classified, but it reportedly takes into account the fact that China's budget figures do not
include foreign arms purchases, subsidies to military industries, any of China's space program (which is
under the command of the Central Military Commission), or the costs of the 660,000 strong "People's Armed
Police."[11] It appears that some defense spending sectors that are not counted in the defense budget
have increased much faster than the budget itself.[12]
China’s rising militarily-They’re integrating their domestic production with international

weapons
Maples`8 (Congressional Testimony of MICHAEL D. MAPLES, DIRECTOR, February 27, 2008 Wednesday NATIONAL
SECURITY THREATS, Lexis)
China is strengthening its ability to conduct military operations along its periphery on its own terms. It is
building and fielding sophisticated weapon systems and testing new doctrines that it believes will allow
it to prevail in regional conflicts and also counter traditional U.S. military advantages. The People's
Liberation Army (PLA) is building its own sophisticated aircraft, surface combatants, submarines and
weapon systems while still buying others overseas. For example, China is integrating Russian-produced

KILO-class submarines and SOVREMENNY- class destroyers into the navy as well as S-300 PMU2
surface-to- air missiles and Su-27 aircraft into the air force. China has developed and begun to deploy
indigenous SAM systems which, together with SAMs imported from Russia, provide Beijing with a
modern, layered, groundbased air defense capability to defend important assets. China bought four S-
300 PMU-2 (SA-20) air defense battalions and intends to buy four more. This increases its engagement
range out to 200 km. China is developing a layered maritime capability with medium-range anti-ship
ballistic missiles, submarines, maritime strike aircraft and surface combatants armed with
increasingly sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles. The PLA has achieved moderate success in
introducing these new weapons. Additional integration probably will accelerate as the PLA explores the
full potential of new weapons.
China’s rising militaristically now-Weapons capability

Maples`8 (Congressional Testimony of MICHAEL D. MAPLES, DIRECTOR, February 27, 2008 Wednesday NATIONAL
SECURITY THREATS, Lexis)
Moving away from its historical reliance upon mass conscription, China is trying to build a more
professional military workforce - one able to engage successfully in modern warfare. The PLA seeks to
rejuvenate its officer corps, strengthen military education, reform its non-commissioned officer corps,
improve military quality of life and combat corruption. However, the PLA still appears to be encumbered by
centralized control and a lingering mistrust of individual initiative. China is developing missiles of all
ranges. The CSS-10 Mod-X-2 (DF-31 A) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) can strike the
continental United States and is joining China's operational inventory along with the less-capable DF-
31. Other future ICBMs could include some with multiple, independently-targeted reentry vehicles (MIRVs).
Development continues on the conventional DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM)
variants which can hold U.S. regional assets at risk. China's deployed missile inventory includes
nuclear-armed intercontinental, intermediate and medium-range ballistic missiles, conventional
medium- and short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. China's nuclear force is becoming more
survivable with the deployment of DF-31 and DF-3I A roadmobile ICBMs and the eventual deployment of
the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile. China currently has less than 50 ICBMs capable of targeting
the United States; however the number of ICBM warheads capable of reaching the United States could
more than double in the next 15 years, especially if MIRVs are employed. China has also fielded over
1000 CSS-6 and CSS-7 conventional short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan. It also is developing
more capable conventional missiles able to range U.S. and allied military installations in the region.
Chinese conventional missile upgrades may include maneuvering reentry vehicles with multiple
constellation, satellite-aided navigation and terminal guidance. China's nuclear weapon stockpile likely
will grow over the next 16 years as new ballistic missiles are activated and older ones are upgraded. China
likely has produced enough weapon-grade fissile material to meet its needs for the immediate future. In
addition, China likely retains the capability to produce biological and chemical weapons. Growing
capabilities in counter-space, cyber warfare, electronic warfare and long-range precision strike could
help China achieve strategic surprise. Nevertheless, China's security strategy emphasizes strategic defense,
which integrates diplomacy, economics and information with conventional military operations. If Beijing
adheres to this strategy, we will have indications of Beijing's concerns along with warning of imminent
crises. While Chinese security strategy favors the defense, its operational doctrine does emphasize
seizing the initiative through offensive action, including possible preemptive action. China does not
view an offensive operational doctrine within the context of a strategic defense as contradictory.
China's total military-related spending for 2007 could be as much as $85 to $125 billion. China has
made marginal improvements in military budget transparency, but the PLA's disclosed budget still does not
include large costs for strategic forces, foreign acquisitions, military-related research and development and
paramilitary forces. China's accounting opacity reflects a lack of institutional capacity as well as an
unwillingness to comply with international standards for reporting military spending. China also remains
reluctant to share details about its growing ASAT capabilities.
CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat – AF

China’s air force is growing to challenge the U.S.
China's power in the air and in space is also on the rise. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force
has about 300 Russian-designed fourth-generation Sukhoi-27 Flankers and a number of Chinese-built
Jian-11 planes and 76 Sukhoi-30 multi-role jets. With Russian and Israeli assistance, the PLA Air Force
has acquired an additional 50 or so Jian-10 fighters based on U.S. F-16 technology and reportedly plans to
build 250 more.[16] China's rocket forces are also expanding at an unprecedented pace, with
production and deployment of short-range ballistic missiles targeted at Taiwan increasing from 50 per
year during the 1990s to between 100 and 150 per year today.[17] Presumably, output from Chinese
ICBM factories is expanding at a similar pace. Most recently, China's January 12 test of highly
sophisticated direct-ascent "kinetic kill vehicle" (KKV) technology, coupled with attempts to blind or
laser-illuminate a U.S. reconnaissance satellite in 2006, are convincing evidence of the PLA's intention
to neutralize the United States' military assets in space in any conflict. Indeed, China's 2006 "White
Paper" on national defense describes a China that is moving onto the offensive: The Army aims at
moving from regional defense to trans-regional mobility, and improving its capabilities in air-ground
integrated operations, long-distance maneuvers, rapid assaults and special operations. The Navy aims
at gradual extension of the strategic depth for offshore defensive operations and enhancing its capabilities in
integrated maritime operations and nuclear counterattacks. The Air Force aims at speeding up its
transition from territorial air defense to both offensive and defensive operations, and increasing its
capabilities in the areas of air strike, air and missile defense, early warning and reconnaissance, and
strategic projection. The Second Artillery Force aims at progressively improving its force structure of
having both nuclear and conventional missiles, and raising its capabilities in strategic deterrence and
conventional strike under conditions of informationization.[18] The ultimate question must be whether
Beijing's leaders have any purpose in assembling a military machine worthy of a superpower other
than to have the strength to challenge the United States' strategic position in Asia. It is time to take
China's military expansion seriously.
CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit (1/3)

U.S.-Sino War is inevitable-Interdependence is irrelevant
Nyquist`5 (renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, JR Geopolitical Global Analyst "Recent China
Revelations" WeeklyColumn July 1] [ct] [http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0701.html]
China’s war preparations are deliberate, and the implications should not be passed over lightly. China
is a highly secretive country, like all communist countries. The objective of communism is world
revolution, the overthrow of global capitalism, the destruction of the free market, the elimination
of the international bourgeoisie and the disarming of the United States. We should be
puzzled, indeed, if Chinese policy did not follow the communist line (however deviously). Given all this, it is
difficult to account for the dismissive attitude of U.S. intelligence experts when regarding Chinese intentions.
The China problem is a serious one. “The people … of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America
should unite,” said Chairman Mao in 1964. “The people of all continents should unite … and so form the
broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to defend world
peace.” In terms of today’s peace movement, Mao’s sentiments are up-to-date. They are, I think, a
founding inspiration. The supposed “death of communism” may have eliminated a few soiled terms, but not
the main idea. The label on old hatreds may be changed, but the content remains the same. And because
America is asleep, and the market is buzzing with Chinese goods, the U.S. government has turned a
blind eye. The truth about China is worse than inconvenient. It is painful. So a special context
has been devised for dismissing inconvenient facts. This context is inculcated
at graduate schools, think tanks and in government. The context for understanding
international affairs must not admit the existence of a coordinated, secretive and dangerous
combination of countries motivated to overthrow the United States. In other words, the existence of a
“communist bloc” cannot be admitted. And China’s role within this bloc – above all – must be rated as a
“crackpot notion.” And yet, the existence of something identical to the old communist bloc – whatever we
choose to call it – is indicated by actions across the board by Russia, the East European satellite countries,
North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and China. Some ideas fall from fashion. But truth is always true, fashion or
not. U.S. experts failed to connect the dots regarding China’s development of a long-range cruise
missile, a new attack submarine, new ground-to-air missiles, a new anti-ship missile (for sinking U.S.
aircraft carriers) and more. China is preparing for war against the United States, specifically. As
absurd as it sounds to the economic optimists who think trade with China guarantees peace, the U.S.
and China are bound to collide. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t have a sense of history, doesn’t
understand communist thinking or the overall policy Beijing has consistently followed since 1949.
Communist countries periodically experiment with capitalism, they always seek trade with the West,
and they always sink the money and technology they gain thereby into a military buildup. Ultimately,
they don’t care about the prosperity of their people, the state of the national infrastructure, personal or
press freedom. Some believe that we mustn’t say that China is a threat. Such a statement would be akin to
self-fulfilling prophecy. But an honest appreciation of Chinese actions should not be disallowed by an
appeasing diplomacy or wishful thinking. The job of the analyst is not to guarantee good relations with
countries that are preparing for destructive war. The job of the analyst is to see war preparations,
diplomatic maneuvers and economic policies and draw a common sense conclusion about them. If
world peace depends on hiding China’s military buildup, then world peace is like your fat uncle
dressed in a Santa Claus suit. Saying it’s your fat uncle may ruin Christmas for your little sister, but Santa
Claus isn’t a real person – and never will be.

Planning to engage the U.S. with asymmetric warfare
Hubbard`7 (Zachary, retired Army officer residing in Upper Yoder Township, Cambria County. He holds a master’s degree
in military art and science from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff CollegeIs China preparing for war with U.S.,
http://www.tribune-democrat.com/editorials/local_story_236133107.html)
All eyes in Washington are focused on the Middle East as the war there continues, the troop surge in Iraq
nears its climax and the ever-elusive Osama bin Laden, assuming he’s still alive, continues to evade capture.
Iran is rattling its sword and the hawks in Washington are demanding satisfaction. The 2008 election
countdown has started and politicians on both sides of the aisle have begun the traditional blame game of
finger pointing, name calling and jockeying for political advantage. The American political process is once
again paralyzed by the politicians’ lust to retain power. Forget the business of running the nation; there’s
an election to be won! And so it will go until November of next year. Meanwhile, in a country far, far away,
the political, military and economic downfall of the United States is being planned by an intelligent,
patient, industrious enemy who hopes never to fire a shot in anger, yet fully expects to win. Its goal: To
replace the United States as the world’s reining superpower. The war, by all indications, may have
already begun. China’s grasp of history China counts its history in millennia. It has seen enemies come
and go, yet one thing remains constant – China continues. Why should the Chinese expect America to
be different from their enemies of yore? Chinese politicians and military officers study history. They know
the writings of Sun Tzu, a legendary warrior-philosopher whose 6th century BC military treatise “The Art of
War” is mandatory reading for military officers worldwide. Sun Tzu has dozens of notable quotes, but the
greatest may be, “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue
the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” The Chinese may have already begun a campaign to subdue
the United States following Sun Tzu’s model. As Sun Tzu said, you can subdue an enemy without fighting. In
fact, it is best to win without having to go to war. Some would argue that this is what diplomacy is about.
Certainly, diplomacy is part of the strategy, but there is far more to the Chinese game plan. Reflecting
Sun Tzu’s philosophy, many recent Chinese writings have focused on asymmetric warfare as a means of
defeating a militarily superior enemy. Asymmetric warfare uses political, economic, informational and
military power. Military power is the least emphasized. A different kind of war Qiao Liang and Wang
Xiangsui, two colonels in China’s Peoples’ Liberation Army, published a treatise in 1999 titled “Unrestricted
Warfare.” The treatise was not an official publication of the Chinese government, but it was published by the
official PLA publishing house, indicating at least some degree of acceptance. “Unrestricted Warfare”
contains chilling instructions on how to defeat an enemy using asymmetric attacks in such a manner
that the enemy may not even realize they are under attack until it is too late to respond effectively. The
techniques they describe include cyber warfare, attacks against financial institutions and critical
infrastructure, terrorism, manipulating the media, biological warfare, chemical warfare and a variety of other
ruthless methods. Developments since “Unrestricted Warfare” was published seem to suggest that China may
be waging such warfare today. China now faces many of the same problems that Germany faced in the
buildup to World War II. Like Nazi Germany, China has a booming economy, a growing population
and a hunger for energy and other resources to fuel its economic growth. The Germans needed to
expand their “lebensraum” (living space) to attain the natural resources needed to fuel their economy.
China appears to be implementing a sort of “lebensraum” program of its own. As the United States
was engaged in returning the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, China was busy establishing a
beachhead there. Through land deals with Panama, the Chinese have gained control of both ends of this
critical waterway, today controlling port facilities in Balboa, the canal's only Pacific port, and a major
Atlantic port in Cristobol. The agreements allow China to run them for the next half-century.

War with China is inevitable-Oil
Luft`4 (Gal, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and publisher of the online publication
Energy Security, L.A. Times, February 2, 2004 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0202collision.htm)
Sixty-seven years ago, oil-starved Japan embarked on an aggressive expansionary policy designed to
secure its growing energy needs, which eventually led the nation into a world war. Today, another
Asian power thirsts for oil: China. While the U.S. is absorbed in fighting the war on terror, the seeds of
what could be the next world war are quietly germinating. With 1.3 billion people and an economy
growing at a phenomenal 8% to 10% a year, China, already a net oil importer, is growing increasingly
dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto sales grew 70% and its oil imports were up 30% from the
previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By 2030, China is expected to have
more cars than the U.S. and import as much oil as the U.S. does today. Dependence on oil means dependence
on the Middle East, home to 70% of the world's proven reserves. With 60% of its oil imports coming from
the Middle East, China can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines of the tumultuous region. Its way of
forming a footprint in the Middle East has been through providing technology and components for
weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to unsavory regimes in places such as Iran,
Iraq and Syria. A report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group created by
Congress to monitor U.S.-China relations, warned in 2002 that "this arms trafficking to these regimes
presents an increasing threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East." The report concludes: "A key
driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to
fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade."
Optimists claim that the world oil market will be able to accommodate China and that, instead of conflict,
China's thirst could create mutual desire for stability in the Middle East and thus actually bring Beijing closer
to the U.S. History shows the opposite: Superpowers find it difficult to coexist while competing over
scarce resources. The main bone of contention probably will revolve around China's relations with
Saudi Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil. The Chinese have already supplied the Saudis with
intermediate range ballistic missiles, and they played a major role 20 years ago in a Saudi financed
Pakistani nuclear effort that may one day leave a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Taliban-type
regime in Riyadh or Islamabad. Since 9/11, a deep tension in U.S.-Saudi relations has provided the
Chinese with an opportunity to win the heart of the House of Saud. The Saudis hear the voices in the U.S.
denouncing Saudi Arabia as a "kernel of evil" and proposing that the U.S. seize and occupy the kingdom's oil
fields. The Saudis especially fear that if their citizens again perpetrate a terror attack in the U.S., there would
be no alternative for the U.S. but to terminate its long-standing commitment to the monarchy - and perhaps
even use military force against it. The Saudis realize that to forestall such a scenario they can no longer rely
solely on the U.S. to defend the regime and must diversify their security portfolio. In their search for a new
patron, they might find China the most fitting and willing candidate. The risk of Beijing's emerging as
a competitor for influence in the Middle East and a Saudi shift of allegiance are things Washington
should consider as it defines its objectives and priorities in the 21st century. Without a comprehensive
strategy designed to prevent China from becoming an oil consumer on a par with the U.S., a superpower
collision is in the cards. The good news is that we are still in a position to halt China's slide into total
dependency. Unlike the U.S., China's energy infrastructure is largely underdeveloped and primarily coal-
based. It has not yet invested in a multibillion-dollar oil infrastructure. China is therefore in a better position
than the U.S. to bypass oil in favor of next-generation fuels.
CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan

Sino-Taiwanese war is inevitable-China reserves the right to strike, while Taiwan prepares
for war
Goodspeed`8 (Peter, June 14, 2008 Saturday National Edition, An uneasy detente; Despite talk of peace, Taiwan and China
are flexing their military might, Lexis)
Diplomats from Taiwan and China held historic meetings in Beijing this week to end nearly six decades of
tensions, but military planners in Taipei are also putting the final touches to a computerized war game
that envisions an all-out Chinese attack on Taiwan. From June 22 to 27, Ma Yingjeou, the Taiwanese
President, will preside over a simulated war game, code-named Hankuang (Chinese Glory) 24, in
which Chinese warplanes bomb the island's airports, harbours, power stations and bridges. A blizzard
of ballistic missiles will target its political, military and economic infrastructure, as special-operations
troops infiltrated into Taiwan stage sabotage raids and assassinations before an amphibious and
airborne invasion by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). In the war game, the Taiwanese military will
counter-attack to prevent China from taking over. The chaos of the computerized combat stands in stark
contrast to dreams of diplomatic detente that surround this week's negotiations in Beijing, but it underlines
the fact the Taiwan Strait remains one of the world's major flashpoints. Although it has never ruled
Taiwan, the People's Republic of China claims the island as an inalienable part of China. It reserves the
right to use force to reunite it with the mainland if Taiwan ever declares independence, is occupied by a
foreign power, acquires nuclear weapons or indefinitely delays unification through negotiations. Taiwan
was occupied in 1949 by Chiang Kai-shek's retreating Kuomintang (Nationalist) army after losing a civil war
to Mao Zedong's Communists. Today, it is a chaotic democracy where almost half the people regard
themselves as Taiwanese, rather than Chinese. Relations between Taiwan and the mainland have been
hostile and uncompromising for decades, as China sought to rein in what it regards as a rebellious
province by swinging from military intimidation to economic enticement, and from verbal attacks to
diplomatic charm offensives.
China’s military advancement makes war with Taiwan inevitable

Siong`3 (Fan Sui Siong, Kelvin, CPT Fan Sui Siong Kelvin is a Weapons System Officer (ADA) by vocation and is currently
serving as Tactical Control Officer at an Air Defence Artillery Squadron, Will China Attack Taiwan, June 2003,
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2003/Vol29_2/7.htm)
Will war occur? The China-Taiwan military balance has been extensively covered in many excellent
studies. However, most of these articles focus on current military capabilities, while neglecting the
dynamic aspect of military procurement as well as the political will dimension. While this essay argues
that PRC is unlikely to attack Taiwan in the near future, a war is still plausible if political circumstances
favour PRC and when PRC has fully acquired the military capabilities for invasion. In light of the
impact a PRC-ROC conflict could bring to Singapore, it is important for Singapore to understand the Straits
stand-off in the right military and political context. For brevity, one important aspect of this potential stand-
off was neglected in the analysis that of the possible nuclear conflict which could erupt. A nuclear conflict is
unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, Taiwan would be destroyed in a nuclear attack and would be utterly useless
to China, even if she were to be returned. Secondly, the use of nuclear weapons would destroy all that China
has worked for in building its international reputation and integrating itself into the economic and diplomatic
communities.
CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan – US Intervention

The U.S. would intervene in a Sino-Taiwanese war
Lejun`4 (Tang, Asia Times, US, Taiwan military exercises ominous signals, July 29, 2004,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG29Ad04.html)
Massive US military exercises are taking place worldwide, including the Western Pacific. At most there
will be two carrier battle groups near the Taiwan Strait at some time. China's and Taiwan's military
maneuvers have been concluded. The political purposes of these exercises by the three parties are
different but clear: mainland China wants to show in its exercises that it is determined to stop Taiwan from
gaining independence, even if force is required, even with strong military resistance from Taiwan and
military intervention from the US. Taiwan wants to send a signal that it is determined to get
independence even by military means, as it has the encouragement and protection of the US. The US
obviously wants to say to Taiwan, "Get what you want and we will help you and protect you," and to
mainland China, "Let Taiwan be independent, or we will intervene."
The U.S. would enter a cross straits war

O'Hanlon`2k (Michael O’Hanlon specializes in U.S. national security policy. He is senior author of the Iraq Index. A former
defense budget analyst who advised members of Congress on military spending, he specializes in Iraq, North Korea, homeland
security, the use of military force and other defense issues, Can China Conquer Taiwan, Brookings, 2000
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2000/fall_nationalsecuritycouncil_ohanlon.aspx)
Any war between the two Chinas could easily involve the United States. Under the 1979 Taiwan
Relations Act, official U.S. law stipulates that the United States would view any conflict over Taiwan
with "grave concern."5 The 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis showed that the United States does not take its
interest in Taiwan's security lightly. A 1995 visit by Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui to his American
alma mater, Cornell University, provoked China to conduct military exercises and fire missiles near
Taiwan, leading the United States to send an aircraft carrier through the strait that same December for
the first time in seventeen years. In March 1996, the PRC launched more missiles near Taiwan; in
response, the United States deployed two carriers in the vicinity as a show of strength.6 Largely as a
result of the 1995-96 crisis, much of the U.S. Congress has lost patience with the existing U.S. policy of
strategic ambiguity—by which Washington suggests to both Taipei and Beijing that it might help
Taiwan defend itself, but does not commit itself to doing so—preferring an unambiguous commitment
to defend Taiwan instead.7 War over Taiwan could take a number of forms. An attempted PRC invasion of
the TAIWAN is the most dire possibility, and my primary focus in this article. Some Pentagon analysts
believe China could prevail in such an attack. As a 1999 Department of Defense report puts it, a "campaign
would likely succeed—barring third-party intervention."8 China's true views on the feasibility of the invasion
option are unclear, but worrisome.9 Notably, when threatening Taiwanese voters not to choose Chen just
before their March 2000 presidential elections, Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji suggested that China's
resolve would overcome whatever material shortcomings PRC armed forces might face. As he put it, "People
making such calculations [that China could not take Taiwan] don't know about Chinese history. The Chinese
people are ready to shed blood and sacrifice their lives to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the motherland."10 On the other side of the strait, many Taiwanese defense planners believe they could not
hold off a Chinese assault indefinitely without U.S. help.11
CTL Good – China Adv – A2: Deterrence Checks

The Chinese aren’t too afraid to use missiles
Kagan`2k (Robert, Robert Kagan is currently based in Brussels. Robert Kagan is senior associate at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. How China Will Take Taiwan, March 12, 2000,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=232)
Nor are the Chinese daunted by American military superiority. As former Pentagon official Michael Pillsbury
notes, Chinese strategists are developing tactics of "asymmetrical" warfare that allow an inferior power to
prevail against a stronger enemy in a "local war under high-tech conditions." Surprise is a critical factor in
Chinese strategic thinking. If the Chinese are contemplating a missile attack on Taiwan sometime in the next
few years, what can the United States do to prevent it? Clinton officials pray that the March 18 elections will
produce a government in Taiwan willing to accommodate Beijing's demands. That is unlikely. Polls show a
majority of Taiwanese oppose reunification: A growing percentage no longer even consider themselves
Chinese. The next Taiwanese president will probably maintain the status quo that Beijing considers
unacceptable.
Detterence is irrelevant-The U.S. will strike first

Zweig & Jianhai 5 (David, director of the center on China’s Transnational Relations at the Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, and Bi, postdoctoral fellow at the same location, Foreign Affairs, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy”,
September/October, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84503/david-zweig-bi-jianhai/china-s-global-hunt-
for-energy.html)
China's resources hunt has been a boon to some states, especially developing countries, as it has allowed
them to exploit as yet untapped resources or gain leverage to negotiate better deals with older customers. But
for other states, particularly the United States and Japan, China's insatiability is causing concern. Some
governments worry as Beijing enters their spheres of influence or strikes deals with states they have
tried to marginalize. In some quarters in Washington, including the Pentagon, the intelligence services,
and Congress, the fear that China could challenge U.S. military dominance in East Asia and destabilize
the region is rising. Whatever the prognosis, China's boom can no longer be understood in regional terms
alone; as Beijing's economic influence brings it international political influence and the potential for more
military power, China's growth will have worldwide repercussions. Although China's new energy demands
need not be a source of serious conflict with the West in the long term, at the moment, Beijing and
Washington feel especially uneasy about the situation. While China struggles to manage its growing pains,
the United States, as the world's hegemon, must somehow make room for the rising giant; otherwise,
war will become a serious possibility. According to the power transition theory, to maintain its
dominance, a hegemon will be tempted to declare war on its challengers while it still has a power
advantage. Thus, easing the way for the United States and China -- and other states -- to find a new
equilibrium will require careful management, especially of their mutual perceptions.
CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – General

An effective Air Force is key to check China
Donnelly & Sullivan`8 (Thomas & Tim, a resident fellows at AEI, April 30, 2008 Wednesday
AEI: NATIONAL SECURITY OUTLOOK APRIL 2008, States News Service, Lexis)
Responding to the rise of China as a global power with growing military strength presents an
increasingly complex operational puzzle. The immediate focus is the balance of military power in
maritime Northeast Asia--a problem set that engages not only naval and air power issues, but also
space and cyberspace--but it is clear that the size of the potential "battlespace" will expand in fairly
short order. Yet it is likely that, as the Fulda Gap defined the strategically and symbolically central front
during the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union, maritime Northeast Asia will occupy a central role
in hedging against China's rise. This puts increasing demands on the ability of the United States to
project elements of naval, air, and space power to the region, combining the problems of persistence
and sustainment with those of lethality and firepower.
CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – Taiwan [1/2]

An improvement in Air Force readiness is key to deter China and preclude conflict over
Taiwan
Mastro`7 (Oriana Skylar Mastro, Junior Fellow in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment.States News
Service, July 17, 2007 Tuesday CHINESE MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND TAIWAN'S SECURITY, Lexis)
Roger Cliff spoke last about his chapter The Implications of Chinese Military Modernization of U.S. Force
Posture in a Taiwan Conflict. According to Cliff, U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific region may soon be
inadequate to protect Taiwan against a Chinese use of force. Much of China's military hardware is
inadequate by modern standards and these limitations are paralleled by challenges in China's intelligence,
logistics, etc. However, geography works in China's favor, with its forces much closer to the Taiwan
theater than are U.S. forces. Furthermore, China's defense industry, after years of backwardness, is starting
to produce weapon systems that are comparable to similar systems coming out of the United States. China's
economic growth also means that China will have increasingly more money to acquire and develop
weapons systems. Because of these trends, the US needs to make a few changes in US force posture in
the region. For example, the United States must follow through with currently planned enhancements
to U.S. force posture in the region; must improve its capabilities to detect a surprise use of force; it must
increase the readiness levels of air and naval forces in Hawaii and on the west coast of the United States so
that they can be surged to the Western Pacific on short notice; the United States must ensure that its
most capable new weapon systems are deployed first to the Pacific theater as they are fielded. Cliff
closed with the comment that conflict in the Taiwan Strait is not inevitable, but as long as China reserves
the right to use force, and the United States is committed to deterring this use of force, the United
States needs to improve its force posture in the region. Michael D. Swaine explained the overall
conclusions of the volume. On balance, this volume does not confirm the argument that the balance of power
has shifted; instead, China still faces many daunting challenges to its military power, especially in terms of
seizing Taiwan outright. China will not be able to maintain air superiority or a naval blockade in the
foreseeable future. However, this volume reaffirms concern that China is acquiring new and large
capabilities in some areas that are narrowing the gap in ways that could over time weaken deterrence
and undermine the cross-strait military balance. This especially applies to area denial capabilities,
missile forces, submarine forces, etc. Therefore, there is a need to assess how these capabilities apply to
different contingencies and how the Chinese leadership believes these capabilities apply to a Taiwan
conflict. For example, these capabilities might encourage the Chinese leadership to take preemptive action to
force Taiwan to capitulate before the U.S. has time to intervene. However, this is a very risky option, and
there is no indication that China is currently preparing for this option; most of these capabilities the Chinese
view as deterrence. Furthermore, there are features of the U.S., China, and Taiwan military doctrine and crisis
management that could lead to unintended escalation and consequences that undermine regional stability. In
order to reduce the potential for conflict, the United States needs to continue to improve its ability to
reply swiftly to a Chinese attack without striking the Chinese mainland early on. This is difficult given
that much of U.S. military doctrine is offensive oriented. The U.S. should also continue to support
Taiwan's acquisition of defense capabilities-this is a critical element of the maintenance of deterrence
because there may be a period of time in which Taiwan needs to hold on until the U.S. can intervene.
Taiwan cannot defend itself unaided against China and Taiwan's primary strategic objective should be to
resist a Chinese attack until U.S. forces can arrive to repel such an attack. The book also offers a series of
recommendations that China and the United States should implement in order to improve crisis management
capabilities.
CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – Taiwan [2/2]

China must control the air before it can even think about invading Taiwan-A strong Air
Force kills that thought
Siong`3 (Fan Sui Siong, Kelvin, CPT Fan Sui Siong Kelvin is a Weapons System Officer (ADA) by vocation and is currently
serving as Tactical Control Officer at an Air Defence Artillery Squadron, Will China Attack Taiwan, June 2003,
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2003/Vol29_2/7.htm)
Military Drawbacks Islands have a natural defence barrier because of the difficulty of securing
beachheads when the shores are well defended. The British Isles, for instance, have not been successfully
invaded since 1066. By virtue of the 80 mile Taiwan Strait between mainland China and Taiwan,
Taiwan is accorded similar protection from mainland China's large army. However, successful landings
have been staged in recent years, with the Normandy landing on D-day being the most prominent example to
date. According to O'Hanlon(2000),14 three key elements are necessary for a successful amphibious assault (i)
air superiority, (ii) initial superiority in troops/firepower at point of attack, and (iii) reinforcement advantage
at point of attack. To add to this list, a successful assault will require (iv)well-trained, well-equipped troops
who are properly coordinated in the battlefield. However, to quote the Pentagon, "China probably has never
conducted a large scale amphibious exercise which has been fully coordinated with air support and airborne
operations."15 Air Superiority To invade Taiwan, China would first have to win control of the air before
she could begin transporting its troops and equipment across the Straits without overly strong
resistance. Air superiority can be gained with a well-coordinated surprise attack on Taiwanese key assets
such as airfields, C2 facilities, and aircraft. This could be done by simultaneously launching China's 200
ballistic missiles and her 800-1000 attack aircraft to target Taiwan's key assets. However, both options face
limitations. As argued, Chinese ballistic missiles, already limited in number, are also known to be inaccurate.
The option of using attack aircraft to weaken Taiwanese resistance fares no better. Firstly, mobilising so
many aircraft to bases near Taiwan could alert Washington and Taipei to an imminent attack, thus negating
the surprise element. Secondly, her aircraft are unlikely to attack effectively and efficiently. Taiwan possesses
three times as many 4th generation fighters as China.16 Chinese aircraft are mostly obsolete and slow, travel at
barely supersonic speeds17 and lack radar, thus limiting their ability to attack at night and rendering them
vulnerable to beyond visual range attacks from radar-guided missiles of Taiwanese modern fighters. Thirdly,
according to O'Hanlon, even with a well-coordinated first strike by China, at least half of Taiwan's combat
aircraft would survive and be used to frustrate China's amphibious assault.
***Iraq Adv***
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Pullout Coming (1/2)

Iraq pullout coming in September-Afghan casualties
Rueters`8 (Rueters, International News Service, U.S. could step up Iraq pullout in September - NYT
Sat Jul 12, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN12371064)
- The Bush administration is considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq beginning in
September, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions, citing administration and military officials.
The withdrawal, which the Times said would constitute a marked reversal from the war's darkest days of
2006-2007, stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising
insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters. U.S. and allied casualties there have outpaced those in
Iraq in recent months. No final decisions have been made, but at least one and as many as three of the 15
combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the
administration in January, the Times said, citing officials. The White House declined to discuss the
withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while the president hoped to bring
more troops home, he would await the recommendation in September of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S.
commander in Iraq, the Times said. "For now," Johndroe said, "we will continue discussions with the Iraqis
on our shared goals of a reduced U.S. troop presence," it quoted him as saying.
Pullout coming now-Optimism and improved security situation

Michaels`8 (Jim, USA Today, July 7, 2008 Monday FINAL EDITION Gains in Iraq may lead to pullouts; U.S. military and
Iraqi premier hail progress, Lexis)
WASHINGTON -- Security in Iraq continues to improve even after the withdrawal of nearly 25% of U.S.
combat brigades, increasing the prospects of further cuts in American forces. Although U.S. commanders
are cautious about predicting further withdrawals, interviews with military experts and recent official
statements indicate growing optimism about the potential to pull out more forces. "I believe the
momentum we have is not reversible," said Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff who helped
develop the Iraq strategy adopted by President Bush in January 2007. There will be "significant reductions
in 2009 whoever becomes president," said Keane, who regularly consults with Gen. David Petraeus, the top
U.S. commander in Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki echoed Keane's optimism Saturday by
declaring that "we defeated" the terrorists in Iraq. U.S. commanders remain cautious. Army Lt. Gen.
Lloyd Austin, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, said recently that "our progress is fragile, and we continue to
work to make this progress irreversible." Such encouraging reports could benefit both presidential
candidates. Republican John McCain has been a major supporter of Bush's policy to temporarily increase the
number of U.S. forces in Iraq. Democratic candidate Barack Obama said he wants to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Iraq in 16 months, although he said any pullout would be determined by conditions there.
Violence in Afghanistan is growing, increasing pressure to shift more troops there from Iraq. Adm.
Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he wants to send more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan, but he doesn't want to sacrifice gains in Iraq by shifting troops too soon. About half of the
60,000 allied forces in Afghanistan are American. Four of the five extra brigades sent to Iraq last year have
left the country; the last unit is preparing to leave this month. The extra brigades increased U.S. troop levels
to about 160,000 from 130,000. Even after five combat brigades leave, about 140,000 U.S. service members
will remain in Iraq. The average number of weekly attacks in Iraq has dropped to 200, an 80% reduction
since June 2007, according to Multi-National Corps-Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi casualties have also dropped
significantly. The State Department said in a recent report that Iraq has met 15 of 18 congressional
benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq. The improved effectiveness of Iraq's security forces
will make it easier to withdraw U.S. troops, said California Rep. Duncan Hunter, the top Republican on the
House Armed Services Committee. "I think it might surprise some people how fast we can come out of
Iraq as the Iraqi army matures," Hunter said. "I think we passed the tipping point as far as the Iraqi
army maturing."
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Pullout Coming (2/2)

Pullout inevitable-Both the U.S. and Iraqi governments agree it’s necessary
Aljazeera`8 (Aljazeera, Prominent Middle Eastern News Service, Iraq presses US for pullout date, July 9,2008,
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/07/20087823316609879.html)
The Iraqi government has said there can be no final deal regarding American forces staying in the
country unless the US agrees to a firm timeline for troop withdrawals. "We can't have a memorandum of
understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign
forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," national security adviser Muwaffaq al-
Rubaie told reporters in the Iraqi city of Najaf on Tuesday. The comments were the strongest yet by an
Iraqi official about the deal under negotiation with Washington. They came a day after Iraq's prime
minister first said publicly that he expects the military deal with the US to have some sort of timetable
for withdrawal. In a meeting with Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates on Monday, Nuri al-
Maliki said Iraq had proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal
status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating. "Negotiations are ongoing with the US side
and the current attitude is to reach a memorandum of understanding either for immediate US forces
withdrawal or timetable withdrawal," he said on Monday. But the US state department rejected a demand
for a "hard date", saying any withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground. "The US government
and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will
withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," Gonzalo Gallegos, a state department
spokesman, said. "We're looking at conditions, not calendars here," he said.
Pullout inevitable-Iraq’s army will be functioning by 2009

Tyson & Eggen`8 (Ann Scott Tyson and Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writers, U.S. General: Iraqi Forces to Be Fully
Ready in '09, July 10, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/09/ST2008070902270.html)
Iraq's army and police will be fully manned and operational by mid-2009, possibly as early as April,
the top U.S. general in charge of building Iraqi security forces said yesterday, signaling the prospect that
Iraqi forces could assume primary combat responsibilities in the country while U.S. troops shift to a
supporting role. Asked when Iraqi ground forces could handle security so U.S. troops would not have
to, Lt. Gen. James Dubik told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the strength of Iraq's ground forces had
grown significantly. "The ground forces will mostly be done by middle of next year; their divisions,
brigades and battalions are on a good timeline," Dubik said in testimony before the House Armed Services
Committee. "Could be as early as April. Could be as late as August," said Dubik, who until last week led the
effort to train Iraqi forces. While U.S. commanders' predictions on Iraqi security forces have proven
excessively optimistic in the past, the general's assessment is central to the debates in Washington and
Baghdad over a timeline for when Iraqi forces can take charge of security, allowing the bulk of the
approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to withdraw. Dubik's projection came as Iraqi leaders this
week pressed for a firm timetable for the departure of U.S. troops as part of a long-term security
agreement the two countries are negotiating.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Spillover

Iraqi instability will spill over
Phillips 7 [James, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, “Proposed Timetables for U.S. Withdrawal Would Sabotage
Reconciliation in Iraq,” September 21, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1632.cfm]
Forcing a withdrawal of U.S. troops would hamstring efforts to consolidate bottom-up political
progress in Iraq. Several National Intelligence Estimates have pointed out the grave implications of a
rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces—not only for Iraq but also for the entire region—due to the
destabilizing spillover effects of a failed Iraqi state. Congress has also been warned by Iraqi officials of the
dire consequences of a premature withdrawal. Yet many in Congress continue to turn a blind eye to the
disastrous consequences of a rush to exit.
An Iraqi conflict attracts regional powers

Dallas News`7 (Regional News service “Beware Expedience in Iraq”,
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-
iraq_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.4367f31.html,July 7, 2007)
The growing chorus of dissent in Congress makes clear that fear – specifically the fear of a voter backlash in
2008 – is driving legislators to choose the most expedient route over one that accounts for America's, as well
as Iraq's, best long-term interests.Nobody, except our enemies, is happy with the 3,600-plus U.S. death toll.
Nobody can tolerate Iraqi leaders' ongoing failure to get their house in order. But just because key
Republicans, including Sens. Pete Domenici and Richard Lugar, are ending support for the
administration's troop-surge strategy does not mean that the Democratic plan for a pullout is the best
or only solution. We think it's a bad idea that risks repeating the same mistakes that the Bush administration
made when it launched the Iraq war. The administration was seriously misguided to think that it could
rush troops in, oust a dictator and then step aside as democracy flourished and all of Iraq's problems
disappeared. Because the administration had no realistic postwar plan, it created the security vacuum that
American troops have had to fill over the past four years. It is equally foolish today for Congress to think
all of our problems in Iraq will be solved simply by forcing the president to agree to a pullout.
Congress offers no realistic plan to fill the new security vacuum that a U.S. withdrawal would
undoubtedly create. The likely outcome is an unacceptable mix of civil war, chaos, massive bloodshed
and potentially direct military confrontation involving Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Do our
best thinkers on Capitol Hill really believe that's preferable to the status quo? President Bush has
demonstrated the danger of launching a war based on half-baked plans. Troop-withdrawal advocates have yet
to convince us their strategy won't make the mess worse.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: NW (1/2)

Iraqi instability spills out and goes nuclear
Washington Times`6 (WASHINGTON TIMES, April 5, 2006, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060404-
085855-8325r.htm)
The negative ramifications of dropping the Iraq enterprise -- and with it the Bush initiative to encourage
free market democracy throughout the Middle East -- would be enormous. Imagine the terrorist recruiting
bonanza and their reinvigorated efforts to topple other regional regimes; envision Saudi oil and Pakistani
nuclear arms in extremist hands. Then, think of the United States, with its porous borders and millions of
illegal aliens, thousands among them Muslims. U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- and, thence, the region --
would put 35-45 percent of the world's oil supply (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, plus Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates) at the whim of West-hating fanatics and leave the region exposed to Pakistani
nuclear attack. Goaded by maniacal Iranian mullahs, attacks in the U.S. would follow. Whatever one's pre-
invasion view of the liberation of Iraq, the cost to freedom worldwide is simply too great to envision. This
is especially true, as the Iraqis are on the cusp of creating a functioning government. Iraq is close to civil
war, but not there yet. Virtually every Shia and Sunni leader has spoken in genuine outrage at the unrest
since the Samarra mosque attack in February, calling on their flocks to resist the Ba'athist sucker game,
which seeks finally to drive the Shia majority to full-fledged war. When Shia firebrand leader Muqtada al-
Sadr speaks feelingly about reaching out to Sunnis, including worshipping together with them, it is clear
even he understands hopes for peace are on the brink of disappearing, with civil war the disastrous result.
Iraq is not Vietnam, but withdrawal can make it worse. America's no-win, defensive Vietnam strategy
foreordained the humiliating outcome. In Iraq, we won the main Iraq military campaign, trained a core
military, guided a series of interim governments, constitution-writing and elections, and are encouraging
final talks to form a permanent government. However, if we leave Iraq now, our efforts will collapse,
rendering the Vietnam debacle a minor negative moment. In short, this is precisely not the time for the
United States to accept defeat, to cut and run. Bloody, costly and frustrating as it has been, Iraq is
successfully rebuilding. To leave now -- or at any time before we have fully supported reconstruction of the
government, infrastructure and security forces -- would be more than craven. Throughout the Middle East,
America would be seen as defeated by the terrorists we pledged to eliminate; U.S. respect from London,
Berlin and Moscow to Beijing, Tokyo and Sydney would be decimated. Besides completely losing
credibility with foe and friend alike, the United States and the entire world would be at grave risk. The
battle in Iraq is not lost. However, if we depart, the country, the region and very probably the world will be.
Afghanistan will be next, then Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE and -- the biggest prizes -- Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan. What then? The terrorist enemy will have emotional and nearly total political
dominion over 1.2 billion Muslims, at which point, it will be extraordinarily difficult to avoid -- not just
civil war in Iraq -- the bloodiest cultural-religious conflict the world has seen.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: NW (2/2)

Middle Eastern instability goes nuclear
Evron`94 (Yair Evron, Professor of International Relations at Tel Aviv University, 1994
[“Israel’s Nuclear Dilemma”, p. 123-4])
The potential risks involved in the functioning of the superpowers’ C3 may recur in the Middle East and, in
some cases, with apparently greater intensity. The probability of erroneous decisions is therefore higher.
These factors center on technical failures of warning systems, or the combination of technical failure and
human error, deriving from misperception of the enemy’s behavior. There also exist processes of escalation
that are totally distinct from technical failure, and which derive exclusively from human error. The latter
case is most often the function of the erroneous interpretation of various enemy actions. These factors are
liable to yield disastrous outcomes. The outcomes can be divided into two major categories of events:
misperception of an enemy action that is mistakenly understood as a conventional or nuclear attack on
the state’s nuclear bases or on the state in its entirety. Such a misperception could cause a rapid escalation.
The second category comprises the escalation from a conventional war to the use of nuclear weapons. The
persistence of intense conflicts in the Middle East will of course contribute to the potential danger of
misperceptions. Hence, for example, if the Arab-Israeli peace process fails to advance and in particular were
the situation to return to the level of conflict that preceded the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement, the intensity
of the conflict could reinforce the potential for errors of perception among decision-makers. A high level of
conflict tends to promote the tendency of decision-makers to view the other side’s actions with great concern.
Middle Eastern war goes nuclear

Steinbach`2 (John Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO
PEACE, March 2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war.
Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire
missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would
now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is
gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has
long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose
of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super
sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no
longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate
disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear
weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if
not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its
weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening
Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."
Civil wars in the Middle East go nuclear

Blank`1(Stephen Blank, professor, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, WORLD & I, February 2001, p. 118)
After seven or more years of America's best efforts, we now should see with whom we are dealing and the
multiple fronts of the real Middle East war. In today's Middle East, every form of conflict along the
spectrum from rock throwing to nuclear war can take place. Governments there have long since used
weapons of mass destruction in other states' civil wars. Further opportunities to start these civil wars
or use such weapons must be firmly deterred and discouraged. Rather than choose peace and democracy,
Arafat and his allies have chosen war and hatred. Israel and the United States should act together to make
sure that they never get to make another similar choice.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Civil War (1/2)

An early withdrawal causes internal instability, because of a lack of enforcement-Air support key
to solve
Cole`5 (Juan, President of the Global Americana Institute, Consensus Growing in Iraq for a Withdrawal Timetable, January 20,
2005, http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/consensus-growing-in-iraq-for.html)
One con is that a precipitous withdrawal of coalition troops could lead to the total breakdown of
security and give the guerrilla insurgents the run of Iraq. This sort of factor has stood in the way of
previous US bids to begin drawing down the number of troops. Another con is that in colonial situations
setting a firm deadline for withdrawal beforehand can be disastrous. The imperial power becomes a
lame duck. Why should anyone care if they are arrested if they know the arresting officers will be gone
in 6 months? Plus, such deadlines can encourage massive communal violence as ethnic groups jockey
to take over as the imperial power departs. The British in India announced a deadline for August of
1947, and helped provoke the Partition of the country into Indian and Pakistan, an event that led to
population displacements and rioting that cost between half a million and a million lives. Likewise, the
May, 1948, deadline the British set for withdrawal from Palestine led to the outbreak of the 1948 War and the
expulsion of nearly a million Palestinians from their own country. One solution to this latter problem
might be to set a timetable for withdrawal of Coalition land forces, but for the US and its allies to
continue to offer the new Iraqi government's army close air support in any battles with the neo-Baathists
and jihadis that might try to take advantage of the withdrawal to make a coup and institute a
bloodbath.
Failure in Iraq leads to Iraqi civil war and Middle Eastern instability
Yaukey`5 (John, National Comisson on Energy Policy, Iraq pullout would have resounding impact,
ttp://www.energycommission.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/2442/pid/501/cat_id/1294, July 6, 2005)
President Bush has been trying to rally war-weary Americans by pounding home the message that staying the
course in Iraq is strategically and morally necessary. On the flip side of that argument are the
considerable costs of failure. In interviews and panel discussions, experts in military strategy, foreign
policy, energy markets and national security overwhelmingly conclude that failure in Iraq — either
because of U.S. mistakes or a loss of will to stay — would have far-reaching effects on Americans. It
wouldn't take long, they say, for the shock wave from a faltering Iraq to rumble through U.S. living
rooms. Oil prices would skyrocket, Islamic extremists and terrorists would rejoice in a historic victory,
and Americans would face a new world of security threats while morale among U.S troops likely would
sink. "Let me remind you that Iraq is centered in an area with 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves
and 40 percent of its gas," Anthony Cordesman, author of "Iraq's Evolving Insurgency," said. "In very
narrow, selfish strategic terms, what happens in Iraq will affect the global economy, our economy and every
job in this country for years to come." CIVIL WAR If the U.S. were to lose its resolve in Iraq and pull out
early, civil war is a real possibility. But what would happen in such a conflict? Iraqis fighting each
other — much like they are now? Much worse, experts say. A civil war would split Iraq along ethnic,
tribal and religious lines. That could draw in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Jordan,
turning the Middle East into a sectarian battleground between Shiites and Sunni Arabs. Whatever
number of U.S. troops remained in Iraq would be faced with a collapsing house of cards and possibly wider
regional tensions to contend with. "If there were an ethnic cleansing fight for Baghdad, you could have
some outside intervention," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution who has
closely studied the Iraq war. A key test of U.S. resolve for staying the course in Iraq could come as early as
this summer as the Iraqis try to write a constitution under the daily threat of what is often sectarian violence.
If the constitutional process bogs down in debate, or worse, "it will serve as a great stage on which to launch
sectarian violence," said Thomas Sanderson, deputy director of the Transnational Threats Initiative at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Civil War (2/2)

A failed Iraq pullout would cause a civil war, spilling over into greater regional instability
Feldman 5 (Noah Feldman is an expert on Islam and democracy and a former constitutional adviser in Baghdad. “Feldman: U.S. Must Not
Leave Iraq Before Security Is Ensured, Hopes Sunni Political Involvement May Reduce Insurgency”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9107/feldman.html)
I was on Capitol Hill about a month ago and noticed that. One of the problems that always dogs U.S. foreign policy is the argument
we’re too short term in our orientation to complete substantial projects; that because of the election cycle that is brewing right now, we
have a short-term view of foreign policy instead of a long-term view. And it’s crucial if we’re going to undertake foreign-policy projects
with any kind of ambition that we be able to maintain commitment to projects that we’ve begun. Now you may think the Iraq
war was a terrible idea, a lot of people on Congress do. Even if that were the case, it doesn’t follow that the
United States can, consistent with its own interests or values, walk away from a place like Iraq. So, it’s
all well and good to want to have a strategy to reduce the number of troops—obviously everyone wants that,
myself included—but that has to come via the creation of a relatively stable situation in Iraq where
peacekeeping troops from other countries can be brought in and our own troops could be reduced in
numbers. Until there is that kind of stability and security in Iraq, until the Iraqi military is capable of
defending itself and defending the country, until there is a police force that is capable of policing and
keeping the peace, the United States really can’t, again consistent with its interests and values, simply say we made
a mistake in Iraq, too bad, now we’re going home. The costs locally will be a civil war; the civil war
will spill over regionally, a lot of people will die, and it will be our fault for having taken a half-measure, not a full-
measure. That’s not acceptable with respect to the prestige of the United States in the world, our capacity to get things done, and it’s
certainly not acceptable from an ethical perspective because we were the ones who went into Iraq by choice; we did not have to go into
Iraq and we did it, and we didn’t have to depose Saddam but we did it. So now we have a responsibility, a deep responsibility to the
people in Iraq.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy

Failure in Iraq kills democracy
Yaukey`5 (John, National Comisson on Energy Policy, Iraq pullout would have resounding impact,
ttp://www.energycommission.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/2442/pid/501/cat_id/1294, July 6, 2005)
Failure in Iraq, either by leaving too early or by losing control of the country, would embolden warring
Muslim radicals across the Middle East and confirm what Osama bin Laden has preached: The United
States doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight. The idea of Arab democracy would collapse with
American credibility, experts say. Americans would face a host of new security threats. "A lot of the
military recovery under (the first President) Bush and Reagan and Desert Storm — a lot of that would
be lost," Brookings' O'Hanlon said. "If we lose in Iraq and you look back several decades, you'd see
more defeats than victories — Somalia, Beirut, Vietnam."
Iraq is key to global democracy
Feldman 5 (Noah Feldman is an expert on Islam and democracy and a former constitutional adviser in Baghdad. “Feldman: U.S. Must Not
Leave Iraq Before Security Is Ensured, Hopes Sunni Political Involvement May Reduce Insurgency”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9107/feldman.html)
I think that it will be still too soon to speak of at the broader level. I think though that the production
of democratic
institutions that succeed is a very slow, piece-meal affair, it’s not achieved overnight, and it’s not
achieved just by getting rid of undemocratic governments; nor is it achieved by just one or two
elections. But each election inIraqthat garners significant participation and each move away from
violence—which we have not yet seen in Iraq at all, but if we did see significant movement away from it—would be
meaningful. Each move in that direction is a step toward the possibility of the production of some reasonably democratic, reasonably
stable state. And I think it’s a huge mistake to think any one milestone is going to tell us that we’re there. It’s going to take years. We’ll
know if we’re not there if the violence continues. Meanwhile, other countries in the region are watching very closely
what’s going on in Iraq and they’re wondering whether democratization is a viable strategy or whether the
dangers of democratization, specifically in the form of radical instability, are worth the risk. So, if Iraq can begin to stabilize,
that will be a lesson to democratizing individuals or governments that maybe democracy is not the end
of the world, that you can have effective and functioning democracy in the region. But, if violence in Iraq
continues, and even as elections go on, the message will be that you might be able to have a democracy, but it comes at such a degree of
instability and loss of life and violence that it’s not worth taking the chance of democratizing. So, over the next five years, what
happens in Iraq will be hugely significant for the twenty-five-year process of seeing whether
democracy is going to take root in the Middle East. I certainly continue to believe broader democratization is possible,
but it has to be democratization that shows ordinary people that there’s something in it for them. And most ordinary people are not going
to want democracy if it comes with an increased degree of violence in their daily lives.
Democracy in Iraq is key to middle east peace/democracy
Phillips 2 (David L. Phillips is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations,
July 25, 2002, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4685/in_iraq_taking_steps_on_a_road_to_democracy.html)
Re "Is Fighting Iraq Worth the Risks?," by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Philip H. Gordon (Op-Ed, July 25): During my visit this month to
northern Iraq, I met with a group of lawyers and jurists who are preparing a package of political principles to guide the country's
democratic development. They are working hard on constitutional models to establish a federal democratic republic in Iraq, and
developing power-sharing arrangements between Iraq's ethnic and religious communities. The United States would not be
solely responsible for establishing a new government in Baghdad. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has the
means to pay for reconstruction and to subsidize an internationally supervised transitional authority.
In addition, opposition leaders are ready and willing to help. Regime change has rewards, not only risks. A
pro-Western government in Baghdad would advance the Middle East peace process; encourage
democracy in front-line states; and provide a reliable energy supply to fuel America's economic recovery.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – NW

Democracy prevents nuclear warfare, ecosystem collapse, and extinction
Diamond 95 (Larry Diamond, a professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and democracy, “Promoting
Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives: a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict”,
December 1995, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs
intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with
authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global
ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are
associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – Terrorism

Oppressive governments are the root cause of terrorism – democratic reform solves
Terrorism and immigration pressures also commonly have their origins in political exclusion, social injustice,
and bad, abusive, or tyrannical governance. Overwhelmingly, the sponsors of international terrorism are
among the world's most authoritarian regimes: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan. And locally within countries, the agents of
terrorism tend to be either the fanatics of antidemocratic, ideological movements or aggrieved ethnic and
regional minorities who have felt themselves socially marginalized and politically excluded and insecure: Sri
Lanka's Tamils, Turkey's Kurds, India's Sikhs and Kashmiris. To be sure, democracies must vigorously mobilize their legitimate
instruments of law enforcement to counter this growing threat to their security. But a more fundamental and
enduring assault on international terrorism requires political change to bring down zealous, paranoiac
dictatorships and to allow aggrieved groups in all countries to pursue their interests through open, peaceful,
and constitutional means.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – War etc.

Democratic governance is key to international stability – prevents terrorism, genocide, and
environmental destruction
The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do
not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or
glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are
much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do
not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more
reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for
investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who
organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties
since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach
agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property
rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of
international security and prosperity can be built.
CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Air Force key [1/3]

Effective air force is key to success during and after a pullout
Sirak`6 (Michael, April 14, 2006 FridayAir Force Chief Sees U.S. Airpower Supporting Iraq For a 'Long Time', Lexis)
The U.S. Air Force will continue to be a presence in Iraq even after the withdrawal of major portions
of U.S. and coalition land forces from there, the service's top military official said yesterday. "I believe that
the air component will be there a long time," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley told reporters
at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington, D.C. Exactly how long is difficult to say, he said. "In a
way, you have asked an unanswerable question," he said to the reporter who raised the issue. But he equated
the potential duration of the Air Force's presence in the region after the pullout of major ground forces
to the decade-long mission that the Air Force and coalition aircraft carried out in enforcing the United
Nations-imposed No- Fly Zones after the 1990-91 Gulf War. "As the Iraqi forces become much more
capable and we are able to reduce our footprint of land component activities, I don't see the air component
coming out of there quick[ly]," he said. Moseley said Air Force aircraft will continue to be needed in
Iraq to haul cargo and personnel, serve as eyes and ears in the sky in the search for anti-coalition
insurgents, and to carry out attacks on time-sensitive targets. He said these platforms will also support
the fledgling Iraqi Air Force. The latter stood up its first operational location in March at the New Al
Muthana Air Base outside of Baghdad and has three C-130E medium transport aircraft and a variety of
smaller airplanes. Moseley said the Air Force intends to reduce the number of bases that it maintains in the
region to support activities in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. "I see that number coming down," he said.
Currently there are 18 bases. Moseley said the Air Force is not sure yet how many locations will be phased
out. The Air Force presence in the region is also important to continue the training with allies in the
region, such as the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and conduct joint exercises with them, he
said. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, operates the Gulf Air Warfare Center at Al Dhafra Air
Base that provides opportunities for joint activities, he noted. "Remember, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar,
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all operate U.S. [aircraft] systems," he said. "So we have pilots..and maintainers
who are embedded in those squadrons. I see a continuing dialogue and interface with those countries as
well."
The Air Force is key to success in Iraq-They’re doing more jobs than normal, and the Iraqi
Air Force sucks
AP`6 (Associated Press, Air Force's Role Changing in Iraq January 3, 2006,
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,84287,00.html)
The main aerial hub for the war in Iraq has 1,500 airmen doing convoy operations in Iraq and 1,000
working with detainees, training Iraqis and performing other activities not usually associated with the
Air Force, said Col. Tim Hale, commander of the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing. "Every one of us has
learned that we are in a nontraditional state in our armed forces," he said, standing outside an auditorium
at an air base in Kuwait. The dangers of the new roles were highlighted when the expeditionary wing lost its
first female member in the line of duty in Iraq. Airman 1st Class Elizabeth Jacobson, 21, was killed in a
roadside bombing while providing convoy security in September near the U.S. detention center at Camp
Bucca in southern Iraq. "More and more Air Force are doing Army jobs," said Senior Master Sgt. Matt
Rossoni, 46, of San Francisco. "It's nothing bad about the Army. They're just tapped out." Air Force security
forces are traditionally associated with base defense. But Chief Master Sgt. Tom McDaniel, 41, of
Winston-Salem, N.C., said his squadron is happy to provide security for patrols and to deliver supplies. "It's
all about getting the mission done," he said. "These are different roles we find ourselves in . ... This is
probably the forefront of things to come." The Navy is seeing the same trend, using its fighter aircraft to
escort convoys and protect oil infrastructure and sending sailors in boats to contact fishermen from Saudi
Arabia and even Iran for tips on terror suspects. "In the last three or four years we've done a lot more of that,"
Rear Adm. James A. Winnefeld, commander of Carrier Strike Group 2, said aboard the USS Theodore
Roosevelt. The Air Force also is keeping up with its traditional duties. In November, the 386th Air
Expeditionary Wing delivered its 1 millionth passenger to Iraq since October 2003, Hale told service
members gathered Monday for a holiday concert with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter
Pace. Those missions included transporting troops, casualties and cargo flights. The Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps flew thousands of missions in support of U.S. ground troops in Iraq this fall, including
attacks by unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, military records show. American
and allied refueling, transport and surveillance planes also are in the air. Airstrikes have been largely
in areas where the insurgency is strongest, like Balad, Ramadi and in the vicinity of Baghdad, according to
the U.S. Central Command. At least 2,179 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started
in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. Brig. Gen. Allen G. Peck, deputy commander of
American air forces in the Middle East, said that while the U.S. has been focusing on training Iraqi ground
forces, it also is helping Iraqis improve their air force, giving them training and C-130 cargo planes. The
Iraqis have about 50 aircraft and some 700 people trained in the air force, among some 180,000 security
forces overall, he said at an air base near Qatar. "It's relatively small right now, but it's getting bigger," he
said. Peck said the near-term focus was training in maintenance, reconnaissance, transport and
counterinsurgency tactics, but the Iraqis also should eventually become capable of defending their own air
space. "It's not a matter of months, but a matter of years," he said. "We're moving in the right direction."
Air Force is key to keeping Iraq from falling into shambles-It’s key to surveillance and
security and the Iraqi air force won’t solve
Hanley`7 (Charles J., Air Force Quietly Building Iraq Presence, July 15, 2007,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/15/2547/)
The demand for air support is heavy. On one recent day, at a briefing attended by a reporter, it was noted
that 48 requests for air support were filled, but 16 went unmet. “There are times when the Army wishes we
had more jets,” said F-16C pilot Lt. Col. Steve Williams, commander of the 13th Expeditionary Fighter
Squadron, a component of Balad’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. In addition, the Air Force is performing
more “ISR” work in Iraq - intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. “We have probably come close
to doubling our ISR platforms the past 12 months,” said Col. Gary Crowder, a deputy air operations chief for
the Central Command. Those proliferating reconnaissance platforms include Predator drones, high-
flying U2s and AWACS, the technology-packed airborne warning and control aircraft, three of which
returned to the Persian Gulf in April after three years’ absence. The F-16Cs and other attack planes also
do surveillance work with their targeting cameras, keeping watch on convoy routes, for example. By Oct. 1,
Crowder said, all squadrons will have “ROVER” capability, able to download real-time aerial video to the
laptop computers of troops on the ground - showing them, in effect, what’s around the next corner. “They
love it. It’s like having a security camera wherever you want it,” said Col. Joe Guastella, the Air Force’s
regional operations chief. Air Force engineers, meanwhile, are improving this centrally located home base,
which supports some 10,000 air operations per week. The weaker of Balad’s two 11,000-foot runways was
reinforced - for five to seven years’ more hard use. The engineers next will build concrete “overruns” at the
runways’ ends. Balad’s strategic ramp, the concrete parking lot for its biggest planes, was expanded last fall.
The air traffic control system is to be upgraded again with the latest technology. “We’d like to get it to be a
field like Langley, if you will,” said mission support chief Reynolds, referring to the Air Force showcase base
in Virginia. The Air Force has flown over Iraq for many years, having enforced “no-fly zones” with the
Navy in 1991-2003, banning Iraqi aircraft from northern and southern areas of this country. Today,
too, it takes a long view: Many expect the Army to draw down its Iraq forces by 2009, but the Air
Force is planning for a continued conflict in which it supports Iraqi troops. “Until we can determine
that the Iraqis have got their air force to sufficient capability, I think the coalition will be here to
support that effort,” Lt. Gen. Gary North, overall regional air commander, said in an interview. The new
Iraqi air force thus far fields only a handful of transports and reconnaissance aircraft - no attack
planes.

Air power empirically solves sticky withdrawals, and will prevent civil war
Weinberg`5 (Bill, Juan Cole weighs in on Iraq withdrawal, From Iraq scholar Juan Cole's Informed Comment website
8/28/2005 http://ww4report.com/node/1000)
So those who want the troops out also do have a point. So here is what I would suggest as a responsible
stance toward Iraq. Others, including Iraqi politicians, have already suggested most of these things,
but I think the below hang together and could avert a tragedy while allowing us to get out. 1) US
ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to
do the policing. We are no good at it. If local militias take over, that is the Iraqi government's problem. The
prime minister will have to either compromise with the militia leaders or send in other Iraqi militias to take
them on. Who runs Iraqi cities can no longer be a primary concern of the US military. Our troops are
warriors, not traffic cops. 2) In the second phase of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily
be brought out of Iraq. 3) For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the
new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other
rebellious forces. (I.e. we would replicate our tactics in Afghanistan of providing the air force for the
Northern Alliance infantry and cavalry.) I concede that this tactic will get some US Blackhawks shot
down from time to time, and won't be painless. But it could prevent the outbreak of fullscale war. This
way of proceeding, which was opened up by the Afghanistan War of 2001-2002, and which depends on smart
weapons and having allies on the ground, is the major difference between today and the Vietnam era, when
dumb bombs (and even carpet bombing) couldn't have been deployed effectively to ensure the enemy did not
take or hold substantial territory. [I am not advocating bombing civilian neighborhoods of cities; I am talking
about intervening in set-piece battles of the sort that will become possible in the absence of US ground
troops.] 4) With the agreement of the elected Iraqi government, the US would prevent any guerrilla force
from fielding any large number of fighters for set piece battles. Such large units of militiamen
attempting to march from Anbar on Baghdad, e.g., would be destroyed by AC-130s and other US air
weaponry suitable to this purpose. This tactic cannot prevent the current campaign of car bombings, but it
can stop a full-scale Lebanon or Afghanistan-style civil war from erupting.
Air support is a crucial part of a successful withdrawal-Someone has to protect the

remaining troops
Wood`7 (David, Baltimore Sun Reporter, The long, hard haul from Iraq Withdrawal of troops, supplies could take at least 20
months, officials say, July 15, 2007, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-te.withdraw15jul15,0,1684709,full.story)
Apart from politics, the beginning of a withdrawal may be triggered then when many of the combat
brigades in Iraq are scheduled to be rotated home, since the Army says it will have difficulty finding
fresh units to replace them. Already, six National Guard ground combat brigades are set to deploy to Iraq
next spring; to sustain current levels, even more active or Guard units would have to be pressed into service -
called up in a presidential election year. For that reason, and for the sake of stability in the region, many in
Washington favor a phased troop withdrawal. One idea gaining ground is to withdraw all "combat
forces" and reassign the remaining troops to fighting insurgents and training and advising Iraq's
forces. But those missions would require almost as many troops as there are in Iraq today, officers said,
and would hardly remove Americans from the fight. Those who remained would still require the full
spectrum of support: food, housing, medical care, intelligence support and the air cover provided by
U.S. strike fighters. As they do now for resupply, all would depend on dozens of daily truck convoys,
which themselves require ground troops and air support for protection. Some officers here worry about
the ripple effects a limited withdrawal could start. "You start pulling the string," said one senior officer
who asked not to be identified, "and things start to unravel."
***Air Pollution Adv***

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves General (1/2)

CTL massively reduces air pollution
Chemical & Engineering News 6 (1-16)

"The principal environmental benefits associated with coal gasification are significantly lower air pollution
emissions in the short term," Ferguson said, "and more cost-efficient carbon dioxide capture and
sequestration in the long term." Because coal gasification is a chemical process, it is possible to remove the
sources of many air pollutants-including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and particulate matter-
before combustion, he explained, when it is much easier and thus less expensive to do so.
More ev…and it doesn’t produce more lifecycle CO2
USA Today 7 (6-19)

Coal-to-liquid fuel is clean. Government tests show that when emissions are measured against the life cycle
of other fuels, coal-to-liquid fuel produces no more, and possibly less, greenhouse gas than the fuel it will
replace. Coal-to-liquid fuel also emits far less harmful pollutants known to have health effects -- such as
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates -- regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
More evidence…

In addition to these conclusions, other environmental benefits of the combination of coal and biomass
conversion to synthetic fuels using the gasification / Fischer-Tropsch process include significantly reduced
emissions of sulfur and other acid rain and ozone pollutant precursors and complete control of mercury and
other toxic metal emissions.
More ev…
Hydrocarbon Processing 7 (Mar, p.23)

A new report researched by Energy Business Reports examines how coal liquefaction offers environmental
benefits, cost savings and energy security. Road trials of coal-based fuels have shown that significant local air
quality improvements can be achieved through the reduction of tailpipe emissions. Some studies suggest
particulate emissions can be up to 75% less than with traditional diesel, and NOx can be reduced up to 60%.
Optimizing new engines for these fuels will offer even greater reductions, particularly of NOx, according to
this analysis. New engine design, such as direct injection, will offer yet greater efficiencies.
More ev…

But the benefits of Rentech’s fuels are not limited to CO2. Rentech fuels will be the cleanest liquid
transportation fuels available. F-T diesel and jet fuel are pure paraffinic hydrocarbons. This means that they
inherently contain essentially no sulfur and aromatics, two fuel components that have long been the focus of
federal and state environmental protection policies. The fuels are clear, non-toxic, biodegradable and
completely fungible with current fuels and fuel transportation infrastructure. This means that no changes are
needed to fuel distribution pipelines or engines to use F-T diesel and jet fuel.
More ev…

Indirect coal liquefaction fuels derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process, in particular, contain substantially
no sulfur and also exhibit lower particulate and carbon monoxide emissions. These fuels also contribute less
to the formation of nitrogen oxides than petroleum derived fuels and they are readily biodegradable.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves General (2/2)

CTL reduces air pollutioni
Geiselman 6 (Bruce; Waste News, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; October 23, Pg. 26, Lexis)
it with cleaner-burning, domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Air Force already has large numbers of
cars running on alternative fuels, but now it wants to find alternative fuel sources for its aircraft. A B-52 bomber
containing a blend of synthetic and regular jet fuel took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California on Sept. 19, marking the first time the
U.S. military has attempted to fly a plane with nontraditional fuel. ``This test flight sets the stage for a more comprehensive
plan the Air Force has toward conservation,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Ronald Sega, a former test pilot who
flew with crew members aboard the plane. ``This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long
process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels.'' The plane appeared to function normally using a
liquid fuel produced from natural gas by Syntroleum Corp., of Tulsa, Okla., according to company and Air
Force officials. Particularly appealing to the Air Force is the fact that domestically produced coal, available in
abundant supplies in the United States, could also be used to produce the fuel. ``The feedstock for this process
could include natural gas or it could be coal or oil shale,'' Sega said. ``The United States has significant
reserves in coal and oil shale, something on the order of 2 trillion barrel equivalents.'' Using a domestically
produced fuel would make the Air Force less vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies. Also appealing
are the environmental characteristics of the fuel. The Air Force initially tested a blend of synthetic fuel with 50
percent normal jet fuel. However, tests have revealed that jet engines burning pure synthetic fuel produce about
90 percent less particulate matter and soot emissions, which also improves engine performance. ``This test is a
significant milestone for Syntroleum and is a result of more than four years of research and development
efforts with the DOD,'' said Jack Holmes, company president and CEO.
More ev…
Energy Business Reports 7 (2-5, http://energybusinessdaily.com/?s=liquefaction)

What’s more, road trials of coal-based fuels have shown that significant air quality improvements can be
achieved through the reduction of tailpipe emissions. Some studies suggest particulate emissions may be up
to 75% less than with traditional diesel, and oxides of nitrogen may be reduced by up to 60%. Improved
engine designs, such as direct injection, will offer yet greater efficiencies. That’s good news for global
warming, and good news for President Bush’s aggressive fuel use reduction plan.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves Airlines

CTL solves air pollution from commercial aircraft

of fuel.
( ) Aircraft are the major source of air pollution.

Holzman 97 (David, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 105, Number 12, December, http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html)
In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of VOCs and NO x during landing and takeoff cycles, more than
double 1970 levels, according to the NRDC report. These two classes of compounds are precursors of ground-
level ozone, which can interfere with lung function. "During the summer . . . between 10% and 20% of all East
Coast hospital admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," says the NRDC report.
Airports are among the greatest sources of local air pollution. A major airport's idling and taxiing planes can
emit hundreds of tons of VOCs and NO x annually. John F. Kennedy International Airport is the second largest
source of VOCs in New York City. LaGuardia is among the major sources of NO x .
( ) More ev.
Goran 82 (Morris Herbert, Author of Environmental Design & Research Ctr,
http://books.google.com/books?id=MWhPTuIv4R0C&dq=%22airplane%22+pollution&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0)
The exhaust from a commercial jet airplane is equivalent to that from ten thousand automobiles. In 1968 the
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District made some preliminary studies of jet engine pollution. They
found that about one-fifth of the particulate matter in their atmosphere could be traced to the aircraft; about
one-fifth of the hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides could be assigned to jet engine emission.
In November, 1970, the National Air Pollution Control Administration asked airlines to stop dumping jet fuel
into the air after takeoff. The material discarded is a residue that seeps into holding tanks when jet engines
are stopped and these tanks are emptied automatically within minutes after the next takeoff. About two
million gallons of fuel are so disposes of every year.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – US Key to World

( ) U.S. spreads pollution to other areas – mercury polices with Europe proves.
Watson 5 (Traci, Staff Writer for USA Today, March 14, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm)
Despite the influx of dirty air from abroad, the bulk of USA's air pollution comes from U.S. tailpipes and
smokestacks. So scientists such as Jaffe say cleaning up domestic emissions is still the most important step the
United States can take to clean up its air. Europeans probably would approve of that advice, because air
pollution from the USA crosses the Atlantic to choke the Old World. In 2001, for example, a cloud of fumes
from the eastern USA traveled far enough to cause high levels of ozone in the Alps, according to a study in the
January issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. Aware that it gives as well as gets air pollution, the
United States has taken steps to address the two-way flow. In 2000, Canada and the United States signed a
treaty requiring both nations to reduce ozone-forming gases. Air-quality managers from El Paso, and Juarez,
Mexico, work on how to control ozone and particle pollution that crosses the border both ways. But at talks in
the past year, the U.S. government opposed a stringent treaty to control mercury, which is emitted by coal-
burning power plants and factories. Several European countries support mandatory mercury limits. The
United States argued instead for technical aid to teach countries how to control their mercury emissions. As
for the national parks, Bachmann says the United States wants "to work with the international community"
to clean up pollution. But no global binding treaties are in the works. That will have to change, some scientists
say. The recent research "really points to the need for global cooperation," Jaffe says. "It's only one planet,
and we've got to learn to live on it."
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine (1/3)

( ) Air pollution alters precipitation patterns resulting in wide-spread famine.
CBC 2 (CBC News, July 22, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html)
Air pollution from Europe and North America may have helped set the scene for a devastating African famine
that killed at least 1 million people. The 1970-85 drought that stretched through the Africa's Sahel region from
Senegal to Ethiopia may have been worsened by tiny particles called aerosols from the industrial world,
Canadian and Australian scientists say. Sulphur dioxide aerosols from coal burning seem to contribute to
drought by altering cloud formations. The researchers said the particles remain suspended in the clouds
instead of falling as rain, and the heavier clouds reflected more of the sun's energy back to space.
Canadian pollution could contribute to famines in Africa The aerosols add to conventional causes of drought,
such as the overuse of land and natural atmospheric changes. Model match Researchers used a computer to
simulate atmospheric conditions first with, and then without the sulphur dioxide aerosols. They found the
aerosol model matched the shift in precipitation that occurred during the drought. What's more, the rains
happened to return at the same time clean air acts kicked in throughout Europe and North America. During
the late 1970s and 1980s, industrial countries began reducing sulphur dioxide pollution to limit acid rain. The
cleanup "goes hand-in-hand with the increase in precipitation in the Sahel," said Prof. Ulrike Lohmann of the
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax. The study by Lohmann and
atmospheric scientist Leon Rotstayn of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in
Australia will be published in the August issue of the Journal of Climate.
( ) The dimming caused by severe air pollution caused the death of millions of people and
afflicted 50 million more with starvation,
BBC 5 ( News, Horizon Documentary on Global Dimming, January 15,
http://www.innovatieplatformnoordnederland.nl/cms/content.asp?contentId=247&catid=77)
The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive. Climatologists studying
this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a
result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern
Africa. In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never
quite understood why they had failed. The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the
documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations
from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50
million more” with hunger and starvation.

( ) Air pollution caused a 50% precipitation reduction in the Sahel region, resulting in 1.2
million deaths and millions more starved.
Verrengia 2 (Joseph B., Staff Writer for the Associated Press, July 21, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm)
Nearly two decades after one of the world's most devastating famines in Africa, scientists are pointing a finger
at pollution from industrial nations as one of the possible causes. The starvation brought on by the 1970-85
drought that stretched from Senegal to Ethiopia captured the world's attention with searing images: skeletal
mothers staring vacantly, children with bloated bellies lying in the sand, vultures lurking nearby. Before rains
finally returned, 1.2 million people had died. Now, a group of scientists in Australia and Canada say that
drought may have been triggered by tiny particles of sulfur dioxide spewed by factories and power plants
thousands of miles away in North America, Europe and Asia. The short-lived pollution particles, known as
aerosols, didn't have to travel to Africa to do their dirty work. Instead, they were able to alter the physics of
cloud formation miles away and reduce rainfall in Africa as much as 50 percent, say the researchers, who used
a computer to simulate the atmospheric conditions.
( ) Emissions show a direct correlation of rainfall strengthening the Sahel theory – more
rainfall means less famine.
Verrengia 2 (Joseph B., Staff Writer for the Associated Press, July 21, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm)
The process, known as teleconnection, continues in the atmosphere today. Some scientists suspect it might
help explain the drought gripping parts of the United States, although that question has not been specifically
examined. And while pollution may affect the behavior of rain clouds, scientists stopped short of solely blaming
industry's effluent for the famine and starvation that wracked the region of Africa called the Sahel. "It's more subtle
than that," said atmospheric scientist Leon Rotstayn, lead author of the study on the subject. "The Sahelian drought
may be due to a combination of natural variability and atmospheric aerosols," said Rotstayn, of the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a government research agency in Australia. The
CSIRO study will be published in the August Journal of Climate. Over the years, the disastrous lack of rainfall over
the Sahel has been blamed on everything from overgrazing to El Nino. Many scientists still argue those are chief
culprits. One interesting clue: In the 1990s, rain returned to the Sahel. During the same period, emissions laws
in the industrialized West reduced aerosol pollution. A coincidence? Scientists don't think so. "Cleaner air in
the future will mean greater rainfall in the region," Rotstayn said. Some researchers say the CSIRO study is
intriguing, but that the computer simulation is too simple to solve the mystery by itself. "It is quite a plausible
argument," said atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan of Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

Air pollution leads to famine: Africa proves.
CBC News 2 (July 22, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html)

Air pollution from Europe and North America may have helped set the scene for a devastating African
famine that killed at least 1 million people.
The 1970-85 drought that stretched through the Africa's Sahel region from Senegal to Ethiopia may have been worsened by tiny particles
called aerosols from the industrial world, Canadian and Australian scientists say.
Sulphur dioxide aerosols from coal burning seem to contribute to drought by altering cloud
formations. The researchers said the particles remain suspended in the clouds instead of falling as rain,
and the heavier clouds reflected more of the sun's energy back to space.
The aerosols add to conventional causes of drought, such as the overuse of land and natural
atmospheric changes.
( ) Air pollution stops photosynthesis and poisons plants.

Plant Sciences 1 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3408000030.html)
Our industrial society produces large amounts of pollution. Sulfur dioxide is produced by the combustion of a
variety of high sulfur fuels, especially coal. Acid rain is produced from sulfur dioxide. Aluminum and glass
factories produce fluoride, a pollutant that can accumulate in plants. Ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate, both
produced in the presence of sunlight, nitrogen oxides, and VOCs, are major components of smog and together are
the most serious air pollution problem faced by plants. Pollution enters the plants through stomata, tiny pores
used by leaves for gas exchange. Yellow or brown coloration along leaf edges and veins are signs of pollution
damage. Cell membranes are destroyed and the biochemical reactions of photosynthesis are slowed or
stopped. Air pollution itself does not usually kill plants, but it can severely reduce crop yields and makes plants
more susceptible to diseases and insects. The damage created by pollution depends on the concentration of the
pollutant as well as on the duration of the pollution event. For example, long-term exposure to low pollution
levels may be less damaging than short, intense pollution events. Long-term processes such as acid rain,
though, can damage forests by changing soil acidity over many years. Plants vary greatly in their ability to
resist pollution. In some cases, plants are resistant to sulfur dioxide, but not to ozone. In Australia, radiata pines are
usually more resistant to sulfur dioxide than broadleaf eucalyptus trees. Yet in Sweden, broadleaf trees resist ozone
better than the conifers. There is also tremendous variation in ozone resistance within the Eucalyptus genus.
( ) Air pollution stops plant growth, diminishes health of plants, stops reproduction,a nd
slows their ability to heal.
VCAPD 6 (Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, http://www.vcapcd.org/health.htm)
Ground level ozone can have several environmental impacts: Ozone impairs the ability of plants to produce
and store food. This inhibits plant growth and reproduction and diminishes plant health, which in turn,
weakens the ability of plants to survive disease, insect attacks, and extreme weather. Ozone can reduce
agricultural yields and damage economically important crops - including soybeans, kidney beans, wheat and
cotton. In Ventura County, there are some crops that can no longer be grown due to ozone air pollution.
Ozone can have long term impacts on forests and ecosystems - including disruption of ecological functions
(such as water movement and mineral nutrient cycling) and adverse impacts on the natural habitat of plants
and animals.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine – O/W War

Systemic impacts of food security outweigh war.
Naylor and Falcon 5 (December 1, Rosamond and Walter, "Rethinking Food Security for the 21st Century,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5062778/Rethinking-food-
security-for-the.html)
Popular and academic discourses are awash in discussions of wars and uprisings around the world. Data from
numerous sources are in general agreement on the magnitude of deaths that have occurred during the past
two decades as a result of interstate and civil wars. The latter greatly exceed the former, and in many years there
were as many as thirty-five ongoing civil uprisings (Fearon and Laitin, Holloway and Stedman, COW). During the
1990s, approximately 1 million lives were lost annually in wars of all sorts (UN 2004). Two thirds of those killed
were civilians, with women and children more than proportionately represented (Smith). Although the AK-47
remained the weapon of choice, it is likely that more people were killed by machetes than bombs. About 60% of all
deaths were in Africa, and more than 25% were in Asia (Smith). More recently--between May 2003 and May 2005--
1,850 members of the coalition forces were killed in Iraq, as were at least ten times that many Iraqi soldiers and
civilians (ICCC). Grim as the conventional security data are, they pale in comparison to the food security
situation. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2004b) estimates that 5 million children die from
hunger-related causes per year. The World Health Organization and other sources put the total number of
hunger-related deaths at about 8 million annually (Hunger Project). This estimate has large error bars, which
arise from both definitional and empirical causes. What, for example, is the "cause" of death of a starving person,
caught in a civil war, who ends up in a refugee camp, and then dies of measles? Even if the official estimates are off
by 20%, several things are clear. Food insecurity deaths outnumber war deaths by a factor of at least 5 to 1. As
in the case of war casualties, food-related deaths are concentrated among civilians, especially women and
children. About 20,000 persons per day die globally as a result of food insecurity, the majority in Africa and
Asia. That number is approximately seven times the number killed in the 9/11 attacks--and it happens every
day. If forty fully loaded 747s were to crash on a daily basis, would the world take notice? And if the answer is
yes, why is media coverage and concern so much more ambivalent with respect to the comparable havoc
caused by hunger?
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Marine Species

Air pollutions causes ocean acidification which crushes marine ecosystems
WHOI 7 (Woods Hole Oceanic Institution, Acid Rain Has a Disproportionate Impact on Coastal Waters
Research Suggests Sulfur, Nitrogen Emissions Play a Role in Changing Chemistry Near the Coast, September 7, 2007,
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=9779&tid=282&cid=31286&ct=162)
The release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere by power plants and agricultural activities plays a
minor role in making the ocean more acidic on a global scale, but the impact is greatly amplified in the
shallower waters of the coastal ocean, according to new research by atmospheric and marine chemists.
Ocean “acidification” occurs when chemical compounds such as carbon dioxide, sulfur, or nitrogen
mix with seawater, a process which lowers the pH and reduces the storage of carbon. Ocean
acidification hampers the ability of marine organisms—such as sea urchins, corals, and certain types of
plankton—to harness calcium carbonate for making hard outer shells or “exoskeletons.” These
organisms provide essential food and habitat to other species, so their demise could affect entire ocean
ecosystems. The findings were published this week in the online “early edition” of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences; a printed version will be issued later this month. “Acid rain isn’t just a
problem of the land; it’s also affecting the ocean,” said Scott Doney, lead author of the study and a senior
scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI). “That effect is most pronounced near the coasts, which are already some of the
most heavily affected and vulnerable parts of the ocean due to pollution, over-fishing, and climate
change.” In addition to acidification, excess nitrogen inputs from the atmosphere promote increased
growth of phytoplankton and other marine plants which, in turn, may cause more frequent harmful
algal blooms and eutrophication (the creation of oxygen-depleted “dead zones”) in some parts of the
ocean.
( ) Air pollution will cause the next apocalypse – the world will run out of saltwater fish
unless pollution trends are reversed.
De Noon 6 (Daniel, CBS News Staff Writer, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml)
The apocalypse has a new date: 2048. That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an
international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing,
pollution, habitat loss, and climate change.The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss
of ocean species might mean to the world.The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to
these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise."I was shocked and disturbed by how
consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release."This isn't predicted to
happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory,
U.K., says in a news release."If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to
sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds.Already, 29% of
edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries.But
the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect
shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide."A large and increasing proportion
of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste
detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say.The researchers analyzed data from
32 experiments on different marine environments.They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions
around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas
in Europe.Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems.And finally, they looked at the recovery
of 48 protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of
ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the
healthiest. But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say.
Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and
the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower
insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more. "It's not too late. We
can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now."
Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Species

SO2 emissions poison the entire food chain, rippling to humans
MEIA 6 (Manitoba Enviromental Industrial Association, Prairies get first taste of acid rain, September 20, 2006,
http://www.meia.mb.ca/WeeklyFYIforSeptember252006.html)
Sulfur dioxide emissions from vehicles, smelter companies and pulp and paper mills are corroding soil, Pip
said, and causing irreversible damage to plants and organisms. Acid rain makes it easier for plant
species to absorb metals like lead, copper and mercury, and can make its way down the food chain
causing health effects in humans. Her research into vegetation in the Flin Flon area found tomatoes had
500 times the acceptable level of metals in food."You can see it really damages the trees and the basic
vegetation," she said. "They die and they're very important as builders of the soil." Acidic pollution is a
greater problem in Eastern Canada, but emissions there have been declining due to the Canada-U.S. Air
Quality Agreement of 1991. The agreement doesn't cover the West.
Air pollution results in chemical imbalances, threatening the ecosystem.
FOEN 8 (Federal Office for the Environment, Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communications,
http://www.bafu.admin.ch/luft/00575/00580/index.html?lang=en)
At elevated concentrations, air pollutants exert direct effects (both acute and chronic) on plants. High ozone
concentrations in the summer, for example, inflict visible damage on leaves and needles. More prolonged
high-level exposure to ozone results in reduced growth, which in agricultural crops can translate into lower
yields. But air pollutants are also transported over great distances and eventually deposited - in a wet or dry
form - in sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Inputs of sulphur and nitrogen, for example, give rise to
acidification not only of alpine mountain lakes and higher-altitude rivers, but also of forest floors at any
altitude. As a result of overfertilization, elevated nitrogen inputs also adversely affect a wide range of
nitrogen-sensitive ecosystems such as forests, species-rich natural pastures and dry grassland, alpine
heathland, raised bogs and fens. One example of what can happen when forests are overburdened with
nitrogen is that nitrogen may be leached from the forest floor (in the form of nitrate) into the groundwater.
Around two thirds of the nitrogen inputs currently affecting sensitive Swiss ecosystems are attributable to
ammonia released from agriculture, while approximately one third can be traced back to nitrogen oxides
from combustion processes.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer

Conventional jet fuel destroys the ozone layer
Levy 8 (Yeshayahou, Associate Professor, Mc Graw Hill’s Access Science, accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=20&questionID=5018)

Conventional aeronautical vehicles are driven by jet fuel, which is a form of high-grade kerosene. Fuel is
burned in the combustion chamber and releases its chemical energy as heat. All large airplanes are driven by jet
engines, and all medium- and large-size helicopters are driven by turbo-shaft engines, which are a different form of
jet engine. Hence, jet fuel combustion is the driving power for most aeronautical transportation. Space
propulsion systems are driven by multistage engines that, in the initial stages, are powered by heat released
from combustion of solid propellant (fuel). The solid propellant is composed of a hydrocarbon compound and
an oxidant. The fuel, a polymer, acts as a binder where the oxidant (in the form of particles) is embedded. The
propellant can be a hard solid (for example polyester, epoxy, or polystyrene), and it forms the solid propellant
when combined with the oxidant. There is also the option of a more elastic, soft, rubberlike material, based on polyethylene, polyurethane, or
polybutadiene, which is cast within the rocket engine cavity. Solid oxidants are mainly based on perchloric acid (HCLO4) and nitric acid (HNO3). In order to increase
the energy density of the fuel, small metal particles, mainly aluminum, can be added to the fuel. Large rockets such as those driving the space shuttles are also
powered by heat released through the combustion of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
Hence, all forms of aerospace propulsion are
powered by heat generated mainly from the chemical reaction between hydrocarbon fuel and oxygen. The
widespread use of air transportation requires very large quantities of jet fuel. As all combustion products
remain in the atmosphere, aerospace propulsion affects the globe by altering its gaseous composition.
Knowledge of the detailed combustion process inside the engine is very important in order to design efficient
engines and to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere. Hence, while analyzing the
chemical processes associated with aerospace propulsion, one should consider both the chemical reaction
within the combustion chamber of the jet engine (or rocket/missile) and the chemical interaction between the
combustion products and the atmosphere. Considering that airplane propulsion is the dominant type of aerospace propulsion, we
shall focus our attention on its chemical process. Jet fuel is classified as a fossil fuel and contains a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules (CxHy). In
fact, it is a homogenized mixture of hundreds of different molecules of predetermined chemical and physical characteristics. The critical
parameters of jet fuel are the calorific value which determines the amount of heat released during combustion, density, viscosity, naphthalene
content, flash point, boiling and freezing points, smoke point, sulfur content, thermal stability, as well as corrosivity, lubricity, electrical
conductivity, and more. Most of the hydrocarbons in jet fuel are members of the paraffin, naphthene, or aromatic classes, which are types of
hydrocarbon molecules with different structures and properties. The properties of jet fuels from different sources may vary slightly, because they
contain slightly different proportions of compounds from these three classes. The total aromatic content of Jet A and Jet A-1 is limited to 25%,
and total naphthalene content is limited to 3%. In order for the chemical reaction to occur in the combustion chamber of the jet engine, several
conditions have to be met. First, there should be a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules and air (oxygen) in the right proportions. Thus, fuel has to
be atomized to small droplets that will rapidly vaporize and mix with the surrounding air. Two additional conditions should also be met: a hot
environment and sufficient time for the reactance (fuel and oxygen) to remain within the hot environment. The latter conditions are met through
the incorporation of a stabilization flow region within the combustor (region with very low flow velocities), typically formed by internal swirling
of the flow. Given these three conditions, the hydrocarbon molecules and oxygen molecules will react and convert, through a series of
intermediate reactions to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The nitrogen in the air can, at first approximation, be considered as a
passive component. When the amount of oxygen is exactly that needed to burn all the fuel, the mixture is considered as stoichiometric and a
stable flame can be maintained. In such a case the heat released will raise the temperature of the combustion products to the highest possible
value. In the jet engine combustor configuration, where air is compressed before it is introduced to the combustor and its temperature is increased
by the compression, the temperature can be as high as 2300°C. Such high gas temperature is beyond the permissible operational condition of the
turbine (following the combustor), and therefore combustion gases are cooled downstream by mixing with additional air from the compressor.
Hence, the temperature at the inlet of the combustor is about 300-600°C (depending on the engine’s compressor), it rises quickly to above
2000°C, and it is cooled to about 1100-1300°C. The combustion regimes and the associated temperature profile within the combustor have a
direct effect on the pollutant emitted from the engine into the atmosphere. Jet engine manufacturers are trying hard to minimize pollutants,
however, all engines emit pollutants harmful to the environment, mainly NOx and unburned hydrocarbon (UHC). At ground level, the
engine produces nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, commonly termed NOx). The absolute amounts formed are
small and measured in parts per millions (ppm) - the portion of NOx within the exhaust gases. However, even
at such quantities, these oxides are harmful, and attempts are made to limit NOx to below a few tens of ppm.
The NOx results mainly from reaction between the air nitrogen and the oxygen. Its generation depends mainly on
the temperature, and it starts forming at above about 1500°C. At ground level, the NOx combines with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), especially on warm and sunny days, to create ozone smog. Ozone smog is a
highly reactive form of oxygen. It is corrosive and harmful to humans and plants. At high flight levels, NOx
has the potential to attack the atmospheric ozone (O3) layer and, hence, contributes to the depletion of the
ozone layer which protects the Earth from harmful solar UV radiation. This chemical reaction process is
expressed, in a simplified way, as a two-step process where ozone can be destroyed by nitric oxide and forms
nitric dioxide and oxygen. The resulting nitrogen dioxide breaks down into nitric oxide and thereby continues
destroying the ozone layer.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer – Survival

Ozone holes lead to disease and famine and represent a threat to human survival.
Tarasova 5 (March 2, Natalia, Russian Mendeleev University, http://www.owl.ru/eng/womplus/1997/ecol_e.htm)

Ozone hole is an atmospheric area with ozone concentration reduced by 10—15%. The hazard associated with ozone hole
comes from high levels of hard ultra-violet radiation coming through and reaching the surface
wherever the ozone layer has thinned. It badly affects human health and is harmful to other species as
well. The first surge of diseases associated with exposure to hard ultra-violet was observed in 80s in
Australia. Unlike aborigines, white Australians could not properly adapt to relatively high levels and fluctuation of radiation
intensity; two centuries are not enough for a population to adjust to new environments.
Ozone holes result even in harvested crops reduction! For example, one per cent decrease of ozone
concentration leads to 2% fall in output of barley, corn, cucumber, beans, etc. The reason is that, once
exposed to ultraviolet rays, plants stop growing and begin synthesizing protective chemical compounds
to compensate negative effects of exposure. All these plants had existed billion years before humans evolved. Actually, they
had existed before the ozone stratum formation completed. That is why they successfully adjust to changing levels of ultraviolet
radiation. And we lack such instruments.
Ozone holes are dangerous to the extent that in 70s military laboratories considered projects of ‘the
most clean’ mass weapon which would kill by destroying the ozone layer over target areas...
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Endocrine Disruption

( ) Air pollution interferes with the endocrine system, reducing sperm quality and making
conception impossible.
Nordqvist 5 (Christian, Staff Writer for Medical News Today, September, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/31212.php)
Scientists have found a link between exposure to air pollution and a reduction in the quality of sperm. You can
read about this study in the journal Human Reproduction. (Human Reproduction Journal) The researchers say the
damage is temporary. If you move away from the pollution your new sperm will be of better quality. However,
they found a clear link between exposure to high air pollution and sperm damage. IF YOU ARE MALE AND
WANT TO CONCEIVE, STAY AWAY FROM HIGH AIR POLLUTION. This study took place in the Czech
Republic in a town called Teplice. Teplice has high levels of air pollution during the winter months. 35 males
were monitored for 24 months. Scientists found that their sperm quality deteriorated during the winter and
improved significantly during the months when air pollution was low. Researchers say the pollution damages
the sperm's DNA - raising the risk of miscarriage and making conception less likely. The good news is that the
deterioration is temporary. As soon as the pollution levels go down, the quality of the new sperm goes up. It takes
three months to produce a new sperm. The following may help a man produce the best quality sperm possible: 1.
Stay away from high air pollution. 2. Eat healthily. 3. Do some exercise (avoid very intense exercise) 4. Quit
smoking. 5. Avoid heavy drinking of alcohol. 6. Avoid wearing very tight underpants. 7. Avoid situations where the
temperature around the testicles is too high. 8. Avoid marijuana.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen (1/2)

Air pollution kills lichen.
Kourik 8 (Robert, Author of Roots Demystified, March 29, http://robertkouriksgardenroots.blogspot.com/2008/03/tattletale-lichens.html)

In 1866, William Nylander, a Finnish naturalist, was the first to link the disappearance of lichens and air pollution. He noticed that some lichen species
present within Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, were missing in other parts of the city. He attributed these differences to air quality. Over the next thirty years,
fumes from coal-burning industrial furnaces gradually led to the eradication of the lichen population within the park. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), the result of
industrial and urban emissions, does
the most widespread damage to lower plants, even though it is only one of several air
pollution components in the atmosphere. Why are lichens sensitive to air pollution? Since lichens lack roots, surface
absorption of rainfall is the only means of obtaining vital nutrients which are dissolved in rainwater.
Lichens act like sponges, taking in everything that is dissolved in the rainwater, and retaining it. Since
there is no means of purging the SO2, the sulfur content accumulates within the lichen and reaches a
level where it breaks down the chlorophyll molecules which are responsible for photosynthesis in the
algae. When the photosynthetic process stops in the algae, the algae die and this leads to the death of
the fungus. Since it is known that different species of lichens vary in sensitivity to air pollution, scientists can use these organisms as monitors of air
pollution and as indicators of air quality. This is very useful because modern air quality instruments cannot measure the effects air pollution has on living
cells and they are limited to measuring present conditions.Most
importantly, the lack of lichens on fruit trees would be a
sure indicator that their orchard is not free from the harsh chemical sprays that harm and kill lichens. I
could readily tell that the air quality was fine in their backyard just by looking at what is growing on the bark of older trees. Take some time and look at the
bark of some of your older trees. Hopefully, a few scattered patches of gray or orange lichens can be seen growing on the bark. Near a city, there is an
obvious change in what is growing on tree trunks. Here there are areas where lichens don’t exist, such areas are termed "lichen deserts". As the air quality in
Lichens are sensitive to air pollution and
these lichens deserts improve, lichens will begin to reappear in a slow process of recovery.
have disappeared from many metropolitan and industrial areas over the last century. Lichens’
sensitivity to pollutants are actually used as biomonitors—like a green version of a canary in the coal
mine.. Lichens are valuable research tools and through the information they provide, we can have a better understanding of the impact
air pollution has on the environment.
( ) We win two internals to lichen extinction. First, air pollution and second is acid rain.
Hardman 3 (Staff Writer for Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Winter,
http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/winter2003/lichens.html)
Many living things depend on lichens for food, including spiders, caterpillars, moths, snails, and even some
mammals. Insects often use lichens for shelter, while local birds use lichens in nest-building. The hummingbird
and the blue-gray gnatcatcher line the outside of their nests with the foliose, or flaky and leaf-like, lichen Parmelia
sulcata. Humans have found uses for lichens as well. Native Americans have used lichens to make medicine
and dyes, and now ecologists are using lichens as indicators. Because many lichens are sensitive to air
pollution, they are effective natural monitors of air quality. Unfortunately, this sensitivity has led to their decline
in urban and industrial areas with high levels of air pollution. Additionally, because each species does best in a
specific set of conditions, ecologists can follow their population patterns to detect shifts and disturbances in
natural communities. Another threat to lichen health is acid rain. According to Hyerczyk, acid rain collects
inside a lichen and kills off the algae, causing the fungus to die as well.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen (2/2)

( ) Lichens are sensitive – high levels of pollution are absorbed by them which will poison
those who consume it.
Sharnoff and Rosentreter 98 (Stephen Sharnoff and Roger Rosentreter, Bureau of Land Management, http://www.lichen.com/fauna.html)
One disadvantage of eating lichens, particularly for human hunters who eat the meat of caribou and deer, is
that lichens absorb and accumulate radioactive fallout far more than vascular plants and pass them along in
the food chain. As Richardson and Young (1977) put it, "Liden (1961)...showed that reindeer meat contained
280 times the 137Cs level of beef produced in the same general area." In a study in Alaska (Viereck, 1964) it
was found that "Lichens have concentrations of strontium-90 and cesium-137 of from 10 to 100 times that of
most other plants from either temperate or northern regions...Caribou and reindeer have concentrations of
strontium-90 in meat and bones that are about 25- 30 times that found in meat in the average U.S. diet.
Cesium-137 levels are from 3-300 times that found in beef...Strontium-90 in bone in caribou-eating Alaskan
Eskimos is being laid down at about four times the rate of that of the average U.S. citizen...Inland Alaskan
Eskimos at Anaktuvuk in the summer of 1962 had whole body counts of cesium-137 ...approximately 50-100
times the concentration of cesium-137 in people of temperate latitudes." After the Chernobyl disaster many
reindeer in northern Europe had to be destroyed without their meat being consumed.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen: Keystone

( ) Lichens are critical to the ecosystem: 6 reasons.
Scott et al 97 (GAM, TJ Entswile, TW May, and GN Stevens, University of Otago, http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjb/1971/54.php)

1. Lichens play an important role in the water cycle of the ecosystem, and their loss can upset this
process; they are also important in nutrient cycling in some communities.
2. Where they occur on rock, lichens form a pioneer vegetation, creating soil by breaking down the
rock. Soil-crust lichens bind the topsoil and prevent erosion and so play an important role in the
ecology of semi-arid and arid lands. 3. Lichens are utilised by some birds and insects; e.g. birds collect
foliose and fruticose lichens to make or decorate their nests; some insects or their larvae cover
themselves with pieces of lichen or with the vegetative spores of lichens. Mites feed on lichens and some
gastropods include lichens in their diet. 4. Lichens produce a wide range of unique secondary
metabolites. In other countries these substances are being examined for new pharmaceuticals and
agrochemicals, as well as commercially valuable enzymes for use in biosensors, biotransformation
reactions and diagnostic kits. Recent work has identified compounds with marked anti-tumor
properties (terpenes), and anti-amoeba activity (fatty acids) and nematocidal activity.
5. Lichens can be used as environmental indicators for pollution monitoring around cities and factories
(e.g. G.N. Stevens & C. Scarlett, Gladstone Lichen Survey, unpublished report, Fisheries Dept, DPI,
Brisbane, 1980). Their potential has not been realised in Australia as yet because there are so few
lichenologists to carry out surveys using lichens as bioindicators.
( ) Lichen have multiple functions – plants are dependent upon their existence.
USFS 98 (United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/summary/gtr_385d.pdf)
The key ecological roles of lichens include contributing mass and nutrients to litter and duff, increasing
canopy and soil moistureholding capacity, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, serving as food for animals, and
acting as bioindicators for air quality. Some species are important to American Indians. The 736 lichen species
were divided into 40 functional groups based on ecological relations. The groups occur on four main substrates:
dead organic matter; corticate and decorticate wood; rock; and soil. Lichens are major components of native
rangelands and provide critical soil functions, but have been threatened by exotic grasses, increased fire
frequency, conversion of rangelands, and livestock trampling. Lichens are part of microbiotic crusts and are
susceptible to damage from livestock grazing and trampling. One lichen, Texosporium sancti-jacobi, is listed
as a Category 2 (C2) candidate species. Providing clumps of old trees and uneven-aged stands for their legacy
of lichens can improve conservation of lichens.
( ) Lichens are key to survival – provide vital means of hydration and insulation during
harsh conditions.
Sharnoff and Rosentreter 98 (Stephen Sharnoff and Roger Rosentreter, Bureau of Land Management, http://www.lichen.com/fauna.html)
Lichens are generally regarded as low in protein but high in carbohydrate, and this is true for the species
most sought after by caribou and deer. The fruticose Cladonia, Cladina, and Cetraria genera, and the arboreal Alectoria, Bryoria, and Usnea, all of
which are the favored forage of caribou, contain a rough average of 2% crude protein, not enough for a complete year-round diet for either caribou or deer. Most
researchers feel that a variety of other plants possessing a higher protein content is necessary for caribou,
although they apparently can sustain themselves for extended periods on lichens alone. Interestingly, some of the foliose
lichens, such as Peltigera spp. and Lobaria spp. have much more protein. Scotter (1964), found several species of Peltigera containing from 17% to 21% crude protein.
In spite of this, these foliose lichens are less preferred by caribou, presumably because other species are more important for their energy content. On the other hand
some reports suggest that mountain goats in some areas eat considerable quantities of Lobaria (Fox 1989). Scotter found that Stereocaulon, a genus whose palatability
to caribou he found to be moderate, had a fairly high protein content of 7.28%. Digestibility of lichens is considered by most researchers
to be high, although tests done with animals not used to eating them pointed to a very low digestibility. Hanley et. al (1989) found the in-vitro dry matter
digestibility (IVDMD) of Usnea and Alectoria to be 15-26%, but points out that among animals whose rumens contained microorganisms specifically adapted to
lichens the IVDMD was as high as 85.2%. Certainly, caribou (and many deer) in northern forests are used to eating lichens.
Lichens may be an important dietary supplement to deer in another way. Rochelle (1980) says, "Overall digestibilities of
mixtures increased beyond expected levels as increasing amounts of Alectoria sarmentosa were added, suggesting that presence of this highly
digestible species enhances the degree to which the entire diet is utilized." Apart from their food value, lichens
may be important as a source of free water during periods of cold temperatures. The arboreal lichens in the
genus Bryoria are dark-colored and therefore a good absorber of solar radiation. They probably provide
liquid for the northern flying squirrel and other animals (Thomas and Rosentreter, 1994.) Both birds and small
mammals who use lichens for nest building undoubtedly benefit from the lichens' insulating properties.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Health Harms

( ) Air pollution causes two million premature deaths every year – also a major cause of
respiratory illnesses and heart disease.
ENS 6 (Environmental News Service, October 6, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-06-01.asp)
Air pollution in cities across the world is causing some two million premature deaths every year, the World
Health Organization (WHO) said Thursday, urging nations to adopt stricter air pollution standards. The
international health agency's new air quality guidelines call for nations to reduce the impact of air pollution
by substantially cutting levels of particulate matter, ozone and sulfur dioxide. "By reducing air pollution
levels, we can help countries to reduce the global burden of disease from respiratory infections, heart disease,
and lung cancer which they otherwise would be facing," said Maria Neira, WHO director of public health and the
environment. "Moreover, action to reduce the direct impact of air pollution will also cut emissions of gases
which contribute to climate change and provide other health benefits." WHO cautioned that for some cities meeting the
targets would require cutting current pollution levels more than three fold. The organization noted that many countries don't have any air
pollution standards. Existing standards vary greatly, WHO said, and most fail to ensure sufficient protection of human health. Particulate
matter is the major concern, WHO said, and cutting this type of air pollution can produce the greatest health
benefits. Produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels, particulate matter has been increasingly linked to
respiratory illness and heart disease. Air pollution is a major concern for cities worldwide - none moreso than
China's Beijing. (Photo by Edwin Ewing, Jr. courtesy CDC) Most cities currently have levels of coarse
particulate matter - known as PM10 - in excess of 70 micrograms per cubic meter. The guidelines recommend
cutting levels of PM10 to 20 micrograms, a reduction WHO says can reduce deaths from air pollution by 15 percent
a year. WHO recommends cutting the daily limit for ozone, a key ingredient in smog, from 120 to 100
micrograms per cubic meter. The organization notes that this will pose a challenge for many cities, especially
in developing countries, and particularly those with numerous sunny days when ozone concentrations are
highest, causing respiratory problems and asthma attacks. The guidelines call for reducing levels of sulfur
dioxide from 125 to 20 micrograms per cubic meter and note that cutting this pollutant will result in lower childhood
death and disease rates. WHO first created air quality guidelines in 1987, but they were originally developed just to
address pollution in Europe. The guidelines were originally created to address only Europe but were expanded
to focus on all regions and provide standardized targets for air quality. WHO said the increasing evidence of
the health impacts of air pollution prompted the organization to were expanded its guidelines to address all
regions of the world and provide uniform targets for air quality The new guidelines ere established after
consultation with more than 80 leading scientists and are based on review of thousands of recent studies from all
regions of the world. Dr. Roberto Bertollini, European director of WHO's special program from health and
environment, said the guidelines reflect the "most widely agreed and up-to-date assessment of health effects of
air pollution, recommending targets for air quality at which the health risks are significantly reduced." "We
look forward to working with all countries to ensure these guidelines become part of national law," Bertollini
added.
McClure 1 (Robert, Seattle Post-Intelligence Reporter, 2001, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/grow05.shtml)

Standing at the brink of the new millennium, it looks like mankind is rapidly overtaking the Earth's capacity
to support humans, and it's possible we are on a path toward extinction, according to a sweeping study to be
published today. The report reviews a wide array of environmental indicators during the past century,
including public health, food supply, fresh water, oceans and forests. "In the past decade, in every
environmental sector, conditions have either failed to improve, or they are worsening," says the report, titled "Population
and the Environment: The Global Challenge." It was written by Don Hinrichsen, a consultant to the United Nations Population Fund, and Bryant Robey, editor of the
Johns Hopkins University journal Population Reports. Robey, as the journal's editor, reviews dozens of population studies annually. "Without practicing sustainable
development, humanity faces a deteriorating environment and may even invite ecological disaster," the authors wrote. "Are we setting the stage for our own
extinction?" Among the evidence cited: Increasing water use that accompanies development of modern societies. While population tripled in the 20th century, water
use increased sixfold. Coastal wetlands that nourish many varieties of sea life are rapidly disappearing in the face of development. Their extent was reduced by half in
Seagrass beds that shelter fish and other marine life also are vanishing, along with coral reefs that
the past century.
are called the "rain forests of the ocean" because they nurture so many varieties of fish and other creatures.
Forests, which conserve water and produce oxygen, among other benefits, are being cut down. In the past 50
years, nearly half the world's forest cover was lost -- about 7.4 million acres. About 5,200 species of animals
are threatened with extinction. Plants also are at risk; about 30 percent of 16,000 known plant species in the
United States are at risk of dying off. Air pollution kills more than 2.7 million people annually. Food is
growing more scarce. While the worldwide population grew 1.7 percent from 1990 to 1997, grain production
increased by just 1 percent. About 2 billion people -- a third of the world's population -- don't have enough to eat.
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Low-Level

( ) There is no “safe” level of pollutants – even low levels of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
carbon will severely hamstring human health.
Roberts 3 (Bernie Fischlowitz, Staff Writer for the Earth Policy Institute, September 17, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm)
The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air
pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The
Lancet in 2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000
deaths annually in those three countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle
emissions. In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims
70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer
combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of
people. Governments go to great lengths to reduce traffic accidents by fining those who drive at dangerous speeds,
arresting those who drive under the influence of alcohol, and even sometimes revoking drivers' licenses. But they
pay much less attention to the deaths people cause by simply driving the cars. While deaths from heart disease
and respiratory illness from breathing polluted air may lack the drama of deaths from an automobile crash,
with flashing lights and sirens, they are no less real. Air pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These pollutants come primarily from the combustion of fossil
fuels, principally coal-fired power plants and gasoline-powered automobiles. Nitrogen oxides can lead to the
formation of ground-level ozone. Particulates are emitted from a variety of sources, primarily diesel engines.
"Smog"-a hybrid word used to describe the mixture of smoke and fog that blankets some cities-is primarily
composed of ozone and particulates. The air in most urban areas typically contains a mixture of pollutants,
each of which may increase a person's vulnerability to the effects of the others. Exposure to carbon monoxide
slows reflexes and causes drowsiness, since carbon monoxide molecules bind to hemoglobin, reducing the
amount of oxygen that red blood cells can carry. Nitrogen dioxide can aggravate asthma and reduce lung
function, as well as making airways more sensitive to allergens. Ozone also causes lung inflammation and
reduces lung function and exercise capacity. Smaller particulates, especially those 10 micrometers in diameter (1/2,400 of an inch) or smaller,
can become lodged in the alveolar sacs of the lungs. They are associated with higher admissions to hospital for respiratory problems and with increased mortality,
As particulate concentrations in the air rise, so do death rates. When
particularly from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
people inhale particulates and ozone at concentrations commonly found in urban areas, their arteries become
more constricted, thus reducing blood flow and oxygen supply to the heart. This is why air pollution
aggravates heart conditions and asthma. Unlike some pollutants that have threshold levels below which no
health effects are seen, ozone and particulates have negative health effects even at very low levels. Thus no
"safe" level of such pollutants exists. Research published in Science in 2001 noted that in industrial as well as developing countries, exposures to
current levels of ozone and particulates "affect death rates, hospitalizations and medical visits, complications of asthma and bronchitis, days of work lost, restricted-
activity days, and a variety of measures of lung damage."
CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Inefficient

Gasification plants are more efficient and environmentally friendly than current coal
combustion systems.
US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,

http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)
Because gasification-based power generation is a relatively new technology with few operating plants, its unique operating features and
its environmental performance capability, relative to the above topics, are not well known. However, based on the available
data presented in this report, gasification-based energy conversion systems are capable of providing
stable, high-efficiency energy supply with reduced environmental impact compared with competitive
technologies. They can provide flexibility in the production of a wide range of products including
electricity, fuels, chemicals, hydrogen, and steam, while utilizing low-cost, widely available feedstocks,
such as coal and petroleum coke. In particular, gasification of abundant U.S. coal provides an alternative to coal-
fired combustion systems that is more efficient and environmentally friendly. Coal gasification is a well-proven
technology that started with the production of coal gas for urban areas, progressed to the production of fuels, such as oil and synthetic
natural gas (SNG), chemicals, and most recently, to large-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation.
Gasification better than coal.

Gasification-based energy conversion systems are capable of providing a stable, affordable, high-
efficiency energy supply with a minimal environmental impact. They can provide flexibility in the
production of a wide range of products including electricity, fuels, chemicals, hydrogen, and steam,
while utilizing low-cost, widely available feedstocks. In particular, gasification of abundant U.S. coal
provides an alternative to commercial coal-based combustion systems that is generally more efficient
and environmentally benign. Coal gasification is a wellproven technology that has had many applications, starting with the
production of coal gas for urban areas, progressing to the production of fuels, such as oil and synthetic natural gas (SNG), chemicals,
and most recently, to large-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation.
Two turbines increase efficiency in coal gasification plants.

In IGCC systems, the cleaned syngas is used, in whole or in part, to fuel a combustion turbine. The
combustion turbine drives an electric generator, may provide compressed air to the air separation unit
or gasifier, and produces heat (exhaust) to generate steam for a steam turbine. This combined use of
combustion and steam turbines significantly boosts generation efficiency.
CTL burns cleaner than petroleum and allows for more fuel efficient engines
Blackwell 7 (Kristine, National Defense Fellow, “The Department of Defense: Reducing Its Reliance on Fossil-Based Aviation Fuel”
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA470250&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
There are many positive qualities associated with Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) and Gas-To-Liquid (GTL) fuels
produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process. The most frequently cited advantage is that
it burns cleaner producing fewer carbon emissions as a result of its consumption in the aircraft. F-T fuels
produce approximately 2.4% less carbon dioxide, 50%-90% less particulate matter, and
100% less sulphur than traditional petroleum-based fuels. Other positive attributes of F-T
fuels include excellent low temperature properties that improve high altitude operations
and low temperature starting; and “superior” thermal stability, which makes possible the
development of highly fuel efficient engines.29
***Solvency***
CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (1/8)

25-year contracts are the most important incentive for commercialization of CTL
NYT 7 (5-29)
But the most important guarantee, many coal producers said, is the prospect of signing 25-year purchase
contracts with the Air Force.
The Air Force consumes about 2.6 billion gallons a year of jet fuel, and Air Force officials would like to
switch as much as 780 million gallons a year to coal-based fuels. Air Force officials strongly support the idea
of extremely long contracts, but others at the Defense Department worry that the military could be left
holding the bag for years if oil prices dropped significantly.
Long-term contracts are critical to CTL viability

Ward said coal-to-fuel plants are planned in some 20 states, and the majority of them hope the Pentagon will
become a major customer.
But without price guarantees and long-term contracts by Congress, financing for the projects will be difficult,
if not impossible, he said.
Long-term purchasing is critical to commercial viability of CTL plants
WSJ 7 (9-11)
The problem is the plants that do the job are expensive to build and are profitable only if the price of crude
oil stays well above $40 per barrel, according to industry estimates. Benchmark light, sweet crude is
currently trading above $70 a barrel on New York futures markets, but the oil markets over the long term
have proven susceptible to spikes and drops.
Yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, crude for October delivery rose 1% to settle at $77.49 a
barrel.
The plants, therefore, need military support to get built, Mr. Boyce said. "Lining up the $8 billion worth of
capital without baseload off-take agreements is a challenge today."
A commitment from the Defense Department to buy fuel above the break-even production cost could ease
doubts about the technology. That would require a change to federal procurement laws, an effort backed by
the coal industry and some Pentagon officials, but challenged by skeptics and some lawmakers.
25-year contracts critical to marketability
WSJ 7 (9-11)
The effort nevertheless has some backers at the Pentagon. The Air Force, which consumes the most fuel of
the military services, supports using coal-to-liquids fuel. It recently certified the B-52 bomber to run on a
blend of Fischer-Tropsch fuel and normal fuel. The Air Force plans to do the same for its entire fleet by 2011.
The Air Force intends to buy about 400 million gallons annually by 2016. The service supports legislation
that would allow it to sign 25 year contracts for supply, even at historically high prices above $50 per barrel,
said William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics.
"If the legislation helps spur on a market that is necessary, we believe, to ensure our long term national
security, we believe it's something that has a lot of merit," Mr. Anderson said.
The military faces a five-year limit on how long it can sign contracts for supplies. Without the certainty that
the military will be there to buy this product, regardless of what happens to oil prices, investors are unlikely
to back coal-to-liquids plants.

Long-term contracts are critical

Mr Bollinger stressed that the current five-year limit on military energy contracts must be expanded to allow
DOD to sign, at a minimum, 15-20 year supply contracts. Long-term contracts would make it easier for
developers to secure the financial backing needed to construct FT plants, as developers could point to the
lengthy contracts as evidence of a viable marketplace for such fuels.
More ev…
Mac Pherson 7 (James, Associated Press Writer, The Bismark Tribune,

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/10/07/news/state/140507.txt)
Syntroleum spokesman Gary Gamino said the company has "mothballed" its demonstration plant in
Oklahoma that produced the fuel. "Basically, we could not afford to keep it running," Gamino said. The
company now is focused on manufacturing synthetic jet fuel made from animal fats, greases, and vegetable
oils, he said. The company is supplying 500 gallons of the fuel to the Department of Defense for testing. Billings
said the coal-based synthetic fuel to be tested in the C-17 and B-1 over the next year was purchased in Malaysia, from Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
The Air Force said it paid $1.3 million for 290,000 gallons of the fuel, 9,000 gallons of which will go to NASA for emissions testing. Ward, of
Headwaters, said his company's proposal for a North Dakota plant to convert coal into diesel and jet fuel has been changed to produce only
gasoline. Headwaters, along with Great River Energy, of Elk River, Minn., and Dallas-based North American Coal Corp. have formed American
Lignite Energy LLC to oversee the $4 billion project in North Dakota. Ward said coal-to-fuel plants are planned in some 20 states, and the
majority of them hope the Pentagon will become a major customer. But without price guarantees and long-term contracts by
Congress, financing for the projects will be difficult, if not impossible, he said.
More ev…
Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the
soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale
refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy
Department in December. He estimated that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refineries would be able to
sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude
oil. But many in the field say they're unwilling to invest the necessary billions until they can sign long-
term contracts with the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It
has asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek congressional approval for the rule
change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson says. "These plants are not
likely to get built without government help" such as guaranteed long-term contracts, says Mr. Berg, who
recently retired. "And they may not get built even then."

DOD needs long term contracts to create alternative energy
American Energy Security 6 ( “Authorize Military and Other Government Entities to Purchases Alternative Fuels Under Long-term Contract”
http://www.americanenergysecurity.org/leg_12initiatives.html Accessed July 8, 2008)
Total oil consumption by U.S. military forces is approximately 400,000 barrels per day. Through the development of BUFF
specifications, it is believed that a substantial portion of this requirement can be met with domestically produced
alternative liquid fuels. The DoD desires to enter into long term contracts for the purchase of alternative fuels
made in the U.S. from domestic resources. This is part of DoD’s Total Energy Development Program (TED), with a
stated mission to “catalyze industry development and investment in [alternative] energy resources.”
Congressional support is encouraged for DoD’s TED program, including extending its long-term contracting
capabilities from five to as long as 25 years. Appropriate and necessary authorizations and funding should be give high priority.
DoD fuels purchases under long-term contract can help establish a foundation on which to build a new
alternative fuels industry. And secure, high quality U.S. made alternative liquid fuels will help our military.
Long term alternative energy contracts provide price security and encourage investment
Long-term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there
were a long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they would otherwise pay
for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15- or 25-year deals
industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC, Senator Bunning addressed the
issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for high quality, clean, domestic fuel. Long-
term contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary
above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is
healthy and normal for long-term contracts.” Secretary Wynne also addressed price stability at the Energy Forum. “Last year, the AF
spent about $6.6 billion on aviation fuel; 1.6 billion dollars more than budgeted. In 2005, the fuel budget was
$1.4 billion more than the previous year. We could have paid for a supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural
gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense. Maybe then we could have a predictable cost
for fuel.”
Longer term military contracts key to alternative energy
Wall Street Journal 8 (May 21, 2008 “U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)
Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can
begin operating commercial-scale refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December.
He estimated that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel
refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a
barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil. But many in the field say they're unwilling to
invest the necessary billions until they can sign long-term contracts with the government. Right now, the Air
Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It has asked the White House's Office of Management and
Budget to seek congressional approval for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the
request, Mr. Anderson says.

Long-term contracts would be used by the DOD
Schmidt 7 (Mike; COLUMN; Pg. 9 Vol. 85 No. 50, Platts Oilgram News, March 23)
Motivated by a $3 billion increase in its energy tab and fear of an oil shock, the US Air Force served notice
March 8 that it would try to use its influence as the government's largest energy consumer to lead a national
transition away from oil. The military branch's leaders said at an energy forum that they would work
especially hard to establish a domestic coal-to-liquids industry, which would help as a "hedge" against oil.
They said they would also continue testing alternative fuels in jets and making renewable energy technologies a
growing presence at its bases. Due to the rise in oil and gasoline prices the last two years, the Air Force spent
$6.6 billion on fuels, an extra $3 billion that it did not plan for under its budget. That forced it to go back to
Congress for supplemental funding and gave it additional impetus to cut its oil habit. The service, which uses 2% of
all US oil, intends to have an impact nationally, if not globally. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said the goal
was to "change the environment in which we operate,” one in which high oil prices empower anti-US Iran and
Venezuela, to give the president a "sovereign option" on energy. Wynne called for a "genuine government
partnership" to bring this about, which was music to the ears of several hundred representatives from
aerospace companies, automakers and energy producers, all interested in obtaining big military contracts for
their products. The Air Force's goals include cutting fossil energy use 2% per year; increasing renewable use 10%
by 2015; and getting 50% of the fuel it expects it will need in the US in 2016, about 325 million barrels, from
domestically produced alternatives. To help get coal-to-liquids or other Fischer-Tropsch plants built in the US,
the Air Force plans to continue testing alternative and synthetic fuels so it can certify by 2010 that they can
work well in military jets and vehicles. The commercial airline industry expects to help establish its demand for
the fuels by doing the same a year sooner. The Air Force also wants to enter into long-term contracts, with
terms of up to 25 years, to create a market for synfuels. Air Force officials say they lack authority to enter the long-term deals,
and are lobbying Congress to pass legislation (S. 154) affirming the Pentagon's contracting authority. Top Defense Department officials as
recently as October said it was doubtful that DOD would sign long-term contracts because of uncertainty over prices and CTL technology. But
they did not rule out the possibility that the Pentagon might enter long-term contracts for Fischer-Tropsch diesel or jet
fuel if Congress passed new language on military contracts.
25 Year gurantees are key to ensuring a stable market and commercial spread of CTL
Matthews`7 (William, Air Force Times, Coal states see boon in Air Force alt-fuel push, Jun 17, 2007
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_coalfuel_070616/)
The Air Force burns 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, said Paul Bollinger, special assistant to the
service’s assistant secretary for installations, environment and logistics. Ensuring that it has a reliable fuel
supply is a key Air Force concern, he said. The Air Force hopes to spend $38 million on synthetic fuel
research and testing in 2008, but only $1 million was requested in the 2008. The remainder is an
“unfunded priority,” Bollinger said. So the $10 million in Davis’ amendment is significant. If the Air Force
becomes a reliable synthetic fuel consumer, that could justify investment in coal-to-liquid plants, which
could, in turn, “accelerate development of the technology and production capacity needed for large-
scale commercial deployment of this type of alternative fuel,” Davis’ amendment says. To push the Air
Force further in that direction, Davis proposed a separate amendment permitting the service to sign
purchasing contracts lasting as long as 25 years for buying coal-based fuel.

25 -Year guarantees help the military stimulate the market
SSEB`6 (Southern States Energy Board, American Energy Security, December 2006,
http://www.sseb.org/currentprograms/cpa_aes.htm)
Fund the Military Alternative Fuels Testing and Development Program The U.S. Department of Defense
has a development program underway to evaluate, demonstrate and certify turbine fuels from
alternative energy resources for use in tactical vehicles, aircraft and ships. Fuel sources include Fischer-
Tropsch (F-T) fuels made from domestic coal, refined fuels derived from oil shale kerogen and
renewable/biobased fuels. The ultimate goal is to develop a single Battlefield Use Fuel of the Future (BUFF).
At the center of this development effort is a DoD fuel testing program. Congress should fully fund this
critical program through FY2013. The military need is approximately $500 million over a five to six-year
period, beginning in 2007. Authorize and Fund Military Purchases of Alternative Fuels Under Long-term
Contract Total oil consumption by U.S. military forces is approximately 400,000 barrels per day.
Through the development of BUFF specifications, it is believed that a substantial portion of this
requirement can be met with domestically produced alternative liquid fuels. The DoD desires to enter
into long-term contracts for the purchase of alternative fuels made in the United States from domestic
resources. This is part of DoD’s Total Energy Development Program (TED), with a stated mission to
“catalyze industry development and investment in [alternative] energy resources.” Congressional
support is encouraged for DoD’s TED program, including extending its long-term contracting
capabilities from five to as long as 25 years. Appropriate and necessary authorizations and funding should
be given high priority. DoD fuel purchases under long-term contracts can help establish a foundation
on which to build a new alternative fuels industry, and secure, high quality U.S.-made alternative
liquid fuels will help our military.
Contracts will stimulate the growth of the synthetic market-Shell proves

Landry`7 (Cathy, US awards Shell contract to supply synthetic jet fuel, June 7, 2007, Lexis)
Shell on June 6 won a contract to supply 315,000 gallons of synthetic jet fuel in August to the US Air
Force and NASA as part of a Pentagon program to test the product for widespread military use. The
US Defense Energy Support Center, the Pentagon's fuel buying arm, said the contract was worth about
$1.1 million and involves deliveries by tank truck from Houston to several US Air Force locations and a
NASA facility. DESC, which buys 8.7 billion gal/year of fuel and is the largest fuel buyer in the world, is
hoping to jump-start the synthetic jet fuel industry by purchasing up to 200 million gallons over the
next several years. The ultimate goal would be to lessen US dependence on crude oil, particularly from
trouble spots in the Middle East. "The acquisition of these 315,000 gallons of synthetic fuel this year is
one more step toward meeting the Air Force goal of testing and certifying the entire fleet for use of the
fuel by 2010," William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and
logistics, said in a statement. "Additional acquisitions of synthetic fuel will be made for testing and
certification over the next three years. The ultimate goal of the Air Force is to acquire 50% (of its jet fuel) by
2016 from domestic sources producing a synthetic fuel-blend and using carbon capture and sequestration
technology." The US Air Force has successfully completed its first two tests of a 50:50 blend of synthetic jet
fuel and crude-derived jet in its B-52 bombers. Synthetic jet fuel is currently derived from either natural gas
or coal, while traditional jet fuel is refined from crude oil. Shell produces synthetic jet using the Fischer-
Tropsch process by converting natural gas to liquids. Companies are hoping to eventually develop the
synthetic fuel using biomass. While the Defense Department's long-term objective is to bolster US domestic
fuel use, particularly of alternatives, US synthetic jet fuel plants probably will not be ready for another three
years at the earliest. US companies that have expressed interest in supplying synthetic jet fuel to the
military have indicated they would pursue coal-to-liquids plants, rather than gas-to-liquids, because of
the favorable price differential between coal and jet fuel prices. The US Congress this year is expected to
consider measures to aid development of coal-to-liquids plants.

The only thing stopping companies from building plants now is the lack of long term
guarantees
Platts Coal`6 (Platts Coal Outlook, DOD unlikely to sign long-term CTL deals for now, October 2, 2006, Lexis)
A senior Defense Department official has expressed doubt that the Pentagon will seek long-term contracts for
Fisher-Tropsch fuels, despite its desire for a coal-to-liquids capability to reduce the military's petroleum
demand. Richard Connelly, director of the Defense Energy Support Center, DOD's energy procurement wing,
said at a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last week that numerous companies contacted
DESC about potential CTL jet fuel production, with most saying they need 15-to-25-year contracts to
secure financing for what would be multi-billion-dollar plants. Many of the companies also said they
would need a minimum price for their product for the entire contract term. Calling both of these
requests "understandable," Connelly said it is unlikely DOD will meet those requirements because the
department runs a "significant risk" of "paying much more than the market price for fuel. "If there were a
long-term decline in the price [of oil], the US taxpayer would lose large sums of money supporting the
threshold." Another big show-stopper is that DOD lacks the authority to sign any contracts longer than
five years, he said. The good news is that DOD is working in several areas to create a stable of "assured
fuels" to reduce its oil demand, which accounts for 2% of the US total and cost the government $11 billion in
fiscal 2005.
The current contracts don’t go far enough-Long term contracts are key
Holly`8 (Chris, May 1, 2008 Thursday Utilities, NARUC Take Aim At Pentagon Power Play, Defense Daily, Lexis)
"This provision is part of an effort to prevent the Air Force from procuring coal-to-liquid fuels, but by
prohibiting the development of some of our nation's most promising resources--not only coal-to-
liquids, but also oil shale and tar sands--it will increase America's reliance on foreign oil," Domenici
said. "As we continue to face record oil and gasoline prices, Section 526 can be seen for what it is: a
counterproductive measure that threatens our national security, our energy security and the strength
of our economy." Finally, Domenici asked Leven and McCain to extend federal agencies' contracting
authority for renewable energy from the 10 years maximum allowed under current law. Domenici said
the Senate Energy panel had included language in energy legislation last year that would have allowed
federal facilities to enter into renewable energy contracts with terms of up to 50 years. A House- passed bill
would have allowed 30-year contracts, but neither provision was included in the final version of EISA.
"In my opinion, the contracting authority should be extended for all federal agencies, especially the
largest energy consumer within the federal government, the Department of Defense, to at least a 20-year
period. A Domenici spokesman said DOD efforts to use more renewable energy are being hampered by
the 10-year contract limit, as a decade is not enough time to recover the typically high upfront capital
costs of a wind or solar system. The spokesman said it is likely that Domenici may offer amendments
addressing his concerns on the three issues raised in his letter if the issues are not resolved by the time the
authorization bill reaches the Senate floor.

Longer contracts are key to a shift to CTL which solves military oil dependence
Wright & Johnson`6 (Charlotte & Regina, Platts Coal Outlook June 26, 2006, DoD's use of coal-derived fuels could be
cornerstone of fledging industry, Lexis)
The Department of Defense is considering coal-to-liquids diesel as the long-term fuel of choice for military vehicles, while the Air Force is funding research
into coal-derived jet fuel. If the department moves to CTL fuels, the change would be "a major shift in the way DoD acquires and uses energy," according to
a DoD spokeswoman. The size and stability of any DoD contract would encourage the CTL fuels business, but
timing is still uncertain. DoD declined to discuss where it stands in discussions about purchasing CTL fuels. A big boost to the program is in a bill now
being considered by the Senate. The bill would give the military long-term contracting authority to use the new fuels; authorize the departments of Defense
and Energy to evaluate CTL fuels for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and allow the government to use CTL fuels for filling the reserve. DoD
is interested in CTL fuels, but it usually buys fuels one year at a time. The Environmental Policy Act of 2006 authorizes
the DOE to enter multi-year agreements, but internal politics is slowing the department's change in fuel buying, said Richard Sheppard, senior vice president
of project development for Rentech, a company that plans to build CTL plants. What started as the Clean Fuels Initiative has moved to the Assured Fuels
Program within DoD, he said. Rentech and DoD have been discussing the department's possible use of CTL fuels, and the company is retooling an existing
plant to use various fuels, including coal, to produce ultra-clean fuels made to DoD's specifications. Rentech is in the permitting stage for converting a plant
in East Dubuque, Illinois, from using natural gas to coal to produce fertilizer and CTL fuels, Sheppard said. Negotiations are continuing with DoD so that
some of the product from the 2,000 barrel/day plant would go to DoD. He expects to complete financing in the first quarter of 2007, and construction would
start shortly afterward. The plant would cost about $800 million to build and would use about 1 million short tons/year of coal. Rentech is now contracting
for the coal for that plant and another proposed for Natchez, Mississippi. Probably the plants will use non-compliance coal, primarily from the Illinois Basin
and Northern Appalachia, he said. "Government contracts to purchase the CTL fuel is critical to the industry,"
John Ward, Headwaters vice president of marketing and government affairs, told Platts at a press briefing June 22 on a bill to encourage
CTL development. "Investors recognize the rewards of a government contract. It gives a push to the
investment community." This is the third time since the 1950s that the country has tried to start a CTL
industry, Ward said. "Each time, oil [producers] would flood the market bringing the price of oil
down, making CTL less attractive, and the government would go right back to purchasing fuels from
other countries. This time it's different. They see the vital security and economic need for producing
our own domestic resource." Current thinking is that the breakeven point for CTL plants is $30 to $40/barrel, the National
Mining Association wrote in a recent article. If oil is above that amount, the plants can be profitably operated. Air Force focuses on jet
fuel In the meantime, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research funded research on jet fuel comparable to present fuels but developed
from 50% bituminous coal. The fuel produced has successfully powered a helicopter jet engine, said Harold Schobert, professor of fuel
science and director of Pennsylvania State University's Energy Institute. "We have shown in tests that the mix can go to at least 75%
coal." The derived fuel is lower in aromatics, almost sulfur free and produces almost the same Btu value as conventional fuel. Since
Schobert announced his research at the American Chemical Society meeting in March, he has had some interest from companies about
the process. "We have had an on-going dialog with a small refinery in northwestern Pennsylvania about their being the first to
commercialize production," and two major oil companies and one major airline have expressed interest. 'However, nobody has
actually put any cash on the table yet, so to speak," he told Platts in mid-June. Because the fuel has not been made on a
large scale, Schobert is not sure about costs. "However, back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that we should be fairly competitive
in price. For instance, refined chemical oil, purchased in large quantities, is currently about $1/gallon. It
represents 50% of the fuel." Refined chemical oil is the coal-derived ingredient in the fuel. It is a by-product
of the metallurgical coke industry. Because it is supply-limited, Schobert's group is working on alternative routes to making the chemical equivalent of
refined chemical oil. Starting in July, the Air Force will be developing a business case analysis of the fuel and its production, giving a better idea of actual
costs in 2007, he said. As for the future of the fuel JP-900, Schobert said it could be several years before the fuel is produced because the fuel must be
qualified for use, which requires more testing. If the fuel is accepted for use, and full-scale production is warranted, "we envision that this
fuel can
be produced in existing oil refinery infrastructure, albeit with some modifications." He estimates one to two years
for those modifications. In a national emergency, both processes could be greatly speeded up with a mandated crash program to get JP-900 into production
and use. Schobert and co-workers are negotiating with the Air Force now to fund the next, larger volume of production, probably in late 2006 or early 2007.
The Southern States Energy Board recommended last week that Congress fully fund a DoD fuel testing program at a cost of $500 million for five to six
years, starting in 2007. DoD
consumes about 400,000 b/d of oil, the SSEB said. The nonprofit that studies energy policy and reliability
believes "that a
substantial portion of this requirement can be met with domestically produced alternative
liquid fuels." The long-term DoD fuels contracts are part of the Total Energy Development Program with a mission of
catalyzing "industry development and investment in [alternative] energy resources." The board recommended
allowing DoD contracts to extend from five to 25 years, which would help establish the CTL fuels
industry and deliver "secure, high quality US made alternative liquid fuels [that] will help our
military."

Long term contracts remove the financial risk from investors and catalyze innovation
Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the
investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE
loan guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to
address funding shortages for frontend engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-federal
money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel excise tax credit; providing funding for the
DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into the military;authorizing a study on synfuel storage in the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve; and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated with starting a US synthetic
fuel industry, extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years.41 Long-term contracts move
much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there were a long-term decline
in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they would
otherwise pay for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15-
or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC, Senator Bunning
addressed the issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for highquality, clean, domestic fuel. Long-term contracts
will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above and
below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is healthy
and normal for long-term contracts.”
CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Interprets CTL as AE

The DOD considers CTL to be an AE
Ferrell 7 (Amanda, Chair – Global Air Chiefs Conference,

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Air_Force_Energy_Initiatives_Focus_On_Fuel_999.html)
Leaders of Air Force energy policy and programs convened here Sept. 25 to discuss the Air Force's direction
and initiatives in the realm of renewable and alternative energy sources. William C. Anderson, the assistant
secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics and senior energy executive, and his
deputy, Kevin W. Billings, presented the latest Air Force energy initiatives during sessions at the Air and
Space Conference and Technology Exposition hosted by the Air Force Association.
"Energy conservation and developing energy technology is a major Department of Defense effort," Mr.
Anderson said. "As the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, the Air Force is in a great
position to look for, promote and utilize alternative energy sources."
We are working to incorporate new energy initiatives and programs at every installation, and we want to
incorporate alternative energy and energy conservation everywhere it makes sense -- for the military and the
civilian community, Mr. Billings said.
The Air Force is committed to working with agencies in the private sector, experts in academia and
throughout the DOD to generate viable sources of energy that are both domestically sourced and more
environmentally friendly than current petroleum-based sources, Mr. Anderson said.
While energy programs cover installation power, ground vehicles and other requirements, the current focus
of energy technology in the Air Force is aviation fuel, which makes up 82 percent of all energy consumed in
the Air Force, Mr. Billings said.
In August, the B-52 Stratofortress was certified to use a blend of the current petroleum-based fuel, JP-8, and
a synthetic fuel derived from coal, natural gas and feed stocks.
"This synthetic fuel blend is currently the only viable alternative to jet fuel, and the United States holds one
of the largest coal reserves in the world," Mr. Anderson said. "Alternative energy holds tremendous potential
to produce environmental and ecological benefits, so our search for alternative energy sources in the Air
Force must lead to domestic sourced fuels with greener footprints than current alternatives."
More ev…
Reuters 7 (10-29)
The world's most powerful air force is seeking to wean itself from foreign oil and nearly zero out its carbon
dioxide output as part of a sweeping alternative energy drive, a senior Pentagon official said on Friday.
By early 2011, the US Air Force aims to make sure its entire fleet of bombers, fighters, transports and other
aircraft can use a domestically produced 50-50 blend of synthetic and petroleum-based fuel.
More ev…
Winn 7 (Air Force Times, Patrick, 12-20, http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/12/airforce_synthetic_fuel_1217/)

Looking further into the future, Assistant Secretary William Anderson with the Air Force’s Installations,
Environment and Logistics department estimated that synthetic fuel could power jets on live, operational
missions by the middle of next decade.
“We believe we need domestic sources of aviation fuel so we can fight tonight and fight tomorrow,” he said.
Anderson, at a Dec. 12 Pentagon meeting with reporters, laid out a sweeping package of Air Force alternative
energy projects, some of them certain and some of them in rough, innovative stages. The Air Force, as the
American government’s largest consumer of oil, must use its buying power to kick-start the private sector’s
fledgling alternative fuels market. He’s presently in talks, for example, with Montana officials over pushing
commercial interests to mine the state’s coal reserves near Malmstrom Air Force Base and produce synthetic
fuel.
CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL
Air force is pushing for CTL
LA Times 7/12 (“Oil prices hit military budgets hard” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-

militaryoil13-2008jul13,0,4522206.story)
The skyrocketing fuel cost has been particularly difficult for the Air Force. In recent years the Air Force, the
largest user of fuel in the federal government, had intended to pay for new planes by reducing the number of airmen. But
the increase in fuel price ate up that saving. Soon, other services may face the same squeeze and suffer the cancellation or
delay of significant equipment programs as a result of fuel price increases. Each military branch must present a draft of
its next budget to the secretary of Defense by early August. And the comptroller's office has warned the services that they
must accommodate fuel price increases in their budgets. Top military officials are mum on what spending programs
might be in line for cutbacks. For now, the officials are predicting that fuel prices will decline 4.8% next year. But the
Pentagon has not been especially accurate with its projections. The Defense Department originally estimated that oil this
year would cost $91 a barrel; military services are currently paying nearly $171 a barrel. Much of the price hike this year
was covered by Congress in the recently enacted emergency war funding measure. Because of its heavy use of jet
fuel, the Air Force has taken perhaps the most aggressive steps toward conservation and alternatives to
petroleum fuel. Air Force officials hope that liquid coal becomes a viable alternative to petroleum, and
they are working to ensure that all their aircraft can use synthetic fuels. Over the long term, the Air Force is
trying to develop more efficient engines and airframe designs. "We are trying to look all the way down the
road," Anderson said. "We are trying to run the gamut in terms of looking for alternatives and new ideas." For the
military, this represents a marked change from years past, when fuel efficiency was scarcely considered
in the development of new weapons systems. "We fully expect that in the future it will become a bigger
part of that decision process," Anderson said.
Air force is ready for CTL, but lacks funding
Dhue 6/9 (Stephanie Dhue, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, “The Air Force Works To Recruit Alternative Fuel Sources”
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080609b/)
The Air Force is gearing up to make a market for synthetic fuel made from coal. It has already
certified the B-52 bomber to fly with the new fuel and over the next three years, plans to have all 6,000
planes in the fleet fly with a 50/50 blend of synthetic and petroleum-based fuels. Bill Anderson heads the
Air Force's fuel program. He says the idea is to develop a domestic industry to supply that fuel. BILL ANDERSON,
ASST. SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Rather than the movie the "Field of Dreams," where you build it and they will
come, here in essence, we are there, waiting for the industry to be built to service our demand. DHUE: The Air Force uses
about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel each year, nearly 10 percent of what's sold in the United States. ANDERSON: A 10
percent share of the market is a pretty sizable portion and we believe that is enough to initiate a market at a minimum.
DHUE: The Air Force is also working with commercial airlines and engine makers to develop a coal-to-
liquids market. Rising crude oil prices are making similar projects more attractive. Bob Kelly is with
DKRW, a firm developing a coal-to-liquids manufacturing plant. He says there is a market for synthetic fuel for
cars. One challenge is getting financing. BOB KELLY, CHAIRMAN, DKRW ADVANCED FUELS: You're
talking about spending $2 to $3 billion to put these facilities up, so the banks need to get used to financing
those types of facilities and those sizes of facilities. It's going to be a new thing for them. DHUE: Another challenge,
environmental issues. Environmentalists call synthetic fuels a step backward. The Sierra Club's Alice McKeown says
coal-to-liquid is a disaster. ALICE MCKEOWN, COAL ANALYST, SIERRA CLUB: From the time the coal is ripped
out of our mountains to the time it's burned at the tailpipe, the overall global warming emissions are double those of
traditional petroleum- based fossil fuels. At a time when we need to be addressing global warming, that's taking us in the
wrong direction. DHUE: The Air Force says it's working to adopt a synthetic fuel that is greener than current jet fuel.
ANDERSON: We believe that by the time this industry is viable in this country and that will be, at the earliest 2012, that
technologies are available even today that will allow us to reduce the environmental footprint of these synthetic fuels
below currently available petroleum- based jet fuel. DHUE: The Air Force sees the synthetic-coal-to liquid as its
transition fuel until the next generation of bio-fuel is ready to go. Stephanie Dhue, NIGHTLY BUSINESS
REPORT, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.
CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (1/5)

AF wants long-term contracts
Barton 8 (Joe, House Energy Subcommittee,

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/File/News/HR_5656_Repeal_Ban_on_Govt_Fuel_Purchase.pdf)
The Air Force is interested in procuring unconventional fuels over the long-term as a way to reduce its
reliance on fuels from unfriendly or unstable countries and increasing its use of fuels from North America.
Coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and tar sands are all abundant in the United States and Canada. The Air Force
wants to use its purchasing power to spur the development of a domestic coal-based synthetic fuel industry
by signing long-term fuel contracts with coal-based fuel producers, ensuring that producers have a
guaranteed market to offset the millions of dollars in up-front investment needed to produce coal-based fuel.
More ev…
National Defense 8 (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm)

Tom Sayles, Rentech vice president of government affairs and communications, says that besides the life
cycle requirement, the industry has bigger financial concerns. “Long-term contracts are needed to get this
[industry] off the ground.”
Today, the military purchases fuel on an annual basis, Sayles says, while electricity is bought in 10-year
contracts.
Additionally, Ramsbottom believes the industry won’t move forward in a timely manner without strong
government support. The Air Force wants to develop synthetic jet fuel as soon as possible, but is restricted by
Congress. Lawmakers are showing greater interest in alternative energy, but many caution against moving
too quickly.
The DOD is looking to transition to coal SynFuels
Hurst 6/16 (Timothy Hurst has a degree in the politics of energy and the environment, and currently works as an alternatvie
energy advoacte/staff writer for Red Green and Blue online. http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/16/price-of-oil-has-department-
of-defense-looking-to-save-fuel/)
Defense planners are also looking to alternative fuel sources and synthetic fuel blends to help cushion the
impact of rising oil prices. Said Air Force Maj. Don Rhymer of the Air Force Alternative Fuels Certification Office,
of the “The goal is to have every aircraft using synthetic fuel blends by 2011.” The DoD also hopes that
at least 50% of this fuel will be produced domestically by 2016. But “alternative fuel sources” and “synthetic
fuel blends” are not automatically good things, as Clayton Cornell at gas2.org points out. Cornell writes: “While
synthetic fuel has the capacity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it could also double CO2 emissions produced by
military flight[s]. At the time of this writing, synfuel is made via Fischer-Tropsch process from either coal or
natural gas to produce a somewhat cleaner burning but extremely greenhouse-gas intensive product. The Air Force may
be underscoring a recently hyped green image, but it seems that economic considerations are largely at play here…”
The US military wants CTL
Singh 7 (Jai Singh is an Editor of Foreign Policy “Extending the reign of King Coal”
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6257)
The coal market isn't as sexy or as global as oil, so it often works outside the media spotlight. But when it comes to
understanding how the U.S. energy-security-enviro challenge is shaping up, coal is an excellent place to look because, in
America, coal is cheap, plentiful within the country, a huge provider of jobs and megawatts, and a
tremendous source of greenhouse gases. The global outlook for demand is strong, as Asia's appetite for electricity
grows. This year, China became a net importer of coal. As for the United States, part of its energy challenge is improving
security of supply — reducing dependence on the understandably dreaded "foreign oil." Making liquid fuels using
our own American coal sounds appealing. And perhaps no consumer is more interested in coal-to-
liquid (CTL a.k.a. "Fischer-Tropsch") than the U.S. military, which has huge transportation fuel needs and
few alternatives to oil (it's kind of hard to build a jet that runs on electricity).

DOD is interested in CTL tech
Lamprecht 7 (Delanie Lamprecht, American Chemical Society. “Fischer-Tropsch Fuel for Use by the U.S. Military as
Battlefield-Use Fuel of the Future” http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2007/21/i03/abs/ef060607m.html)
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) has been interested in low-sulfur, environmentally
cleaner Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels since 2001 because they want to be less dependent upon foreign
crude oil and ensure the security of the supply. A three-phase Joint Battlefield-Use Fuel of the Future
(BUFF) program was initiated to evaluate, demonstrate, certify, and implement turbine fuels produced
from alternative energy resources for use in all of its gas turbine and diesel engine applications. Sasol
Synfuels International (Pty) Ltd. and Sasol Chevron Holdings Ltd., among others, were invited to participate in the
program with the objective to supply the DoD with a FT BUFF that conforms to Jet Propulsion 8 (JP-8) and JP-5 fuel
volatility and low-temperature fluidity requirements. Although the DoD is more interested in coal-to-liquid (CTL)
technology, the product from a gas-to-liquid (GTL) Products Work-Up Demonstration Unit in Sasolburg, South Africa,
was used to evaluate (on a bench scale) the possibility of producing a BUFF fraction from the Sasol Slurry Phase
Distillate (Sasol SPD) low-temperature FT (LTFT) process and Chevron Isocracking technology. It was concluded from
the study that the production of a synthetic FT BUFF is feasible using the Sasol SPD LTFT technology together with the
current Chevron isocracking technology. The product yield for a BUFF conforming to JP-8 requirements is 30 vol % of
the fractionator feed, whereas the product yield for a BUFF conforming to the JP-5 volatility requirement is slightly less
than 22 vol % of the fractionator feed. Also concluded from the study was that the end point of the Sasol SPD LTFT
BUFF will be restricted by the freezing point requirement of the DoD and not the maximum viscosity requirement. One
would therefore need to optimize the hydrocracking process conditions to increase the Sasol SPD LTFT BUFF product
yield.
The US military wants CTL
PR Newswire 6 (“Rentech Sees Expanded Role for Coal-to-Liquids Through Air Force Testing.” 9/18/06
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5773449/Rentech-Sees-Expanded-Role-for.html#abstract)
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Rentech, Inc. commented today on the landmark
test flight by the Air Force of a B-52 utilizing Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels at Edwards Air Force Base. The
Company believes this is an important step in the development of the coal-to-liquids (CTL) clean
synthetic fuels industry for the United States and the U.S. military to ensure both energy security and
the security of the country's borders. The U.S. Military has affirmed that it wants to implement the use
of FT fuels made from coal mined in the U.S.

The DOD wants new synfuels
Phillips 7 (Don, Writer for International Herald Tribune (Business), http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/17/business/ravbio.php?page=1)

The U.S. Air Force has decided to push development of a new type of fuel to power its bombers and fighters,
mixing conventional jet fuel with nonpetroleum-based fuels that could eventually end military dependence on
foreign sources of oil. The plan, to be announced at the Paris Air Show, will open a contest between fuel refiners and alternative energy
companies to produce a jet fuel composed of no more than 50 percent petroleum. Reflecting the importance that the U.S. government attaches to
the initiative, the public announcement will be made by U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and U.S. Federal Aviation Administrator
Marion Blakey. "The goal is to certify the entire fleet by 2010 with a 50-50 mix," said Air Force Special Assistant
Paul Bollinger who is coordinating the military shift to synthetic fuels. At the same time, the commercial aviation
industry appears also to be swinging behind synthetic fuels, but for different reasons. At the annual conference
this month of the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, in Vancouver, British Columbia, many airline
officials acknowledged that they had failed to persuade environmentalists and politicians in Europe that they were
doing enough to clean up flying. IATA, representing most of the world's airlines, announced a major push toward cleaner fuels that
might some day eliminate all aircraft emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Until now, airlines have argued that the fuel
efficiency of modern aircraft could stabilize emissions despite the rising volume of air traffic. In Vancouver, they recognized a need to switch
tack. "Climate change will limit our future until we change our approach from technical to strategic," said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA's chief
executive. "Strategy starts with vision." Chew Choon Seng, chief executive officer of Singapore Airlines, said, "I think we have passed the state
of being in denial." Ian Waitz, deputy head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Aero-Astro Department, said that "all models suggest a
growing impact" of fuel emissions, including aviation fuel, on the environment. Even those who doubted the contribution of airlines to global
warming should acknowledge that environmentalists might be right, he said. "Let's assume it's true," he said. "What can we do? If our starting
point is to delay, then from a public relations point of view, we are dead meat." Louis Gallois, president of Airbus, last week called for a
worldwide environment meeting of aircraft builders and engine manufacturers, and promised a 50 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from
Airbus aircraft by 2020. While airlines are reacting to political pressure and a desire to use less fuel, the U.S. Air
Force wants to be certain that fuel is always available during any conflict - and to lower the impact of rapidly
rising international oil prices. The air force burned 3.2 billion gallons, or 12 billion liters, of aviation fuel in
fiscal 2005, accounting for 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by the government, U.S. statistics show.

DOD pushing for CTL
CSM 7 (Christian Science Monitor, December 28, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html?page=2)
The US Air Force is experimenting with a synthetic fuel that could become a cheaper fuel-
alternative for the entire US military and even commercial aviation, officials say. As the cost of a barrel of oil
approaches $100 and US reliance on foreign oil sources grows, the Air Force, the single biggest user of energy in the US government, wants to
find a cheaper alternative. Air Force officials think they may have found it in a fuel that blends the normal
JP-8 fuel, currently used for the military's jet engines, with a synthetic fuel made from natural gas
and liquid coal. The 50-50 blend is less expensive – between $40 to $75 per barrel – and it burns
cleaner than normal fuel. The synthetic fuel is purchased from US-based suppliers and then
blended with the military's JP-8 fuel. "We're making sure the Air Force is ahead of the curve so we can utilize this domestic
resource instead of having to be both dependent on foreign sources and send dollars offshore instead of spending the dollars here in the US," says
Kevin Billings, a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force helping to oversee the initiative. Last week, on the 104th anniversary of the Wright
Brothers' first flight, the Air Force flew a C-17 Globemaster III from Washington state to New Jersey, the
first transcontinental flight using the synthetic fuel. The flight was an attempt to demonstrate that
pilots could fly the plane, considered a "workhorse" of the Air Force fleet, using "syn-fuel" without
degrading the performance of the plane's engine. The flight went well, officials say. "It was completely unremarkable,
which is exactly what we wanted to have happen," says Mr. Billings. The flight followed a similar demonstration with a B-52 Stratofortress
bomber last year. The fuel was then certified for use in the B-52 this summer. The service hopes to have all its planes
certified to run on the fuel within the next five years. And by 2016, the Air Force hopes to meet half their US demand for
fuel using the synthetic blend, first used in the 1920s, but further developed during World War II. The Air Force would like to
increase the amount of synthetic fuel it uses by that time, but recognizes that the private sector's
push to get there will largely determine how fast the Air Force can move towards its goal or
accelerate beyond it. "[T]he market isn't moving fast enough yet for us to move any quicker," says William Anderson, assistant secretary
of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. The Air Force hopes to stimulate the private sector to
embrace the move toward synthetic fuels, which will help private firms as much as it does the Air Force, says Mr. Anderson.
"We believe that we need domestic sources of aviation fuel to assure the American taxpayer long term that we can fight tonight and fight
tomorrow," said Anderson during a recent roundtable for defense reporters. "And that requires that a domestic synthetic or alternative aviation
fuel market grow in this country." The reality that the US government, the largest net importer of foreign oil
in 2006, can no longer rely so heavily on foreign oil has emerged as the price of oil climbs and
instability in many countries increases. At the same time, more demand for oil in places like China and
India, has forced the US to look for other ways to fuel its own demand. Currently, about 58 percent of
the nation's petroleum comes from foreign sources, and that is expected to jump to 68 percent by
2030, Air Force officials say. In addition to being cheaper and ultimately more plentiful, synthetic
fuel can also be greener, Air Force officials say. The fuel itself burns cleaner than regular JP-8 fuel,
but the current process used to make the fuel produces nearly twice the amount of carbon. The Air Force is requiring the plants that are being
built to make the fuel to capture more of the carbon produced and reuse it, thus making the fuel ultimately greener, officials say.

The DOD wants CTL fuels
US Secretary of Defense 5 http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/CleanFuelsPro.pdf

The DoD has been working towards a more universal (single battlefield) fuel that can be utilized in
current and legacy system as well as enable the next generations of hybrid propulsion, fuel cells, and
hypersonic vehicles. The U.S. Congress has supported one such program for Ultra-Clean fuel via
funding the research and production of Fischer-Tropsch (also known as Gas-to-Liquids) jet fuels. Clean
jet fuels produced under the Department of Energy’s Clean Fuels Program in conjunction with Syntroleum
Corporation (Tulsa, OK) have been evaluated by the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy and show promise in
meeting the requirements of the military while reducing overall tailpipe emissions. The United States has
approximately 25% of the world’s coal reserves and approximately 1 trillion barrels of unconventional
oil in oil shale. In particular, the western United States contains vast resources of coal and oil shale that
could be used to provide secure supplies of fuel to the military, local first providers (fire departments,
police, ambulances etc), and the commercial sector. Secure, diverse fuel supplies would provide security and
could provide a steady supply of fuel during a crisis situation. Clean jet fuels can be produced via the Fischer
Tropsch process from domestic coal, petroleum coke, natural gas and biomass. Secure domestic shale oil can
also be refined into clean transportations fuels. The DoD is working jointly with the Department of
Energy (DOE) to develop a national initiative to develop, test, certify, and use jet fuels produced from
these alternative energy resources. As the western states hold large supplies of domestic resources, we are
interested in coordinating at the state level to help catalyze the development of these resources, which could
provide for supply security and diversity, facilitate job and economic growth, and provide more
environmentally friendly transportation fuels
CTL Good – Solvency – Repeal EISA Solves

Repealing Section 526 of EISA would give an incentive to purchase alternative energy.
Letourneau April 29 (2008, Matthew, Senate Press Release,

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.detail&PressRelease_id=8ab09ee0-f356-49bf-abd9-70e21ab46dd2)
First, I urge you to include language to repeal Section 526 of the “Energy Independence and Security
Act” (EISA) of 2007, which prevents federal agencies from purchasing “alternative or synthetic” fuels
that have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum. This provision is part
of an effort to prevent the Air Force from procuring coal-to-liquid fuels, but by prohibiting the
development of some of our nation’s most promising resources – not only coal-to liquids, but also oil shale
and tar sands – it will increase America’s reliance on foreign oil. As we continue to face record oil and
gasoline prices, Section 526 can be seen for what it is: a counterproductive measure that threatens our
national security, our energy security, and the strength of our economy.
More ev…
Wagner 8 (Breanne, Writer for the National Defense Industrial Association, National Defense Magazine, May 1, 2008,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm)
The Air Force hopes to spur the growth of a U.S. synthetic fuels market. But a string of policy headaches
may prevent the service from buying the very products it promotes. A provision included in the 2007
Energy Independence and Security Act that was signed into law by President Bush in December contains
language that would prevent the Air Force — or any government agency — from buying synthetic jet fuel
unless it is proven to emit less carbon over the life of the substance than currently used petroleum. The
problem is that no one knows how to measure that. “No one has the ability to capture life cycle costs,”
Anderson says. Without life cycle data, manufacturers of alternative fuel have no benchmark to go by,
says Paul Bollinger, Anderson’s former special assistant. He says the Air Force was taken off guard by the
new requirement, contained in section 526 of the energy act. “The Air Force always said it wanted a greener
fuel than petroleum, but we were focused on the production, which is where most of the carbon dioxide
comes from. We weren’t talking about the life cycle,” Bollinger says. Chief executive officers of Rentech
and Baard assert that their fuels are cleaner than petroleum. The companies have decided to mix
traditional hydrocarbon-based products with biomass — plant matter that can be burned for fuel — in
an attempt to reduce harmful emissions. Rentech plans to build the first U.S. synthetic aviation fuel plant
in Natchez, Miss., which will produce a blend derived from petroleum residue called petroleum coke
and water sludge, says CEO Hunt Ramsbottom. Rentech will employ a variation of the Fischer-Tropsch
method to gasify the substances and convert them to synthetic fuel. Fischer-Tropsch is named after two
German scientists who created the process to convert natural gas or coal to liquid fuel.
CTL Good – Solvency – Excise Tax Credits Solve

Excise tax credits increase incentives
Kelly 6 (5-4, Robt, DKRW Energy, FDCH Congr Test)

Another key incentive we believe Congress should consider is making the 50 cent-per-gallon fuel excise tax
credit provided in the Highway Bill available to CTL fuels. To do that, you could extend the expiration of the
current credit from 2009, when no CTL plants will yet be operational in the U.S. to 2015.
Incentives solve
Charleston Gazette 6 (7-18)

particular, federal and state taxpayers should provide incentives to private investors to build plants that turn
coal into fuel, it says.
Those incentives could include tax credits, federal loan guarantees, and a government-sponsored insurance
program for private investors in alternative fuel plants.
Congress should provide $500 million for the U.S. Department of Defense's alternative-fuels program, the
report says.
Also, state taxpayers should provide grants and loans to match private investments early on because "the
highest risk in any project is in early stage development," the report says.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (1/4)

CTL plants would still produce a profit in spite of high start-up costs
NYT 7 (5-29)
But the Energy Department also estimated that such a plant could produce a 20 percent annual return if oil
prices remain about $60 a barrel.
Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so volatile and the
upfront construction costs are so high. ''We're not asking for everything. All we're asking for is something,''
said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of Rentech Inc., which is trying to build two plants at mines owned
by Peabody Energy.
But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody
Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years ago
that the value of Peabody's coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal
in the form of liquid fuels.
South African plants proves overall profitability of CTL
Foreign Affairs 7 [Jan/Feb, 86(1)]

As the high oil prices drive the quest for alternative sources, Sasol is starting to export South Africa's world-
class technology to countries that meet its key requirements, basically large reserves of coal or natural gas.
The candidates include Australia, India, China, and the United States, which has the largest coal deposits in
the world. Sasol has already commenced projects in joint ventures with companies in Nigeria, advancing the
NEPAD concept of African-owned and -driven economic development, as well as in the Persian Gulf and
Asia. The Oryx plant in Qatar, which turns natural gas into liquid fuel, was inaugurated in June 2006. At a
cost of $1 billion, the plant's price tag may be somewhat higher than that of a usual refinery, but its long-term
sustainability covers the investment in terms of creating jobs, wealth, value, and skills transfer. Two coal-to-
liquid plants are planned in China.
Partnerships solve the cost problem

High capital costs ($2.5 billion to $6 billion per project) and large project size (30,000 to 80,000 barrels per
day) will dictate where and how viable coal-to-liquids projects can be built. Multiple partners will likely be
required to spread the risks and costs. These partners may include coal suppliers, technology providers,
product users, operators, or private equity providers.
CTL is feasible, cost efficient, and compatible with jet engines
Stratfor 8 [Stratfor is the world’s leading private intelligence service, U.S., China: The Feasibility and Fate of Liquid Coal,
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/u_s_china_feasibility_and_fate_liquid_coal#top, June 5, 2008]
Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology essentially liquefies coal and allows it to be burned in conventional engines,
mainly diesel and aviation engines. With the price of oil at record highs, we examine the status of CTL in the
context of the United States and China — by far the world’s two heaviest producers and consumers of coal. The
Fischer-Tropsch process that converts coal to liquid actually dates back to 1920s Germany, where it was pursued to
compensate for a lack of domestic petroleum resources. It would ultimately account for 90 percent of the Third
Reich’s aviation fuel and half its total fuel consumption, playing a significant role for imperial Japan as well. But
though this process is well understood, it has languished for decades because of exceedingly affordable oil (although
South Africa still uses the process). With oil prices now at record highs, that logic no longer holds: CTL is
technically feasible and easily compatible with current infrastructure and diesel and aviation engines. It is
generally thought to be financially feasible with oil at around $70 a barrel — which oil has held above for a
year now. (Sustained prices at this level are an important prerequisite for investors in CTL, and it is not yet
clear whether the current rise is irreversible.)

Limited start-ups will ramp down costs for future plants
Bartis 6 (James, “Policy Issues for Alternative Fuels for Military Operations”, RAND Corporation)
Given the importance of these three uncertainties, an
immediate national commitment to rapidly put in place a
multi-million-barrel-per-day coal-to-liquids industry would be very counterproductive. Rather,
Congress should consider a more measured approach to developing a coal-to-liquids industry, similar to
the approach recommended in the recent RAND study on oil shale development.2 The focus of that measured approach would be to
foster early operating experience by promoting the construction and operation of a limited number of commercial-scale plants. This
approach would provide an effective way to deal with the uncertainties listed above.
Gaining early operating experience from a few coal-to-liquid plants would reduce the cost and
performance uncertainties that currently impede private-sector investments. At present, the knowledge base for
coal-to-liquid plant construction costs and environmental performance is very limited; it is based on engineering design work intended to
guide federal R&D efforts rather than support investment decisionmaking. Early operating experience would promote
post-production learning, leading to future plants with lower costs and improved performance. Post-
production cost improvement—sometimes called the learning curve—plays a crucial role in the
chemical process industry, and we anticipate that this effect will eventually result in a major reduction
of the costs of coal-derived liquid fuels. Most important, by reducing cost and performance
uncertainties and production costs, a small number of early plants could form the basis of a rapid
expansion of a more economically competitive coal-to-liquids industry, depending on future
developments in world oil markets.
Companies are lined up to invest now
Ott 7 (James, Aviation Week & Space Technology; 3/19/2007, Vol. 166 Issue 12, p1-1, 1p; EBSCO)
In answer to an Air Force RFP last year, 25 companies expressed interest in producing synthetic kerosene.
Pratt & Whitney recently concluded the fourth in a series of tests using Fischer-Tropsch synthetic kerosene
derived from coal and produced by South Africa-based Sasol. Stephen K. Kramer, manager of Pratt's
Combustor Technology Group, says an emissions test, conducted on a lean and efficient new-generation Talon
X combustor, indicates a 12% reduction in CO2 and equivalent levels of nitrogen oxide, NOx. A clear benefit
is a 10-30% reduction in smoke, typical of fuels with high hydrogen content.
Tedd Biddle, Pratt's fuels technology manager at the East Hartford, Conn., plant, says the Sasol test was successful.
Officials of Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls-Royce expect to complete data documentation and post by
midyear fuel specifications for 100% use of the synthetic fuel. This information will be included in service bulletins
issued by the three companies and in U.S. and U.K. specifications standards.
A 50-50 mix of synthetic kerosene and JP-8 performed at JP-8 standards in a blend-fueled B-52 during cold-
weather tests at Minot AFB, N.D.
DOD backing solves the financial risks of CTL development

Provide markets for the fuel produced by the first coal-to-liquids plants. Federal agencies like the Department
of Defense are major consumers of liquid fuels. By agreeing to purchase coal derived fuels at market value,
but not lower than a prescribed minimum price, the government can remove the risk of reductions in oil
prices that could stop development of this industry.

Investment is imminent – 4 companies already involved
ENR 8 (Engineering News Record; 5/5/2008, Vol. 260 Issue 15, p16-16, 0p; Article)
Proposals are due on May 2 for development of a plant on a Montana air base to convert coal into synthetic
fuel. The U.S. Air Force is offering 700 acres of underutilized land on Malmstrom Air Force Base under a
program for "Enhanced Use Lease" by a developer who will build and operate a coal-to-liquid-fuel (CTL)
plant on the site. The program is intended to improve national security by reducing dependence on imported
petroleum. "By 2016, we want to purchase 50% of continental U.S. fuel as synfuel," says Vicki Stein, Air Force
spokeswoman. That amounts to 400 million gallons per year. "We will certify the fleet by 2011 to fly on synfuel,"
she adds. In fiscal year 2007, the service successfully tested with 280,000 gallons of fuel derived from natural
gas made in Malaysia. Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Mont., is the only site offered to date for the CTL program,
but the developer will be free to sell the products on the open market, says Stein. CTL technology is based on
the Fischer-Tropsch Process, discovered in the 1920s and used since then by governments with more coal than oil,
such as Nazi Germany and Apartheid-era South Africa. The process gasifies the coal, allowing extraction of
impurities, then converts it to a liquid using a catalyst. South Africa still produces about 160,000 barrels per day
from two plants. China Shenhua Energy Co. Ltd. is nearing completion of a $1.5-billion CTL plant in Inner
Mongolia, scheduled to begin operation this year. It will be the world's first to liquefy coal without first gasifying
it, a process known as "direct coal liquefaction." Four CTL plants are being developed in the U.S. in Ohio,
Wyoming, North Dakota and Mississippi. All will sell their carbon dioxide for injection into depleted oil fields
to enhance recovery.
( ) The cost-prohibitive nature of alternative energy has faded due to skyrocket oil prices.
Air Force 8 ( The United States Air Force, http://www.airforce.com/e-

newsletter/features/060517_stratofortress.php)
Something brand new is behind the flight of a familiar face. The Air Force is set to test fly a B-52
Stratofortress powered by a fuel derived in part from natural gas. The alternate fuel fortress will fly with two
of its eight jet engines using a specially blended fuel made of conventional petroleum-derived JP-8 and a
Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel produced from natural gas. Until recently, the use of this new type of fuel has been
thought to be cost prohibitive. However, the recent rise in the cost of public fuel has brought the Air Force to
a break-even point. The advantages of natural gas-derived fuel include less dependence on foreign petroleum
and more reliance on domestic power sources such as coal. The United States has perhaps the largest reserve
of coal in the world. That abundance of coal, and the Fischer-Tropsch process, could put the United States on
the path to a more secure energy future.
Spillover to commercial airlines creates cost competitiveness
Wynne 6 (Michael, Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs, Air Force Link,
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026906)
A B-52 Stratofortress powered by a mix of synthetic and JP-8 fuel is slated to take its first flight Sept. 19 from
Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., bringing the Air Force one step closer to reducing its dependence on foreign
fuel. "This is an extremely important moment for the Department of Defense," said Michael Aimone, the Air
Force's assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations and mission support."Our goal is to by 2016 have
50 percent of our aviation fuel coming from alternative fuel sources," Mr. Aimone said.As DOD's largest
consumer of aviation fuel, the Air Force has taken the lead in the research of alternative fuel sources such as
coal and biomass. The Air Force consumes 58 percent of all aviation fuels consumed by the services. According
to Mr. Aimone, energy is both an economic and national security issue, which is why the Air Force has developed a
comprehensive energy strategy."The Air Force is conducting a flight test using a B-52 powered by synthetic JP-
8 to demonstrate our commitment to the president's vision of becoming less dependent on foreign oil," Mr.
Aimone said. "We're working to certify the fuel for military aviation use," he said. "We must do that in a
visible and transparent way so our partners in the commercial aviation industry will be able to see our
testing. By working together we can expand the market for synthetic jet fuel and make it more economical to
produce by increasing volume."

Military research into FT fuels creates interest and investment
A significant swath of the current research is motivated by military needs. It is very much a matter of the
convergence of the military's need for homegrown fuels and the commercial arena's craving for stability. "By
2016," says Altman, "the Air Force has a requirement that its fleet be powered at least 50/50 by Fischer-Tropsch
fuels." CAAFI hopes to piggyback on the USAF initiative to come up with a single specification for a fuel that
will serve both military and commercial needs. "What we're trying to do right now is come up with a singular process," he says.
"FAA doesn't have a timeline but the military does. We're trying to speed things up." Such commonality opens up the field for
more players and increased production.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – Technical Problems (1/2)

There are no technical problems for CTL – All commercial fears are artificial
WSJ 7 (6-19)
CTL enjoys significant support in the U.S. Congress -- mostly, if not surprisingly, from coal-mining states.
Coal-fired utilities currently produce some 52% of electricity in the U.S., and, mostly because of the animus
against nuclear power, the U.S. uses about three times as much coal as the country did in the early 1980s.
Given coal's usefulness and the lack of workable large-scale alternatives (nuclear aside), any difficulties
facing the industry are artificial -- which is to say, political pressure for increased regulation, including
moratoriums on new plants. Environmentalists deride coal as "filthy" for its various pollutants, though these
are controlled by modern technology, and for the CO2 emissions that are said to contribute to climate change.
Therein lies a not-so-small irony. On alternative fuels, the global warmists usually make common cause with
those who believe the U.S. must become "energy independent." Thus the heap of money being shoveled into
corn ethanol and other more fantastic schemes like "biofuels." But the goals of the two coalitions are often in
tension, if not outright contradiction.
CTL by itself will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and at worst doubles the carbon emissions
volume over petroleum. Proponents point to carbon-sequestration systems, which capture the gas produced
by combustion and then bury it in aquifers or spent oil fields. But even this would only keep the carbon status
quo.
It's also extremely expensive: The best sequestration programs could remove up to 90% of CO2 but add
about 50% to the costs, according to an authoritative MIT study. The capital costs for a new plant are
estimated at between $2.5 billion and $6 billion, and perhaps higher, because sequestration projects are years
away from a working pilot phase. So making CTL viable requires a great deal of American taxpayers' money.
Don't get us wrong: In theory, this coal technology has much to recommend it. It could conceivably replace
oil or gasoline without sweeping changes to America's pipeline and transportation infrastructure. The
technology has been in use since the early 20th century, and actually works -- unlike many energy
"alternatives" -- though not yet on a commercial scale. There's no shortage of capital for such ventures. But in
another irony, private investment has been hindered by uncertainty over the carbon-control measures that
might be coming from the U.S. Congress.
South Africa proves it’s feasible
Foreign Affairs 7 [Jan/Feb, 86(1)]

South Africa has found a serious solution and has been continuously developing it for the past 50 years. The
country's lack of crude oil reserves has driven an inventive approach towards exploiting the resources South
Africa does have in abundance, especially coal. Sasol, formerly state-owned, now a publicly traded
multinational headquartered in Johannesburg and quoted on the New York Stock Exchange, uses a
proprietary technology based on the Fischer-Tropsch conversion process to transform coal and natural gas
into liquid fuel. Sasol's CEO Pat Davies says the technology offers a viable alternative to coal- and gas-
endowed economies. "Our gas--to--liquids (GTL) and coal--to--liquids (CTL) solutions come at a time when
more and more countries are seeking greater security of energy supply and the opportunity to add value to
underutilized gas and coal reserves."
The company already meets about 40 percent of South Africa's fuel needs and accounts for about 4.4 percent
of the country's GDP. With 30,000 employees, including the largest number of PhD's of any company in the
southern hemisphere, Sasol is also one of South Africa's largest employers. Its long experience with the
technology has enabled it to move beyond synfuels to include value-added chemicals production to its
activities. "Best of all," says Davies, "our alternative clean fuels utilize conventional infrastructure. Just as
motorists don't ask if the fuel they're putting in their vehicle was made from Venezuelan, Nigerian, or Texas
crude, motorists in South Africa don't ask if their fuel was made from coal, gas, or crude oil."
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – Technical Problems (2/2)

South Africa proves CTL solves
Hydrocarbon Processing 7 (Mar, p.23)

Coal-to-liquids (CTLs) is a well-developed technology. In South Africa, CTL fuels meet 30% of
transportation fuel needs. The US holds large coal reserves. While coal itself is a low-efficiency fuel and a
well-reported polluter, advanced gasification technologies can convert over 95% of coal fuel into a
combustible gas, commonly called syngas.
All the tech is online – South Africa proves

The CTL plants constructed under the agreement could produce anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 b/d of CTL
fuel. A 10,000 b/d plant would use 2-3 Mt/y of coal, while a 30,000 b/d plant would use 6-9 Mt/y of coal. The
CTL technology the plants would employ has been in use since the 1920s, and is currently used in South
Africa to power roughly one-quarter of that country’s transportation fleet.
Commercial scale projects operate worldwide

Coal-to-liquids is not strictly a research and development effort. The term “coal-to-liquids” refers to a broad
class of technologies for making liquid transportation fuels from coal. Many of these technologies have been
known for decades and many are being deployed at commercial scale around the world. Likewise, carbon
capture and storage technologies are currently being practiced at commercial scale for enhanced oil recovery
operations.
More ev…

From a production perspective, coal-to-liquids refineries utilize technologies that have been commercially
proven and are already being deployed in other parts of the world. Two main types of coal-to-liquids
technologies exist. Indirect coal liquefaction first gasifies the solid coal and then converts the gas into liquid
fuels. Direct coal liquefaction converts solid coal directly into a liquid “syncrude” that can then be further
refined into fuel products.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – CTL = Profits

CTL plants will turn a profit
Spokesman-Review 7 (6-3)
If the price of oil is $61 a barrel, a CTL plant producing 27,819 barrels of diesel per day and slightly smaller
volumes of other liquids would generate a return on investment of almost 20 percent. The debt for such a
$3.6 billion plant would be retired in five years. Even at $37 a barrel, the return on investment is 10 percent.
The plan spurs efficiency, reducing plant costs

Expanding on the second recommendation on this list, I am personally aware of, and have technically
reviewed one closed- loop heat recovery technology that is capable of recovering and converting 95% of the
energy contained in the copious amount of low-grade and intermediate-grade steam produced by a Fischer-
Tropsch plant into electrical power. These developing concepts take advantage of low boiling point fluids
that can condense the steam, thus eliminating the cooling tower loads while increasing electrical power
production by as much as 15 - 20%. This is an example of how impetus to improve the efficiency of a CTL
plant will spur creative engineering aimed at designing more efficient and cleaner plants.
Test projects will rapidly induce a learning curve for later plants

Early operating experience would promote post-production learning, leading to future plants with
lower costs and improved performance. Post-production cost improvement—sometimes called
the learning curve—plays a crucial role in the chemical process industry, and we anticipate that
this effect will eventually result in a major reduction of the costs of coal-derived liquid fuels. Most
important, by reducing cost and performance uncertainties and production costs, a small number
of early plants could form the basis for a rapid expansion by the private sector of a more
economically competitive coal-to-liquids industry, depending on future developments in world oil
markets.
CTL spin-offs solve for overall profit margins

Efficiency and productivity can be improved by co-producing liquid fuels, electricity, and chemical
feedstocks (known as polygeneration). CO2 emissions from the production process can be significantly
reduced through carbon capture and storage—and costs may be offset as a result of changes in sulfur
management.
Expanding the market lowers costs

The capital cost of CTL plants also is expected to decrease through the ongoing development of the
technology. Although CTL has been operating for many years in South Africa, a broadening and growth of
the market will drive both existing providers and new entrants to develop more efficient and cost-effective
processes to gain market advantage. New developments notwithstanding, CTL currently provides one of the
most affordable alternatives to conventional petroleum production.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Empirically Fails

They’ve read the wrong studies – The DOE concludes CTL works
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 15-6)
In July 2001, the U.S. Department of Energy reported results of its direct coal liquefaction development
program. Following are excerpts from its Summary Report: “The DOE direct liquefaction program produced
a surprisingly mature technology. The intensive effort between 1976 and 1982 (Phase I), when 90% of the
program funds were expended, resulted in a demonstration of the technical feasibility of the major process
components. The Phase I processes, however, were deficient in terms of product yield and quality. This
stimulated further research and development work between 1983 and 1999 (Phase II). The Phase II work was
significantly less costly than earlier demonstration projects, but resulted in substantial improvements in
process performance and economics. It now is possible to produce liquids of high quality at high yields that
approach the theoretical maximum. At the same time, the cost for a barrel of product dropped by 50%
because of process optimization and increased yields. Economics and engineering studies conducted
throughout Phase II have reduced the uncertainty, and therefore, the risk associated with commercial
deployment of the technology. “The current technology is well defined in terms of cost and performance. It
represents a technically available option for the production of liquid fuels. It can be used domestically in the
United States to limit our exposure to oil price increases in the international market or to offset supply
reductions. It also can be used by other nations who choose to use domestic coal to meet their transportation
fuel needs, thus reducing demands on conventional petroleum sources. It can be used with coal alone, or to
co-process a variety of lower value feedstocks. The results of the DOE program allow direct coal liquefaction
to be accurately assessed in context to the costs and risks associated with other options for securing liquid
fuel supplies should the need arise.”
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Regulation Prevents

No regulations preventing CTL
Lash 7 [Jonathan, led the World Resources Institute as its President since 1993, The Problems With Coal Liquids Subsidies,
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/06/problems-coal-liquids-subsidies, June 27, 2007]
The current political debate is not about regulation; it is about subsidies and economics, and here it gets
interesting. CTL seems to fit into the "receding horizon" category: it has always claimed to be commercially
ready when oil prices hit a level that was just over the horizon (roughly $15/barrel back in the 70s; $30 in the
80s, $60 in the 90s, and now, $80?). Of course CCS will increase the price for CTL. No one is building CTL
facilities today, although there are no regulations preventing it, because it doesn't make economic sense. And
that's without CCS. Why would we subsidize a technology that no private investor believes to be viable?
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Backstopping

OPEC cant manipulate oil prices

What will happen when the oil supply cannot satisfy global demand? First, as we approach the peak there
will be wide fluctuations in the price of oil, since demand is not smooth and one would expect many
instances of a supply deficit followed by a surplus. In the Oil Shockwave simulation, a supply decrease of
only four percent resulted in a price increase of 177 percent.xiv We may be seeing the beginning of this
phenomenon over the past year. It appears that OPEC can no longer control the price of oil by adjusting
production since they are probably already operating near maximum capacity and cannot significantly
increase supply to fully satisfy demand. But why must the data on oil supply be sheer speculation?
Although one might think that all the data on global oil reserves, current oil production and production
capacity would be well known, the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, Aramco, has kept this important data private
since the company became solely Saudi owned in 1977 and OPEC made a decision not to publish production
data in 1982.xv Therefore, the statistics cited by the sources in this paper are based on observations of oil
actually produced and the limited information that Aramco and OPEC do provide.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Peak Coal (1/2)

The U.S. has enough domestic coal to last 235 years
Energy Information Administration 7 (“Coal a fossil fuel” http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html)

Coal reserves are beds of coal still in the ground waiting to be mined. The United States has the world's largest
known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use.
Coal production is the amount of coal that is mined and sent to market. In 2005, the amount of coal produced
at U.S. coal mines reached an all time high of 1,131.5 million short tons. Coal is mined in 27 states. Wyoming mines the most
coal, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas.Coal is mainly found in three large regions, the Appalachian Coal Region, the Interior Coal
Region, and Western Coal Region (includes the Powder River Basin).
The U.S. has one of the biggest coal reserves but only uses 8% of it
Fournier and Westervelt 5 [Donald F. and Eileen T, U.S. Army Corp Engineers, Energy Trends and Their Implications for
U.S. Army Installations, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/graphics/ace060315.pdf, September 2005]
The United States has over 96 percent of the coal reserves in North America. The United States and the
Former Soviet Union combined have 47 percent of the world’s coal reserves. China, Australia, India, and
Germany round out the top six with another 33 percent or the world’s total. U.S. coal reserves of 280 billion tons
equal about a 260 year supply at current rates of consumption, assuming the United States would start using more
sub-bituminous coals as they represent about half the reserves, but only about 8 percent of the consumption.
Thus, based solely on hard coal, our reserves are about 140 years. The United States produces 24 percent of the
world’s total hard coal (909 million tons of 3,775 million tons) and 9 percent of the world’s total brown coal (79
million tons of 901 million tons) annually. China and the United States produce almost 50 percent of the world’s
total coal (IEA 2000).
8% of total coal is enough to power 50% of the U.S. electricity needs
Fournier and Westervelt 5 [Donald F. and Eileen T, U.S. Army Corp Engineers, Energy Trends and Their Implications for
U.S. Army Installations, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/graphics/ace060315.pdf, September 2005]
Over 90 percent of the coal consumption in the United States goes into producing electrical power. About 6 percent
is used by industrial and coke plants with the remaining 4 percent are used by captive markets such as state-owned
facilities, or used by the residential and commercial sectors. Over 50 percent of the electricity generated in the
nation is from coal. Coal use by all sectors other than electrical generation has been greatly reduced over the last
several decades due the air pollution implications of its usage. The high price of pollution abatement systems
restricts coals usage to large consumers. Most of the other markets have switched to natural gas or fuel oil.
1 trillion tons of coal will last us for a long time
August 28, 2006]
Well, coal is the most abundant of the fossil fuels. Recent estimates of the world's total recoverable coal
reserves exceeds 1 Trillion sort tons. According to the Energy Information Administration, "the ratio of coal
reserves to production exceeds 200 years, meaning that at current rates of production -- and no change in
reserves -- coal reserves could in theory last for another two centuries." Now, this reserve life assumes that
demand will remain at current levels. But the fact of that matter is that coal demand -- like every other fossil fuel --
is likely to increase as the years pass. So it's very unlikely that the world's coal reserve will last us the full 200 years.
Nonetheless, 1 trillion tons of coal is one heck of a resource that will last us quite a while.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Peak Coal (2/2)

Our coal reserves will last hundreds of years
Behreandt`6 (Dennis Behreandt "The promise of synthetic fuel: coal-to-liquid technologies, pioneered almost 80 years ago,
have the potential to free America from its dependence on foreign oil". New American, The. Nov 27, 2006. FindArticles.com. 09
Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996859)
Indeed, it's taken many decades for CTL technology to be implemented on a wide scale in the United States,
but now may be the time for the nation to embrace this promising technology. "We have as much
energy in coal as the rest of the world has in oil," Rutgers University professor of chemistry and CTL
researcher Alan Goldman recently told MIT's Technology Review. "That's enough to last us the next
hundred years or so." That's the kind of energy independence the nation desperately needs.
CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Long-Term

Nine plants in the U.S. being built now – will be useable in 2009
Clayton 7 [Mark, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Coal in cars: great fuel or climate foe?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p02s01-ussc.htm, March 2, 2007]
At least nine coal-to-liquids facilities are now in the planning stages, including one each in Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and Wyoming that already have significant funding lined up and are slated to begin production
by 2009, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. If all nine plants were built, they could
produce about 3 billion gallons of fuel a year – not enough to meet the president's goal. But if federal tax
incentives and state subsidies kick-start the industry, coal-based fuel production could soar to 40 billion
gallons a year by 2025 – or about 10 percent of forecast oil demand that year, the National Coal Council reported to
the Department of Energy (DOE) last year.
CTL inevitable – even Warren Buffet is joining the game
August 28, 2006]
Despite the misinformed allegations of naysayers, coal-to-liquids is not a pie-in-the-sky dream. It's a proven
technology that was pioneered over 75 years ago and became highly successful in Germany. In fact, at its peak
production in 1944, Germany had 25 coal-to-liquid plants that produced more than 124,000 barrels of synthetic
fuels daily. This production was enough to meet 90% of the nation's needs! And I believe that with the right
investment in the right places, America could do this too. The problem thus far has been that oil has been so
cheap. For years oil prices averaged only $20 a barrel. At these prices, CTL isn't worth it. Figures calculated
by the Department of Energy indicate CTL technology is economically feasible with oil prices over $40 a barrel.
Anything lower and companies lose money. But now that crude prices are averaging well over $70 a barrel --
and only set to go higher -- you can start to get an idea as to why smart investors are getting so excited about
CTL and the companies behind it right now. Fact is, CTL technology is just now starting to gain serious
investment interest. Several major energy companies and investment banks are all now looking into coal-to-
liquid technologies. In fact, late last Thursday, Arch Coal (NYSE: ACI) -- the second-largest coal producer in
the U.S. -- made its biggest CTL play to date. Arch announced that it acquired a 25% equity interest in DKRW
Advanced Fuels, the principal developer of the Medicine Bow Fuel and Power CTL project, which is expected to
initially produce about 11,000 bbl/day of transport diesel and other fuels. This is huge news for the industry. Arch's
investment further validates the bullish outlook for the technology. Even Warren Buffet has staked his claim.
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. -- an energy firm owned by the investment mogul -- recently bought 8,500
acres of coal-rich land in Johnson County, Wyoming to leverage coal's second boom. The growing interest in
CTL technology doesn't stop in America. In fact, the CTL industry is growing so fast in China that the
government is actually considering taking steps to slow it down. The business is currently booming due to high
global oil prices and China's shortage of transport fuels and chemicals.
CTL Good – Solvency – CTL = Gasification

CTL requires gasification as an interim step

This process is highly efficient, but the liquid products require further refining {"hydrocracking," or adding
hydrogen over a catalyst) to achieve high-grade fuel characteristics. Indirect coal liquefaction first gasifies
the coal with steam to form a "syngas" (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). The sulfur is removed
from this gas and the mixture adjusted according to the desired product. The syngas is then condensed over a
catalyst to produce high quality, ultra-clean products. An array of products can be made via these processes:
ultra-clean petroleum and diesel, synthetic waxes, lubricants, and chemical feedstocks. A similar process,
using different catalysts, will produce alternative liquid fuels such as methanol and dimethyl ether (OME).
More ev…

Indirect coal liquefaction is a two-step process consisting of coal gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
synthesis. Coal is gasified with oxygen and steam to produce a synthesis gas (syngas) containing hydrogen
and carbon monoxide. The raw syngas is cooled and cleaned of carbon dioxide and impurities. In the FT
synthesis reactor, the cleaned syngas comes in contact with a catalyst that transforms the diatomic hydrogen
and carbon monoxide molecules into long-chained hydrocarbons (containing dozens of atoms). The FT
products can be refined just like petroleum-derived crude oil into a wide range of ultra-clean finished
products.
CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (1/4)

The Air Force can spark a commercial market for CTL

It will take billions of dollars to build a “coal-to-liquid” plant able to meet the Air Force’s fuel needs. It
would cost many times that much to meet airline needs. No one is willing to make that investment unless
there is an assured, profitable market for the synthetic fuel.
But no market will develop until there are plants turning out fuel.
Davis’ answer is the Air Force.
“The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of fuel in the United States and the Air Force
consumes over 50 percent of the fuel used by the military,” he said.
The Air Force will serve as a test market
Winn 7 (Patrick Winn, Staff Writer for the Air Force Times, December 20
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/12/airforce_synthetic_fuel_1217)
The Air Force, as the American government’s largest consumer of oil, must use its buying power to kick-start
the private sector’s fledgling alternative fuels market. He’s presently in talks, for example, with Montana
officials over pushing commercial interests to mine the state’s coal reserves near Malmstrom Air Force Base and
produce synthetic fuel. The Air Force’s goal, Anderson said, is to build the market so it can provide roughly 400
million gallons of synthetic fuel to the service by 2016. It also needs to bring on allied air forces, which share
refueling stations with the U.S.
The military is a key part of commercial tech advancement-Start up costs

AFL 8 (Air Force Link, Government Sponsored Air Force informational site, SECAF discusses alternative energy initiatives at
conference 4/25/2008 - GENEVA (AFPN) http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123096037)
During his remarks, Secretary Wynne reiterated the Air Force's goal of certifying the entire Air Force
fleet for synthetic fuel blends by early 2011. He related this goal to the Air Force's mission of enhancing
sovereign options for the United States. Responding to questions after the panel, Secretary Wynne
emphasized how the private sector is an important partner for Air Force alternative energy initiatives. He also
noted that civil and commercial innovation often follows military sponsorship of technology "mega-
projects." "Developing a process that will produce new clean synthetic fuels is an ambitious goal,"
Secretary Wynne said, "but we have a good track record of succeeding at this sort of project. The
military has a unique ability to overcome start up costs that commerce cannot. "From the Manhattan
Project that gave us nuclear energy, to the Atlas Rocket Project that led to commercial space, to
ARPAnet that paved the way for the Internet, the military has often played an important role in moving
the technological ball forward," the secretary said. "What the Air Force is doing today is paving the way
for the aviation industry to become less dependent on an expensive and unstable energy sources and
implement more environmentally sound practices," he said.
The plan commercializes CTL
Brown 8 (Matthew, Associated Press, March 22, http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/032208/bus_260502419.shtml)

With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets to long-haul
trucking companies. "Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes
into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the
endgame."

The Air Force can spur a market for CTL
NBR 8 (Nightly Business Report, Transcripts On Air, June 9, http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080609b/)

PAUL KANGAS: Like commercial airlines, the U.S. Air Force is also facing soaring fuel costs. While efficiency
efforts have helped cut consumption, the Air Force still spent nearly $6 billion on fuel last year, triple the
amount spent just three years ago. As Stephanie Dhue reports, soaring fuel prices are driving the Air Force to
look for alternatives.
STEPHANIE DHUE, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: The Air Force is gearing up to
make a market for synthetic fuel made from coal. It has already certified the B-52 bomber to fly with the new
fuel and over the next three years, plans to have all 6,000 planes in the fleet fly with a 50/50 blend of synthetic
and petroleum-based fuels. Bill Anderson heads the Air Force's fuel program. He says the idea is to develop a
domestic industry to supply that fuel.
BILL ANDERSON, ASST. SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Rather than the movie the "Field of Dreams," where
you build it and they will come, here in essence, we are there, waiting for the industry to be built to service our
demand.
DHUE: The Air Force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel each year, nearly 10 percent of what's sold in
the United States.
ANDERSON: A 10 percent share of the market is a pretty sizable portion and we believe that is enough to
initiate a market at a minimum.
DHUE: The Air Force is also working with commercial airlines and engine makers to develop a coal-to-liquids
market. Rising crude oil prices are making similar projects more attractive. Bob Kelly is with DKRW, a firm
developing a coal-to-liquids manufacturing plant. He says there is a market for synthetic fuel for cars. One
challenge is getting financing.
Air Force use of CTL spreads to the commercial sector

Mathews`7 (William, Air Force Times, Coal states see boon in Air Force alt-fuel push, Jun 17, 2007
The same process used to make liquid fuel from natural gas can be used to make liquid fuel from coal.
Davis hopes that once the Air Force adopts coal-based jet fuel, so will commercial airlines. The potential
benefits are broader than just more jobs and increased income for his home state. “Kentucky has the unique
opportunity to be part of the solution to our nation’s energy crisis by turning coal into liquid fuel,” the
congressman said. The Air Force may be essential to Kentucky’s success. It will take billions of dollars to
build a “coal-to-liquid” plant able to meet the Air Force’s fuel needs. It would cost many times that
much to meet airline needs. No one is willing to make that investment unless there is an assured,
profitable market for the synthetic fuel. But no market will develop until there are plants turning out
fuel. Davis’ answer is the Air Force. “The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of fuel
in the United States and the Air Force consumes over 50 percent of the fuel used by the military,” he
said.

The Air Force is key to move the market toward CTL
AP`8 (Associated Press, Air Force Plans to Switch Fuel for Coal, March 22, 2008,
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164531,00.html)
Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To
do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually. With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson
said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies. "Because of
our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart
trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the
endgame." Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change
worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The
Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities,
have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of
climate change.
That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air
Force's plan. "This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in
Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio.
"There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone."
Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom
plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks
and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry.
Military use of synthetics spreads to the commercial sector-Partnerships

Schanz`7 (Mark V. Editor for Air Force online, The Fuel War, June 2007,
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.ASP)
“Just as the Department of Defense played a critical role in forging the information revolution in past
decades, we must play a similar vital role in fueling the energy revolution in coming decades,” said Maj.
Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr., assistant deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, on the Air Staff. Air Force
leaders are cautious about making predictions about their ability to spark broad-scale change. “If we were to
get all of our airplanes flying on synthetic fuel,” Carlson observed, “we still wouldn’t generate a market
that anybody would want to buy into. Nobody would want to [take on] the multibillion-dollar investment just
to sell gas to the US Air Force.” Carlson said Wynne wants to effectively demonstrate new technology and
work to partner with private industry, potentially an airline, and begin to generate interest at the
national level. On March 8-9, the Air Force hosted an energy forum in the Washington, D.C., area.
Officials sought to provide a better understanding of USAF’s energy initiatives, programs, and
strategies and to build on its efforts to link up military research with the forces of demand and supply.
( ) The Air Force has size capabilities to move the Syn Fuel market along – it would give
coal-to-liquid plants the political and economic traction needed to popularize. This will
increase Syn Fuel use in trucking companies and commercial airlines.
FNO 8 (Financial News Online; World Business, Finance, and Political News; March 22, http://medvedhost.info/2008/03/22/air-force-prod-
aids-coal-to-fuel-plans/)
With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets
to long-haul trucking companies. “Because of our size, we can move the market along,” he said. “Whether it’s
(coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame.” Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts
to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to
mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The Air Force’s involvement comes at a critical time for the
industry. Coal’s biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired
power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change quickly if coal-to-
liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force’s plan. “This is a change agent for
the entire industry,” said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on
a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. “There would be a number of plants that would be
needed just to support (the Air Force’s) needs alone.”

The plan will spill over to the commercial sector-Reducing Air Force dependence is key
Egger`8 (Jeffery W., Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff, The Fuel Gauge of
National Security, 2008, http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
Oil’s ascendancy to a strategic commodity was through the military; the military should also be the
source of its demise. The British Navy’s shift from coal to oil and the U.S. Navy’s pioneering research
in nuclear power suggest that military requirements and innovation are well-poised to push difficult or
innovative solutions. For starters, U.S. warships are one of the few places where nuclear power might
reduce the transportation sector’s dependence on liquid fuels. Thus the maritime sector has the luxury of
being poised for transformation to alternative methods if and when oil spikes to prices considered
inconceivable today. Similarly, land-based transportation is arguably close to viable jumping points to new
foundational technologies, possibly through electric or hydrogen power. It is significantly less clear what
non-liquid or non-carbon technology the airline industry might choose. While there are alternatives on the
horizon for shipping and wheeled transportation, there is no resource so optimized in ease of storage and
power density as good old petroleum. And given that jet fuel constitutes the Defense Department’s largest
single energy expenditure, improvements in this field would not only close the widest gap in civil
transportation requirement, they would simultaneously make the largest improvement in defense
propulsion vulnerabilities. At the International Maritime Propulsion Conference in May, scientists and
researchers will debate the viability of crude oil alternatives and will likely conclude that CTL processes
offer the most feasible short-term solution. Similar studies in Europe have concluded that hydrogen and
biofuels are unlikely short-term successors. Hydrogen is an energy storage option, not a source, and current
generation biofuels are competing with food supplies — the principal reason that a gallon of milk still costs
more than a gallon of gasoline. While CTL is cost-effective now, the process of liquefying coal requires
significant amounts of water and produces significant carbon emissions, two sensitive areas that need to be
addressed hand-in-hand with energy needs, not at the expense of one another. Climate change and associated
political pressures mean that proposed solutions must increasingly utilize a comprehensive well-to-wheel
analysis, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental consequences. National security has
always held the trump card over environmental factors, and this is unlikely to change, but the bar for playing
this hand is rising. As we begin to capture more of the hidden costs of energy, cheap solutions will become
harder to find, further emphasizing the need for expanded research. In military consumption of oil, aircraft
account for 73 percent, ground vehicles 15 percent, ships 8 percent and ground installations 4 percent. So
while there has been significant attention to conserving energy on military installations and converting
warships to nuclear power, these two together account for less than one-fifth of aviation’s thirst for oil.
The Air Force has aggressively explored the use of biofuels in the B-52 bomber and other aircraft with recent
success, yet it is not clear that biofuels could be a long-term path to reduced vulnerability for aviation. In
2006, the U.S. airline industry consumed about 20 billion gallons of fuel, yet the U.S. produces slightly
more than 4 billion gallons of ethanol annually, and that level of production is beginning to be
problematic, as evidenced by the rising price of corn and milk. At the levels of intractability we face, real
solutions must be not only scaleable, but utilize the strictest “full cost burden” methods of accounting. None
of this has gone unnoticed by the Pentagon. In 2006, before the prodding by Congress, the Defense
Department sponsored several symposiums to look at reducing the dependence. The Energy Conversation, a
nonprofit consortium of private and public sector entities, was born out of close collaboration with the
Pentagon to connect the “best ideas, innovations, resources and people — all of which will be needed to
create a sustainable energy future.” Attempting to lead from the front, the Pentagon has begun to reduce
its consumption of oil, now down to about 300,000 barrels a day. The bad news is that costs are clearly
skyrocketing. At current prices, the Pentagon will spend more than $8 billion this year on oil. But cost
savings and incremental reductions in military consumption are not the real opportunity here. Rather, a
renewed and expanded investment in military energy research and development will catalyze methods
and improvements that would become diffused throughout industry. This pattern has played out many
times before.
CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Airlines (1/3)

Commercial airlines will model the plan

The Air Force said it plans to certify 31 airplanes and four helicopters with the fuel, as well as some vehicles
such as Humvees.
Commercial airlines are monitoring the tests closely, and they are interested in the domestic production of
synthetic aviation fuels, Billings said.
Airlines are interested in CTL – Pilot programs demonstrate feasibility

Commercial aviation is also progressing towards full acceptance of F-T jet fuel in general aviation aircraft.
The Federal Aviation Administration is supporting the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
(CAAFI) which will oversee the efforts to approve the use of blends of F-T fuel with conventional jet fuel.
This fuel is already in use in South Africa and all planes flying out of Johannesburg International Airport
have been using a blend of F-T jet fuel and conventional jet fuel for 7 years, including Delta Air Lines that
recently initiated service from Atlanta.
FAA partnerships guarantee commercial spillover
Wagner`7 (Breanne, Air Force energy-saving plans face technical, financial hurdles, May 2007,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm)
The C-17 was chosen because the engine is similar to that of a commercial airplane, Anderson said. The
Air Force is working with the Federal Aviation Administration to find synthetic fuel to fulfill both military and
commercial needs. The Air Force, Defense Department and Department of Energy are all contributing
to the FAA’s commercial aviation alternative fuels initiative. Two studies will be released in September,
said Marion Blakey, FAA administrator. The studies will examine the feasibility, cost, technical issues,
barriers, and environmental issues associated with synthetic fuels. The partnership between the Air Force
and the FAA goes beyond the alternative fuels studies. The FAA’s buying power represents 85 percent
of the market, Wynne said, so the agency is an essential component of a successful synthetic fuel
industry. The Air Force is seeking industry bids, through the Defense Logistics Agency, to buy 206,000
gallons of synthetic fuel this year for testing, said Anderson. NASA also issued a bid for 9,000 gallons of the
fuel for its own testing program.
( ) Plan spills over to commercial airlines and NASA causing a wide-spread alternative
energy use.
Hernandez 7 (Senior Airman Jason, 95th Air Base Wing Public Affairs, United States Air Force, August 8
http://www.safie.hq.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123064095)
"This will be a bridge into the commercial arena," Secretary Wynne said. "We are being watched by many of
our airline colleagues who are not only partnering with us, but researching our data. We have developed a
rigorous process to qualify this fuel and any manufactured, processed synthetic fuel and blend." The Air
Force manual is being rewritten to highlight that there is a process to qualify alternative fuels within the Air
Force, he said. Recently, the Air Force ordered 281,000 gallons of synthetic fuel for further testing on the C-17
and B-1 Lancer engines in the coming year. NASA is also interested in synthetic fuels and will receive 9,000
gallons of synthetic fuel from the Air Force so they can begin evaluating its use in various engines and
systems. "This is the tip of the spear for national energy independence and cleaner energy," Secretary Wynne
said. "It is doing well for the Air Force and the nation."

The aviation industry is working with the Air Force on the fuel now
Drinnon`7 (Roger Drinnon Air Mobility Command Public Affairs, Air Force Link, C-17 alternative fuel research tests to
begin, 9/10/07, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066920)
As fuel prices rise, synthetic fuel becomes economically viable with the potential to reduce dependency on
foreign energy sources, said Mr. Erbschloe, a former deputy chief operating officer for the Department of
Energy's Office of Science. "The goal is to make the cost of synthetic fuel comparable to buying JP-8,"
he said. Upcoming C-17 tests will be a stepping stone toward improving national energy security as well
as toward prompting interest in commercial industry. He said commercial aviation already is working
with the Air Force to certify more aircraft to use the fuel blend. The former Air Force command pilot
with 3,900 flying hours said Air Force standardization efforts will help define the certification process.
The plan will be modeled by commercial airlines

As the Air Force's experimentation increased, so did the involvement of the private sector. Military and
civilian aircraft share many parts and are often built by the same companies. The military's Boeing C-
17 cargo jet, for instance, uses the same Pratt & Whitney engine as a Boeing 757 passenger plane.
Pentagon officials are sharing their research into synthetic fuels with such firms to help civilian
companies certify their equipment on the synthetic-fuel blend. At the military's direction, Pratt &
Whitney, Rolls-Royce PLC, Honeywell International Inc. and General Electric Co. have agreed to work
together to develop joint specifications for how their engines perform on artificial fuels. Last November,
engineers from Pratt & Whitney mounted one of the company's C-17 engines in a high-tech pressure
chamber at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee and simulated a variety of altitudes and weather conditions to
gauge the engine's performance. The tests were "enormously uneventful," says Alan Epstein, the company's
vice president of technology and environment -- an encouraging sign. In late 2006, Baard Energy of
Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the U.S., to be
completed in 2012. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant
because of the military's interest. "There isn't a market for this right now, so it takes a little bit of faith to get
these plants going," he says. "Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the
decision-making process."
Long term loan guarantees increase investment which subsequently allows the Air Force to
stimulate commercial use of synthetics
The Pentagon is hoping its push for alternative energy will feed civilian applications as well. For
synthetic fuel, the Air Force is working with aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing Corp. and the Pratt
& Whitney engine unit of United Technologies Corp. North American synthetic-fuel processors including
Rentech Inc., Baard Energy and Syntroleum Corp. all operate or hope to build synthetic-fuel refineries to
feed the military's growing thirst. "Our goal is to drive the development of a market here in the U.S.,"
says Mr. Anderson. Military use of synthetic fuel faces significant obstacles. The energy bill signed into law
by President Bush last year included a clause preventing the government from buying the fuel if it emits
more pollution than petroleum. Manufacturers have promised to meet that target by recapturing carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gasses produced in refining. Without those efforts, synthetic fuel can emit up to
twice as much pollution in refining as conventional petroleum.

CTL spurs commercial aviation industry
Springer 8 (Lt. Gen. Robert, Retired Air Force General, 3/25, http://www.wral.com/news/blogpost/2625696)
Imagine flying an Air Force bomber faster than the speed of sound – and doing it while testing a 50/50 blend
of synthetic petroleum fuel. Well, that flight did take place last week, as a B-1 bomber launched from its home station of Dyess Air
Force Base, near Abilene, Texas, and flew to New Mexico, crossing the White Sands Missile Range at 680 mph. While this was not the first Air
Force aircraft and crew to test synthetic fuels in flight, it was the first supersonic flight, and like the other test flights, it came off
without a hitch. In late 2006, an eight-engine B-52 bomber made the first synthetic fuel flight, and more recently, a four-engine C-17 transport
aircraft flew across the country on synthetic fuel. This is a big deal. The goal is to have all U.S. Air Force aircraft certified
to use a synthetic blend fuel within the next three to four years. Synthetic fuel is cheaper, will reduce
dependence on foreign oil, and burns cleaner. That is significant. The Air Force is by far the largest consumer
of aviation fuel, with an appetite for about 3 billion gallons a year. So, any efficiency and cost savings are
enormous. Just what is synthetic aviation fuel? And how long has the idea been around? Essentially, it is fuel that
can be produced from coal, shale and natural gas – all hydrocarbon products that are available to us in the
U.S., significantly reducing dependence on foreign oil. I am no expert on the processing technique, but I am told that these
domestic products – coal, shale or natural gas – go through a conversion process that turns them into a liquid fuel. On last week’s B-1 supersonic
flight, natural gas was used in the blended fuel. Sounds like a 21st-century breakthrough, doesn’t it? Well, not quite. The conversion method was
first developed some 80 years ago in Germany. A couple of German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, were responsible for what would
become known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. The few test flights so far have indicated no difference in aircraft handling or performance. More
test flights with other airframes are in the offing. As I noted above, the Air Force's goal is to have all of its aircraft certified for
synthetic fuel by 2011. A cheaper, cleaner, less-dependent-on-foreign-oil aviation fuel will dramatically affect
the aviation industry. For now, it is just the Air Force out in front with this significant project of testing and
then certifying an alternative fuel. But in the near future, I visualize all of the other armed services and the commercial airline industry
taking the same route. Cheaper, cleaner and domestically available all make for a highly desirable outcome.
CTL Good – Solvency – AF Key (1/3)

The Air Force is the key
Within the DoD, moreover, the Army is not the leader in regards to energy usage—it is the Air Force. In
fiscal year 2005, the Air Force consumed 54 percent of the fuel, the Army 12 percent, and the Navy 33
percent. What are the energy needs? Well, the Air Force flies a lot of jets and uses a lot of jet fuel. That is
why they consume so much oil.
AF improvements spillover to all other transportation sectors
Jolley 99 (Ainsely, Director of the Emerging Technologies and Asian Growth Program at the Centre for Strategic
Economic Studies, Transport Engineering Technologies, CSES Working Paper No. 13, October,
http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp13.pdf)
Technological Synergies The nature of the technologies employed, and the intensive R&D that lies
behind them, makes aerospace close to the most technology-intensive of all manufacturing industries.
Of crucial importance are the spillover effects associated with the utilisation of these technologies. The
synergies between civil and military aerospace are well-known, and are currently expected to increase
(Scott 1999). The technological linkages between aerospace and shipbuilding, less well-known hitherto in
Australia (although well-appreciated in countries like Japan and Russia), are becoming increasingly
important with the developing similarities between airframe, hull design and construction, and the
extensive use of electronics. In the longer run, given the increasing importance of new materials technology,
aerodynamic styling and on-board electronics, these linkages could extend across the whole transport
equipment sector, including motor vehicles. These technological interdependencies rest on the delivery
of key technologies which are capable of transforming production in a range of industries – advanced
materials (which have significance for aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other transport equipment, and building
and construction), embedded information and communications technologies (aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other transport
equipment and transport system infrastructure), and aerodynamic design. Innovation in its broader sense also implies spillovers across
the whole transport equipment and transport systems with respect to life-cycle design and manufacturing systems, maintenance and
repair systems, and the development of a comprehensive approach to safety. Defence contracts can provide a spur to technology in civil
aerospace as well as other transport and engineering industries with respect to materials, electronics and on-board diagnostics. Civil
aerospace, in turn, provides a lead to the defence sector with respect to computer-aided design and virtual prototyping, life-cycle
planning, maintenance and repair, and developments in air safety. The motor vehicle industry is a leader in lean
manufacturing, but the new technological challenges it faces could eventually put it in the position of
influencing industries like aerospace in particular technologies. Finally, primary defence contractors, civil aerospace
suppliers and motor vehicle producers depend on sub-contractors and suppliers of cast and forged metal products, repetition engineers,
heavy engineers, and electronic sub-components. There is a two-way relationship here. The depth of the supply
chain underpins the flexibility and capabilities of the major manufacturers. On the other hand, the
major manufacturers often provide an important conduit for technology and productive efficiency to
their sub-contractors. Technologies can also move in the other direction. In civil aerospace manufacturing, the integrators of the
finished aircraft are shifting many aspects of design and R&D towards primary risk-sharing contractors. In the manufacture of aero-
engines, new developments are taking place through the agency of complex international consortia. There are economies of scope across
a range of technologically advanced heavy engineering industries. The key aspect is systems integration, which requires stateof- the-art
project management skills. In Japan, heavy engineering conglomerates have exploited these economies across aerospace, shipbuilding
and civil engineering projects. In the United States the economies are exploited across civil and military
aerospace and other defence projects. The motor vehicle industry has traditionally been more self-contained. US automobile
producers have tended to shed peripheral interests over the past decade, although European companies such as DaimlerChrysler, BMW
and Fiat still cover a wide range of interests. However, the new technologies being developed in the industry are leading
to new associations between vehicle producers and innovative engineering companies.

The Air Force empirically drives tech markets
Community Fuels 6 (Community Fuels provides simple to understand biodiesel fact sheets related to benefits, production and proper
handling, success stories, and Material Safety Data Sheets, http://members.communityfuels.com/)
Among the services, the Air Force has been lauded for its move to install renewable energy sources at
installations, now consuming approximately 40 percent of the federal government's entire renewable
energy supply. Thomas White, former Air Force chief of staff, said in a statement in 2004 that "the mission
of DOD is more than aircraft, guns and missiles. Part of the defense job is protecting the land, waters,
timbers and wildlife."Get Moy, DOD director of utilities and energy, says the decision to use one renewable
source over another is primarily an economic one. "It's an economics case as to whether to use solar, biomass
or whatever else. The Air Force has been the most proactive, and renewable energy has been a major element
of our plan."Air Force and DOD energy purchasing contracts have had an effect on the renewable
energy market, with the Air Force spending $800 million annually on energy. "Wind is very affordable
right now, but we're looking at biomass and geothermal" possibilities as well, says an Air Force resource
efficiency manager. He stresses that some projects are still "very preliminary," and that the next few
years will see refinements and clarifications of guidance on renewable energy policies.
The plan spillsover to the other branches
CSM 7 (Christian Science Monitor, December 28, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html?page=2)
The Air Force is taking "a leadership role" in the endeavor and working to ensure that the
fuel can be used by Army, Navy, and Marine aircraft as well, according to Air Force officials. Although the
Air Force is the biggest user of energy in the US government, it only accounts for about 10 percent of the country's total demand for aviation fuel,
a fact not lost on scientists working to develop the synthetic fuel for commercial aviation use. The Air Force is working with Boeing and Pratt &
Whitney on the project. The C-17 was chosen for the transcontinental flight because its engines are similar to a Boeing 757 plane, commonly
used by commercial airlines. At least one member of Congress is on board. "The Air Force alternative fuel program is as
important to the nation as it is to the Air Force because it keeps focus on alternative fuels by the
largest user of the fuel in the US government," said Rep. Jim Saxton (R) of New Jersey, who attended
the event celebrating the landing of the C-17 in his state last week. "We must continue to support the
research ... to find cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuels that include both renewable and
unconventional fuel," he added.
The Air Force is the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S.
Schanz`7 (Mark V. Editor for Air Force online, The Fuel War, June 2007,
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.ASP)
The Air Force is the largest single consumer of energy in the Department of Defense. That would still
be the case even if the United States were not engaged in a Global War on Terrorism, but it is, and the
demands of that worldwide conflict have pushed fuel use to new heights. Last year, the Air Force’s total
energy bill came to $6.7 billion, the bulk of it related to air operations. When USAF’s budgets began to sag
under the weight of rising oil prices, worried Air Force leaders began closely examining the service’s energy
costs and planning for reforms. The fuel problem became undeniable nearly two years ago. USAF already
was burning lots and lots of fuel as a result of the war. Then, in September 2005, USAF deployed many
aircraft to the Gulf Coast to assist in evacuation, search and rescue, recovery, and other operations in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina. The effort was enormous and costly. It also highlighted the vulnerability of the
nation’s domestic energy supply, according to Michael A. Aimone, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff
for logistics, installations, and mission support. The Department of Defense, as the government’s largest
fuel user, accounts for 93 percent of overall federal energy costs. Yet even with such a huge fuel bill, the
Pentagon accounts for about two percent of the nation’s entire energy use.

Air force key-They’re the largest consumer
Ferrell`7 (Lt. Amanda Ferrell, Global Air Chiefs Conference Public Affairs, Washington (AFPN) Oct 02, 2007, Air force
energy incentives focus on fuel, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Air_Force_Energy_Initiatives_Focus_On_Fuel_999.html)
"Energy conservation and developing energy technology is a major Department of Defense effort," Mr.
Anderson said. "As the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, the Air Force is in a great
position to look for, promote and utilize alternative energy sources." We are working to incorporate new
energy initiatives and programs at every installation, and we want to incorporate alternative energy and
energy conservation everywhere it makes sense -- for the military and the civilian community, Mr.
Billings said. The Air Force is committed to working with agencies in the private sector, experts in
academia and throughout the DOD to generate viable sources of energy that are both domestically
sourced and more environmentally friendly than current petroleum-based sources, Mr. Anderson said.
While energy programs cover installation power, ground vehicles and other requirements, the current focus
of energy technology in the Air Force is aviation fuel, which makes up 82 percent of all energy
consumed in the Air Force, Mr. Billings said. In August, the B-52 Stratofortress was certified to use a blend
of the current petroleum-based fuel, JP-8, and a synthetic fuel derived from coal, natural gas and feed stocks.
Plan spills-over to the entire military
Shanker 6 (Thom. New York Times Correspondent, May 14, Section 1; Column 2; National Desk; Pg. 16)
Air Force and industry officials say that oil prices above $40 to $45 per barrel make a blend with synthetic
fuels a cost-effective alternative to oil-based jet fuel. Fuel costs have doubled since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
and crude oil prices since Hurricane Katrina have remained above $60 a barrel. The Air Force effort falls under a
directive from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to explore alternative fuel sources. Under the plan, the
Air Force has been authorized to buy 100,000 gallons of synthetic fuel. Ground experiments are scheduled to
begin in coming weeks at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, followed by test flights at Edwards Air Force
Base in California. Although the Air Force is leading the project, it is working with the Automotive Tank Command
of the Army, in Detroit, and the Naval Fuels Laboratory, at Patuxent River, Md. The research and tests on
synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said. The
initial contract for unconventional fuel for the tests will be signed with Syntroleum Corporation of Tulsa, Okla.,
which has provided synthetic fuel for testing by the Departments of Energy, Transportation and Defense since 1998.
John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force
its synthetic fuel for testing ''at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit.'' Neither Mr. Holmes nor the Air Force
would provide cost estimates for the experimental fuel deal in advance of signing a final contract, expected in
coming days. Air Force officials have acknowledged, however, that the cost per gallon of the test fuel will be
expensive. Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The raw
materials cost about $70. If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology
could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr.
Holmes said. ''The United States is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal,'' Mr. Holmes said. ''It can be mined
relatively inexpensively. We really believe that one of the things we can do to help our country's energy needs
is to use the abundance of coal reserves.'' Mr. Aimone said the large plants needed to produce.
***A2: Warming DA***

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – 2AC
We reduce carbons emissions in two ways. First, the Air Force only buys SynFuel from
plants equipped with carbon capture and storage technology. Second, Princeton studies
prove that the Fischer-Tropsch liquids can be produced with less carbon than oil
Ott and Norris 7 (James and Guy, Aviation’s Green Agenda; Aviation Week & Space Technology Pg. 65 Vol. 167 No. 8, Lexis)
The scope of a global inquiry into production of non-petroleum-based jet fuel is expanding to a variety of
alternative energy sources, even as U.S. research confirms the practicality of processing coal and natural gas
to produce synthetic commercial Jet A and the military’s JP-8. And the inquiry initiated by the Defense Dept., with the Air
Force as lead agency, continues to grow as Boeing, Airbus and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) focus their work on
biomass sources. The U.S. is broadening the base of its effort in NASA Glenn Research Center?s wide-ranging alternative fuel program, which
extends to fundamental research needs of the Next-Generation Air Transportation System and includes assessment of alternate fuels in subsonic
and supersonic aircraft. Proponents of the Fischer-Tropsch process, which converts coal, natural gas and biomass
components into synthetic fuel, are making headway. Baard Energy of Vancouver, Wash., is planning a coal-
to-liquid plant along the Ohio River near the West Virginia border. The plant is to have carbon capture and
storage technology to eliminate an important environmental obstacle to the production of synthetic fuel.
While the Air Force is doing further testing of synthetics, it is acquiring 300,000 gallons of fuel from Shell, it
has established a policy of buying the fuel from processing plants equipped with carbon capture and storage
technology. USAF is interested in any source allowing for domestic production; if renewable, then all the
better. The Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, has released information,
prepared by the environmental expert Robert Williams of Princeton University, that reflects studies
demonstrating that Fischer-Tropsch liquids could be produced with far less carbon output than petroleum-
based fuel production if carbon capture and storage technology were incorporated (see chart). In the coal-mining state
of Kentucky, Gov. Ernie Fletcher has called a special session of the General Assembly to consider a range of incentives to attract the Peabody
Coal Co. to the state, where it seeks to build a Fischer-Tropsch plant near the city of Sturgis. The University of Kentucky, a specialist in the
conversion process, is providing three Fischer-Tropsch reactors to NASA Glenn to conduct experiments. An alternate-fuels facility is under
construction on the Cleveland campus and is expected to be ready for occupancy next year. Glenn’s program has set milestones
through Fiscal 2008. Research will pave the way for low-emissions combustion systems in subsonic engines
and for ways to assess alternative fuels and improve predictions of performance and emissions output. On the
supersonics side, the focus is on developing technologies to enable low-emissions combustion systems for
cruise applications, developing models for emission and performance predictions, and developing and
validating high-temperature sensors for use in intelligent engines. Boeing’s investigations downplay alcohol, methane or
hydrogen as potential resources largely because they would require all new aircraft and new distribution systems, says Oren Hadaller, who directs
Boeing’s fuel research. Boeing, a participant in the search for alternatives, is evaluating the babassu plant from Brazil and algae as potentials. To
the manufacturer, alternative fuels described as drop-ins are preferable. These fuels are transparent to current aircraft engines and require no
design changes.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: CO2 Up

Emissions are increasing in the US and China, driving global emissions growth
World Ecological Problems 7/7 (environmentalist news site, 08, “US CO2 emission increased again in 2007”,
http://ecologicalproblems.blogspot.com/2008/05/us-co2-emission-again-increased-in-2007.html)
Carbon dioxide or CO2 is harmful greenhouse gas mainly responsible for global warming and climate
change. And though all countries agree that we should cut down carbon dioxide emissions and put more
emphasis on the renewable energy sector, reality is completely different. Preliminary government
estimate showed that US CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels increased 1.6 percent in 2007, rising
from 5,888 million in 2006 to 5,984 million metric tonnes in 2007. The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) said that this growth of CO2 emissions include several factors : "weather conditions that
increased the demand for heating and cooling services, and a higher carbon intensity of electricity
supply". EIA also stated how since 1990, in less than 20 years CO2 emissions rose by 19,4 %, which is in
average more than 1 % per year. Majority of CO2 emissions (about 80 %) comes from fossil fuels burning
(coal, oil, natural gas). Industrial carbon dioxide emissions luckily fell by 0.1 percent in 2007, but on the
other hand emissions from the residential and commercial sectors increased by 4.4 percent and 4.3
percent, and transportation-related emissions, which account for about a third of total energy-related
carbon dioxide emissions, increased by 0.1 percent in 2007. The largest single source of US carbon dioxide
emissions is electric power generation, that represents about 40 percent of the total US CO2 emissions. The
current data shows that though there is lot of talk about turning to renewable energy sector and cutting down
carbon dioxide emissions, little of this is actually happening in United States, and USA (together with
China) convincingly leads the way in CO2 emissions. More CO2 emissions means more impact on climate
change, and presents real danger to future of our planet. And as long as fossil fuels remain dominant on
global scale this trend will continue. Renewable energy sector is still too weak, and fossil fuels are still
dominant even despite recent boom in oil prices. There is only talk and few warnings, with little or no
action. And USA that should be really (as the world's most powerful country) lead the way in cutting down
CO2 emissions is doing completely opposite. Like global warming is only a great hoax. If only...
Global CO2 emissions are increasing
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 8 (“Global CO2 emissions: increase continued in 2007”, 6/13,
http://www.mnp.nl/en/publications/2008/GlobalCO2emissionsthrough2007.html)
In 2007, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel use and cement production increased
by 3.1%, which is less than the 3.5% increase in 2006. The emissions from China, with an emission
increase of about 8%, accounted for two thirds of this global increase. Smaller contributions were
made by India, the USA and the Russian Federation, in contrast to the European Union (EU-15), where a
relatively warm winter and high fuel prices led to a 2% decrease in CO2 emissions. The increase in
emissions, in 2007, of about 800 million metric tons of CO2, was mainly due to a 4.5% increase in
global coal consumption, to which China contributed by more than 70%. At present, CO2 emissions per
person from China, EU-15 and the USA come to about 5, 9 and 19 tonnes of CO2, respectively. In the 1990-
2007 period, total CO2 emissions related to the use of global fossil fuel and cement production
increased by about 34%.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: Methane Up

Multiple alternate causes to methane emissions
EPA 7 (“Methane”, 4/27, http://epa.gov/methane/)

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is
over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year
period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced
sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining,
stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process. Methane is
also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. As a result, efforts to prevent or
utilize methane emissions can provide significant energy, economic and environmental benefits. In the
United States, many companies are working with EPA in voluntary efforts to reduce emissions by
implementing cost-effective management methods and technologies.
Multiple natural and anthropogenic alternate causes to methane emissions
EPA 6 (“Methane: Sources and Emissions”, 10/19, http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html)

Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Human-
related activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and
manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release
significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions
are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001c). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas
hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as
wildfires. Methane emission levels from a source can vary significantly from one country or region to
another, depending on many factors such as climate, industrial and agricultural production characteristics,
energy types and usage, and waste management practices. For example, temperature and moisture have a
significant effect on the anaerobic digestion process, which is one of the key biological processes that
cause methane emissions in both human-related and natural sources. Also, the implementation of
technologies to capture and utilize methane from sources such as landfills, coal mines, and manure
management systems affects the emission levels from these sources.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Threshold

Despite CO2 increases, it only amounts to 0.4% more emissions
Shapro 7 [Sol, Resident of Aurora., SPEAKOUT: Coal-to-liquid holds promise

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/03/speakout-coal-to-liquid-holds-promise/, June 3, 2008]
So why isn't it happening? The environmental movement correctly states that coal-to-liquid, without carbon
dioxide sequestration, will produce about twice the CO2 as crude oil. They don't tell you that this would mean
about 0.4 percent of the world's CO2 emissions per million barrels per day - a worthwhile trade-off, I think, to
move toward domestic energy for transportation. And they've used this CO2 issue to put the kibosh on coal-to-
liquid by incorporating a requirement in the Energy Bill of 2007 requiring that coal-to-liquid produce 20 percent less
carbon dioxide than crude oil.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Blends Solve

The gas can be sequestered, or mixed with biomass to reduce the net GHGs
Mathews`7 (William, Air Force Times, Coal states see boon in Air Force alt-fuel push, Jun 17, 2007
Bollinger said the Air Force is very conscious of the possible environmental impacts of producing liquid
fuel from coal. “Our secretary has stated from day one that we are going to be good environmental
stewards,” he said. “I’ve done an extensive amount of work with other agencies that control and regulate
these areas.” The carbon dioxide produced by the CTL can be captured and sequestered — essentially
buried deep underground. Coal can be mixed with biomass to reduce the net CO2 output of the
process and mining can be done in environmentally benign ways, he said. Davis, too, says he is
“committed to ensuring the environmental integrity of these fuels and have advocated that any future fuels
produced from coal are as good or better than the environmental footprint of the fuels they are designed to
replace.”
Bio fuel mixes solve

Biello`8 (David, Wild Green Yonder: Flying the Environmentally Friendly Skies on Alternative Fuels, January 14 2008,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=flying-environmentally-friendly-skies-on-alternative-fuels&page=6)
Before then, the impact on Earth's climate can be limited by blending relatively small amounts of
biofuels into such synfuels—an option DARPA, for one, rejects for logistical reasons—or capturing the
carbon dioxide from synfuel production and using it to enhance the growth of the plants to be turned
into fuel. "Put as little as 20 percent biofuel into nonrenewable fuels—coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid
—you can be carbon neutral in a mix," CAAFI's Altman says. Such a 20 percent mix would not require
any modifications to existing aircraft engines or infrastructure, Green Flight International's Rodante says.
"Jet fuel and biofuel mix is something that is easily done," he says "I don't believe 100 percent biofuel is
the answer."
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Storage Solves (1/2)

( ) Sequestration technology could reduce the carbon footprint by 25%.
Turner 8 (Aimee, FEATURES for Flight International, June 17, Lexis)
Essentially, this could provide support for alternative fuel producers that would otherwise have to commit
heavy capital investment in the processing plant simply to produce the large volumes of alternative fuels
necessary to meet the testing needs - albeit with no guarantee of approval. "This is seen as stifling the
alternative fuels market as investors are asked to take on significant financial risk with no guarantee of when,
or even if, approval might be granted. The new approval protocol is intended to address this and aid in
bringing a new fuel to market, stimulate investment and yet still ensure that safety remains the primary
concern," says Shell's Rob Midgley. Engine manufacturers will confirm they need a lot of fuel for testing. Rolls-Royce's fluids specialist Chris
Lewis, speaking of R-R's biofuels initiative with Air New Zealand, says the engine-maker looked at several candidate fuels that fitted the key
criteria of being technically viable and sustainable, and scaleable in industrial terms. "We are interested in talking to anyone active in this area.
Several specimens of hydrogenated vegetable oils have been offered, but at the end of the day we need good quality and quality in sufficient
quantities," Lewis says. research to certification A specific area CAAFI wants to strengthen is not only how it transitions from research
programmes such as the US Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's hydrogenated vegetable oil and forthcoming algae projects to
certification in the most expeditious manner, but also how to secure sufficient fuel quantities - 950,000 litres (250,000USgal) to 1.9 million litres
in a timely manner to meet its 2013 goal of biofuels approvals for jets. Another major tactical issue is to find a way for biofuel companies to
provide data to the certification authorities and still protect their intellectual property. In an effort to demonstrate leadership, Shell aviation
technology manager Paul Bogers explains why a report on Airbus's signal A380 demonstration flight in February powered with a gas-to-liquid
kerosene blend was to be presented to ASTM and its UK equivalent, the UK Aviation Fuels Committee. "The industry is only going to move
forward if we share this data," says Bogers. S?bastien R?my, head of Airbus's alternative fuels research programme, agrees: "Everyone will
end up using the same fuel so sharing the knowledge simply makes better use of the resources available and
avoids duplication." While CAAFI hopes its simplified procedure will be formally adopted as an ASTM protocol by year-end, there will be
still real concern about how alternatives can be produced to a consistent standard to meet the certificated standard. From the engine
manufacturer's point of view, R-R's Lewis insists that certification is often a beginning of a process as production consistency represents a key
safety criteria. Seal swell, lubricity and higher maintenance issues aside, all of which could influence possible deployment, certification is not the
end game. "There have been many incidents when specifications have caused great problems because they assume a known set of characteristics.
The buck stops with the engine manufacturer and we can't say, as much as we would like to, yes it meets the spec, go ahead and use it." 50/50 mix
GOAL Tim Edwards, a senior scientist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory's fuels branch, also makes this point. While the USAF's near-
term goal is to use a 50/50 Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend certificated throughout its fleet by early 2016, ensuring the consistency of jet fuels
between manufacturers, processes and feedstocks remains a key issue. "How to ensure a consistent product in specification? What are the limits
of the fuel composition?" asks Edwards. With an ongoing Defense Energy Support Center Request for Information for a 760 million litre
purchase, it would seem wise for fuel producers to pay attention to ensuring the robustness of the processing capability as well as coming up with
an eureka proposition. While safety remains at the heart of any alternative proposal, sustainability ranks equally.
Altman says that before the ongoing Partner study to analyze environmental lifecycle gains "well to wake" is
complete, even experts should be wary of making swift judgements, as studies have shown that coal-to-liquid
fuels with carbon capture and sequestration technology can reduce the carbon footprint of biodiesel by 25%
depending on feedstock. Local air quality gains on species such as small particles - a significant carcinogen -
could also figure in the benefits cited by some alternative fuels. "Sustainability has to be at the core of what we
want to do," says Lewis.
Carbon storage solves through conversion, sealing 100% of CO2
Liles 8 (Patricia, J of Comm, 5-18)

Carbon is most often combined with three other elements-calcium, iron or magnesium-to form a group of
minerals called carbonate minerals, such as limestones and dolomites, Metz said.
Mafic volcanic rock, which typically has high concentrates of iron, magnesium and calcium, is formed under
very high temperatures and pressures and when exposed to the surface of the earth, weathers and chemically
alters. "We can do the same thing that Mother Nature does, only very quickly," Metz said. "Converting mafic
volcanics to clay soil takes time because the reactions are temperature dependant. At higher temperatures, it
occurs much faster."
Compared to the ambient temperatures on Earth of 20 to 30 degrees Centigrade, ambient temperatures out of
the stack of a coal-fired power plant would range from 700 to 800 degrees Centigrade, Metz said. "The high
temperatures of carbon dioxide react very quickly with iron, magnesium and calcium, converting to
carbonates, permanently storing carbon as either limestone or dolomite."
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Storage Solves (2/2)

Air Force studies prove emissions decrease w/CTL

The Air Force says its testing showed a drop in emissions from jet engines when using the synthetic fuel.
“The tail pipe emissions don’t tell the whole story,” Schafer said. “There are a lot of pollutants created before we get to that point.”
Producing a gallon of fuel from coal also takes more water than petroleum, and the plants are likely to be built in the West, where water
is a valuable commodity, Schafer said.
Billings said studies by the Air Force and the federal Energy Department have found that synthetic
fuels, when made from a combination of coal and organic material such as switchgrass, can be produced with fewer
emissions than a traditional oil refinery.
CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Feasibility (1/2)

Incentives solve carbon storage – Best evidence

By carbon capture and sequestration, I refer to technical approaches being developed in the United States,
primarily through funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, and abroad that are designed to capture
carbon dioxide produced in coalfired power plants and to sequester that carbon dioxide in various types of
geological formations, such as deep saline aquifers. This same approach can be used to capture and sequester
carbon dioxide emissions from F-T coal-to-liquids plants and from F-T plants operating on biomass or a
combination of coal and biomass. When applied to F-T coal-to-liquids plants, carbon capture and
sequestration should cause mine-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions to drop to levels comparable to the
well-to-wheels emissions associated with conventional, petroleum-derived motor fuels. Most importantly, our
research indicates that any incentive adequate to promote carbon capture at coal-fired power plants should be
even more effective in promoting carbon capture at F-T plants producing liquid fuels.
Carbon storage is empirically feasible

Two projects already in the works to demonstrate carbon dioxide storage are the Big Sky Carbon
Sequestration Regional Partnership Project in the Columbia River Plateau and the National Thermal Power
Corporation of India Project-Deccan Traps, located in northwestern India.
Empirically, it’s commercially viable
Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)

The electric power industry has been slow to take up gasification technology, but two commercial-scale units
are operating in the U.S. in Indiana and Florida. The Florida unit, owned by TECO, is reported by the
company to be the most reliable and economic unit on its system. Two coal-based power companies, AEP
and Cinergy, have announced their intention to build coal gasification units. The first proposed coal
gasification plant that will capture and dispose of its CO2 was announced in February, 2006 by BP and
Edison Mission Group. The plant will be built in Southern California and its CO2 emissions will be pipelined
to an oil field nearby and injected into the ground to recover domestic oil. BP`s proposal shows the
technologies are available now to cut global warming pollution and that integrated IGCC with CO2 capture
and disposal are commercially feasible.
CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Feasibility (2/2)

Carbon storage is ready now
National Coal Council 6 (Mar, Coal: America’s Energy Future; Volume II, p.28)
At first glance, CO2 capture and storage in geological formations may appear to be a radical idea
that would be difficult and perhaps risky to employ. Closer analysis however reveals that many of
the component technologies are mature. A great deal of experience with gasification, CO2 capture
and underground injection of gases and liquids provide the foundation for future CCS operations.
More ev…
National Coal Council 6 (Mar, Coal: America’s Energy Future; Volume II, p.26)
CO2 can be injected into deep underground formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs,
brine-filled formations or deep unmineable coal beds. This option is in practice today at three
industrial scale projects and many smaller pilot tests. At appropriately selected storage sites,
retention rates are expected to be very high, with CO2 remaining securely stored for geologic time
periods that will be sufficient for managing emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. The potential
storage capacity in geological formations is somewhat uncertain, but estimates of worldwide storage
Coal: America’s Energy Future, Volume II - Electricity Generation 3/22/06 26
capacity in oil and gas fields range from 900 to 1,200 billion tonnes of CO2 and the estimated
capacity in brine-filled formations is expected to be much greater. The U.S. is estimated to have a
very large capacity to store CO2 in oil fields, gas fields and saline formations, sufficient for the
foreseeable future.
CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Costs

Carbon sequestration costs are offset by oil recovery

The carbon dioxide transported by the pipeline could also help extract coalbed methane from Illinois’ coal
reserves. Illinois’ coal reserves hold enough methane to meet all of the state’s natural gas needs for seven
years, according to the plan summary. The pipeline would generate an estimated US$12 million in annual
revenue, and the royalties from the recovered oil and gas would subsidise the cost of sequestering the carbon
dioxide.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Oil Recovery

Oil recovery reuses the CO2, minimizing emissions

In coal-to-liquids plants, about 0.8 tons of carbon dioxide are produced along with each barrel of liquid fuel.
For coal-to-liquids plants located near currently producing oil fields, this carbon dioxide can be used to drive
additional oil recovery. We anticipate that each ton of carbon dioxide applied to enhanced oil recovery will
cause the additional production of two to three barrels of oil, although this ratio depends highly on
reservoir properties and oil prices. Based on recent studies sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,
opportunities for enhanced oil recovery provide carbon management options for at least half a million barrels
per year of coal-to-liquids production capacity. A favorable collateral consequence of this approach to carbon
management is that half a million barrels per day of coal-to-liquids production will promote additional
domestic petroleum production of roughly 1 million barrels per day. The use of pressurized carbon dioxide
for enhanced oil recovery is a well-established practice in the petroleum industry. Technology for capturing
carbon dioxide at a coal-to-liquids plant is also well established, although further R&D may yield cost
reductions. There are no technical risks, but questions do remain about methods to optimize the fraction of
carbon dioxide that would be permanently sequestered.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: NOx (1/2)

NOx and heat-trapping from SQ fuels more than offset the impact of CO2
Sci Tech 7 (Science News 24/7, Affiliation with Reuters, August 16, http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-
1443_2165440,00.html)
The aviation industry may be more damaging to the environment than widely thought because aircraft not only release carbon dioxide but they also produce other
harmful gases that warm the Earth, experts said. A tented camp of about 250 climate protests at London's Heathrow airport this week highlights pressures to include
aviation in a global pact to fight global warming. But planes are among the least understood sources of emissions. "Growth is going to continue, but it is complicated
to estimate the effect of aviation on the climate," said Ivar Isaksen, a professor at Oslo University who is an expert in how aviation affects the atmosphere. He said that
aviation's impact went far beyond carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, that many governments rely on for calculations. Aviation accounts for about two percent
of world emissions of carbon dioxide and projected passenger growth of five percent a year will far outstrip efficiency gains from better fuel or plane
design, UN studies say.
Planes' climate impact may be magnified by factors including heat-trapping nitrogen
oxides that are more damaging at high altitude. Jet condensation trails may contribute to the formation of a
blanket of high-altitude cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds usually warm the Earth's surface, increasing the impact
of aviation on global warming. A 1999 UN report, for instance, estimated that aviation's impact on the climate
was two to four times greater than simply the carbon dioxide emitted by burning jet fuel. 'The science around this
isn't very clear' "The science around this isn't very clear," said Sarah Brown, spokesperson for CarbonNeutral Co, an offset company that allows
travellers to invest in renewable energy projects to soak up emissions from flights. The company uses British Environment Ministry data that
excluding climate side-effects of aviation. "The science of radiative forcing is currently uncertain," it said, referring to the effects that go beyond
carbon dioxide. Germany's Atmosfair (www.atmosfair.de), whose patrons include former UN Environment Programme chief Klaus Toepfer,
covers factors such as the release of nitrogen oxide. "We're trying to estimate the overall effect," said Robert Muller at
Atmosfair. He said airlines such as British Airways or Scandinavian SAS worked with companies with low
estimates when offering customers offsets. Take a one-way flight from Sydney to London, for instance -
CarbonNeutral estimates each passenger is responsible for 1.9 tons of greenhouse gases, costing $28.46 to
offset. The same route with Atmosfair works out at 6.4 tons, and a charge of 130 euros to offset. Outside
Heathrow, about 250 campaigners are camping in tents on the path of a proposed third runway for the world's
busiest international hub. More and more people fly, partly because companies have axed ticket prices despite
high fuel costs. International flights are now excluded from the Kyoto Protocol, the main UN plan for curbing climate change to 2012. The
European Union is among those aiming to include aviation after 2012 while the United States is opposed. A report by the UN climate panel said
extra charges for fuel or the inclusion of the aviation sector into a greenhouse gas trading scheme "would have the potential to reduce emissions
considerably".
More ev…
Planet Air 1 (Not-for-profit service offered by the Unisféra International Centre, planetair.ca/modules/smartcontent/page.php?pageid=41)
When jet fuel is burned, the carbon in the fuel is released and bonds with oxygen (O2) in the air to form
carbon dioxide (CO2). Burning jet fuel also releases water vapour, nitrous oxides, sulphate, and soot. Aircraft
emissions trigger the formation of contrails (condensation trails), and contribute to the formation of cirrus
clouds. A plane’s high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact because they trigger a series of
chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that have a net warming effect. As a result, the climate impact of
aircraft is greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone. At present, scientists recommend
using an average multiplier of 2.7 to account for the increased impact of emitting certain greenhouse gases at
high altitude (the radiative forcing effect). For example, if it is calculated that a flight would release 2 tonnes
of carbon dioxide, this is multiplied by 2.7 to get 5.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, a more realistic
measure of the climate impact
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: NOx (2/2)

Nitrogen emissions lead to a positive radiative forcing increasing climate change.
IPCC 1 (Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 6: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, 6.6.3 Indirect
Forcing by NOx Emissions, http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/230.htm)
Through production of tropospheric O3, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2) lead to a
positive radiative forcing of climate (warming), but by affecting the concentration of OH they reduce
the levels of CH4, providing a negative forcing (cooling) which partly offsets the O3 forcing. Due to non-
linearities in O3 photochemical production together with differences in mixing regimes and removal processes, the O3 and OH changes
strongly depend on the localisation of the NOx surface emission perturbation, as calculated by Hauglustaine and Granier (1995), Johnson
and Derwent (1996), Berntsen et al. (1996), Fuglestvedt et al. (1996, 1999) and Gupta et al. (1998). The CH4 and O3 forcings are similar
in magnitude, but opposite in sign, as calculated by Fuglestvedt et al. (1999). Due to differences in CH4 and O3 lifetimes,
the NOx perturbation on the CH4 forcing acts on a global scale over a period of approximately a
decade, while the O3 forcing is of regional character and occurs over a period of weeks. Based on three-
dimensional model results, Fuglestvedt et al. (1999) have calculated that the O3 radiative forcing per change in NOx emission (10-2 Wm-2
per TgN/yr) is 0.35 and 0.29 for the USA and Scandinavia, respectively, and reaches 2.4 for Southeast Asia. The CH4 forcing per change
in NOx emission ranges from -0.37 (Scandinavia) and -0.5 (USA) to -2.3 (Southeast Asia) in the same units. Additional work is required
to assess the impact of NOx on the radiative forcing of climate.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Airlines

CTL solves CO2 emissions from planes

of fuel.
This is critical to warming
Stoller 6 (Gary, Staff Writer of USA Today, December 19, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm)

What is known, he says, is that it's "much harder" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Jet
engines are already energy efficient, and technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide from them isn't as
far along as it is for land-based pollution sources. Besides carbon dioxide, jet engines emit many pollutants
into the atmosphere, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, soot and even water vapor. Carbon dioxide and
water vapor are called greenhouse gases, because they trap heat and contribute to global warming. Though
planes contribute to air pollution while on the ground, scientists studying global warming are most concerned
about pollutants emitted when a plane is airborne. Jets are the major source of emissions deposited into the
upper atmosphere, where some pollutants have a greater warming effect than when they are released in the
same amount from the ground, according to a 1999 scientific report sponsored by the United Nations. Some
pollutants emitted from engines during flight warm the Earth by adding to the heat-trapping gases, both
natural and man-made, already in the atmosphere. Also, jet contrails — the vapor trails they leave in the sky
— add to cloud cover and may contribute to the warming of the planet. A contrail forms when water vapor
from the engine cools and mixes with air and the humidity becomes high enough for condensation. NASA
scientist Patrick Minnis has studied contrails and believes they may have a prominent role in global warming. A
2002 report by the British scientific commission agrees, concluding that "aviation-induced cirrus clouds will be a
significant contributor to warming." But Minnis says another NASA study concludes that the contrails have little
effect on global warming. Further research is being done. Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas that can remain
in the atmosphere about 100 years. Scientists say planes' engines emit up to 3% of all carbon dioxide that
contributes to global warming, but the figure appears to be on the rise.
Science Daily 99 (June 24, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990624080829.htm)

A research team of American and German scientists, headed by Patrick Minnis of the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton,
Virginia, reports that contrails cause a warming of the Earth's atmosphere, although their impact is
currently small as compared to other greenhouse effects. They predict, however, that it may grow by a
factor of six over the next 50 years. In 1992, for example, contrails added an estimated 0.02 watts of warming per square
meter globally, about one percent of all manmade greenhouse effects.
Air traffic and, therefore, contrails, are not evenly distributed around the globe. They are concentrated
over parts of the United States and Europe, where local warming reaches up to 0.7 watts per square meter, or 35 times the
global average. The resulting temperature increase is not computed in this study, but is estimated to reach between 0.01 and 0.1 degrees
Celsius (0.02 and 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) over the northern temperate zones for current air traffic. In the future, increased air
traffic will raise these values.
Large, linear contrails can be observed in satellite imagery. Although their total global coverage has not yet been determined, it is
computed from traffic and weather data to amount to 0.1 percent. In the parts of Europe and eastern North America with the heaviest air
traffic, however, contrails currently cover up to 3.8 percent and 5.5 percent of the sky, respectively.
Minnis and his colleagues report that global air traffic rose by over seven percent per year from 1994
to 1997, in terms of passenger miles flown. Growth is likely to continue, meaning contrails will play a
larger role in future climates than they do today. Taking into account such factors as number of flights per day, fuel
consumption, and altitudes flown, they conclude that by 2050, average contrail coverage over Europe will be four
times higher than at present, or about 4.6 percent. In the United States, the increase will be 2.6 times
current levels, or 3.7 percent coverage; and in Asia, the increase will be ten times current levels, or 1.2
percent
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal

Only the plan creates the incentives to solve SQ coal’s carbon footprint

In particular, coal use and climate protection do not need to be irreconcilable activities. While energy
efficiency and greater use of renewable resources must remain core components of a comprehensive strategy
to address global warming, development and use of technologies such as coal gasification in combination
with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and permanent disposal in geologic repositories under certain
circumstances could enhance our ability to avoid a dangerous build-up of this heat-trapping gas in the
atmosphere while creating a future for continued coal use. However, because of the long lifetime of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere and the slow turnover of large energy systems we must act without delay to start
deploying these technologies as appropriate. Current government policies are inadequate to drive the private
sector to invest in carbon capture and disposal systems in the timeframe we need them. To accelerate the
development of these systems and to create the market conditions for their use, we need to focus government
funding more sharply on the most promising technologies. More importantly, we need to adopt binding
measures and standards that limit global warming emissions so that the private sector has a business rationale
for prioritizing investment in this area.
More evidence…

But we can do better with both production and use of coal. And because the world is likely to continue to use
significant amounts of coal for some time to come, we must do better. Energy efficiency remains the
cheapest, cleanest, and fastest way to meet our energy and environmental challenges, while renewable energy
is the fastest growing supply option. Increasing energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy supplies
must continue to be the top priority, but we have the tools to make coal more compatible with protecting
public health and the environment. With the right standards and incentives we can fundamentally transform
the way coal is produced and used in the United States and around the world.
More ev…

Some call coal ``clean.`` It is not and likely never will be compared to other energy options. Nonetheless, it
appears inevitable that the U.S. and other countries will continue to rely heavily on coal for many years. The
good news is that with the right standards and incentives it is possible to chart a future for coal that is
compatible with protecting public health, preserving special places, and avoiding dangerous global warming.
It may not be possible to make coal clean, but by transforming the way coal is produced and used, it is
possible to make coal significantly cleaner - and safer - than it is today.
Coal gasification has two advantages over current power plants: Syngas and high pressure.

If an even lower CO2 release rate is required in the future, IGCC technology has two major
zadvantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than is possible with combustion-
based technology. First, syngas has a high CO2 concentration, which can be further increased by
converting CO to CO2 prior to combustion (while simultaneously producing more hydrogen), and second, IGCC
gasifiers typically operate under relatively high pressure (~400 psig in the Wabash plant), making recovery of
the CO2 from the syngas much easier than capture from flue gas. Several recent design studies, one performed for
DOE and another for ChevronTexaco in cooperation with General Electric (GE), bracket plant output loss at between 3 to 6% of original
net plant electricity generation if CO2 is captured. The DOE study indicates that comparable CO2 capture (on a percentage basis) for a
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant and a PC plant would yield an output loss of 21% and 28%, respectively. Lower energy
consumption for CO2 capture means that less additional generation capacity is needed to make up for this parasitic loss. Since additional
CO2 will likely be generated by any added fossilbased capacity, IGCC minimizes this effect. Including CO2 capture, the overall cost of
electricity (COE) of the IGCC plant is shown to be about 6.3 ¢/kWh versus 7.9 ¢/kWh for the PC plant, while the NGCC plant’s COE is
also 6.3 ¢/kWh at a natural gas price of approximately $4 /106Btu.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (1/2)
When a coal plant is replaced with a gasification plant, emissions can be reduced by as
much as 50%.

While little corroborating data is available on individual trace organic releases to the air from gasification systems, detailed test
results from the LGTI IGCC plant provide perspective on the types and levels likely to be seen.18 LGTI’s
incinerator and turbine stack gases were measured for about 114 different organic species. TABLE 2-17 presents calculated emissions
factors for some of the key species measured at LGTI. These are compared with median emission factors derived
from test data from 52 coal-fired units subjected to extensive emission tests by EPRI, DOE, the
Northern States Power Company, and EPA.38 In general, the results indicate extremely low levels of trace organic
emissions, in-line with emissions expected from conventional coal-fired plants. Data from the Wabash River IGCC plant, while higher
than measured LGTI emissions, also supports relatively low levels of emissions; total average VOCs (for 1997 and 1998) are reported to
be 0.00205 lb/106 Btu or 0.01635 lb/MWh.39 These emissions represent about one-half the emissions of the
original coal-fired plant that was replaced.
The LGTI test results did not identify any significant dioxin or furan emissions in the stack gas. This is in
agreement with the belief that dioxins and furans are not likely to be formed in gasification systems. The
high temperatures in the gasifier should destroy any dioxin/furan compounds or precursors, and the lack
of oxygen in the reducing environment should limit the formation of free chlorine. Without free chlorine,
the formation of polychlorinated species downstream of the gasifier is unlikely. Measurements taken at Shell Coal
Gasification Plant-1 (see Sections 1.1.2.3 and 2.2.3.2.2) also corroborate these expectations. Dioxins and furans were not present at the
detection limit of 1 part per billion by volume in the synthesis gas, nor were there any precursors at the same detection level.40 Shell
estimates that, due to the effects of dilution and combustion, the concentration of dioxins and furans in the HRSG stack gas should be less
than one part per trillion by volume.
Coal gasification prevents significant carbon emissions.

A more global environmental concern related to power generation from fossil fuels is the production of carbon dioxide (CO2), discussed
in Section 2.2.5. The carbon in the fuel fed to an IGCC plant will ultimately be converted into CO2. Although still significantly
higher than that from a gas-fired plant, IGCC’s improved efficiency reduces CO2 emissions relative to
other coalbased plants. For example, repowering the Wabash River plant reduced CO2 emissions by approximately 20% on a per
kWh basis. TABLE 2-21 (on page 2-38) compares uncontrolled CO2 emissions from different types of fossil-fired power plants. If the
amount of CO2 released is regulated in the future, IGCC has two major operating advantages that
permit more efficient CO2 capture than is possible with conventional combustion technology. Syngas
has a high CO2 concentration, which can be increased by the water gas shift reaction to convert CO to
CO2 prior to combustion (while simultaneously producing more hydrogen). Also, IGCC gasifiers
typically operate under relatively high pressure (~400 psig at the Wabash River plant). Both of these
conditions make recovery of the CO2 from the syngas much easier than capture from flue gas. A recent
study of one design concept concluded that 75% of the CO2 could be captured from an IGCC plant
with only a 4% loss in efficiency at a cost of $5 to $11/kW. This result shows that the economic impact
of CO2 capture may be quite a bit less than previously thought. It should be noted that this particular performance
and cost estimate is based on a plant design that originally incorporates required equipment and does not include transport of the CO2 to
a site for use or sequestration (see Section 2.2.6.3).
In order to put the IGCC air emissions into proper perspective, Section 2.2.7 provides a comparison of IGCC’s performance with PC-
fired and fluidized-bed power plants. TABLE 2-22 (on page 2-51) provides a realistic indicator of how well IGCC performs with respect
to criteria air pollutants, ionic species, and CO2. In all respects, potential air pollution impacts from IGCC are
likely to be significantly less, or less costly, than from competing coal-based technologies. While
uncontrolled mercury emissions from IGCC plants appear to be comparable to those from the other
power plant types (based on consumption of similar coals), effective mercury control has already been
demonstrated for IGCC plants, if required. Uncontrolled CO2 emissions from current IGCC technology, measured on an
output basis (lb/kWh), are about 10% lower than a modern PC plant and probably equivalent to those from an advanced PFBC plant.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (2/2)
Increased efficiency from gasification plants solve for carbon emissions.

Carbon contained in the fuel fed to an IGCC power plant will ultimately be converted into CO2.
Although CO2 emissions are higher than for gas-fired power plants, IGCC’s improved efficiency
reduces CO2 emissions relative to existing PC plants. Repowering the Wabash River plant reduced CO2 emissions by
approximately 20% on a per kWh basis. On average, IGCC plants produce CO2 at a rate of about 1.8 lb/kWh (assuming 40%
efficiency), while PC plants yield about 2 lb/kWh. An advanced gasification-based fuel cell plant may be able to achieve a discharge rate
of 1.2 lb/kWh.
Configuration of coal gasification plants allow for lower emissions.

The IGCC configuration, which is the primary subject of this report, is an innovative electric power
generation concept that combines modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine (Brayton
cycle) and steam turbine (Rankine cycle) power generation. IGCC is highly flexible and can be used for new
power generation applications, as well as for repowering older coal-fired plants, significantly
improving their environmental performance. IGCC provides feedstock and product flexibility, greater
than 40 percent net efficiency (based on HHV), and very low pollutant emissions. The high process
efficiency also has the added benefit of reducing CO2 production per unit of electricity output. Because
CO2 can readily be recovered in concentrated form with oxygen-blown gasification, CO2 capture technology can be
integrated into IGCC as part of a future strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Gasification reduces carbon emissions against combustion due to increased efficiency.

In TABLE 2-21, CO2 emissions from the Polk and Wabash River IGCC plants are put into perspective by
comparing them (on an energy output basis) with other coal-based technologies. While still
substantially higher than gas-fired plants, IGCC’s improved energy efficiency reduces CO2 emissions
relative to other coal-based plants. Repowering the Wabash River plant reduced CO2 emissions by approximately 20% on a
per kWh basis.11 IGCC emissions can be further reduced by improving plant thermal efficiency (e.g., reducing plant heat rate). Possible
ways (among others) to accomplish this are:
Gasification can stop carbon emissions: Syngas and high pressure.

IGCC has two major operating advantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than
is possible with combustion technology. First, the syngas, as previously shown in TABLE 2-20, has a very high
CO2 concentration, which can be made much higher by further converting the CO to CO2 prior to
combustion. Second, IGCC gasifiers typically operate under relatively high pressure (~400 psig in the
Wabash plant). Both of these conditions make recovery of the CO2 from the syngas much easier than
capture from the flue gas.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (1/2)
Best studies prove CTL reduces CO2 using existing technologies

I will begin my technical remarks by sharing the results of a recent technical study completed by the Idaho
National Laboratory under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Baard Energy, through
its project company Ohio River Clean Fuels, L.L.C. (ORCF), is developing a coal gasification Fischer-
Tropsch synthetic fuels plant in Wellsville, Ohio. The ORCF project is a nominal 50,000 barrel per day plant
using a dry-feed, entrained- flow gasification process. A process model for the project has been developed by
the Idaho National Laboratory to assist Baard Energy with design and permitting activities. The model has
been used to determine operating conditions to capture and sequester byproduct carbon dioxide and to study
the benefits of blending biomass with coal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A life cycle GHG
emissions assessment based on the model results for the ORCF plant, and apportioned to the product mix of
liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha, diesel fuel, and power, indicates that a 30% reduction in GHG emissions
compared to lifecycle GHG emissions for transportation fuels produced from Arabian Crude for the
synthetic diesel fuel is achievable when biomass fuel is blended with the coal feeding the process and when
concentrated CO2 is separated from the syngas feed to the Fischer-Tropsch reactors and used or sequestered.
When credit is also given for the sale of surplus electrical power generated by the plant (compared to the
GHG emissions of the average electrical U.S. power mix), the ORCF plant will further reduce GHG
emissions approaching 50% of the emissions from ultra-low sulfur diesels derived from crude oil.
Additionally, other plant products, specifically the synthetic naphtha liquid produced by the Fischer-Tropsch
process, which may be used to produce additional transportation fuels or chemical feedstock such as
ethylene, can also reduce GHG emissions compared to similar petroleum-derived products.
The results of the Baard Energy study are being presented in eight days at the 24th Annual International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference being held on the doormat of the Sasol Secunda CTL complex in Johannesburg,
South Africa. While some key findings of the INL-Baard study are provided here today, I encourage you to
review this technical paper after it has been released with the Conference Proceedings.
The table below summarizes the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases for CTL transportation fuels on the
basis of the mileage attained by a standard U.S. utility sports vehicle achieving 24.4 miles per gallon of fuel.
The INL-Baard study takes into account all green house gas emissions associated with fuels and feedstock
input production and transportation to the CTL plant. The study includes cases where woody biomass
produced in the United States is blended with the coal in the same manner that already has been proven
technically feasible in Europe at the Puertollano, Spain and the Buggenum, Holland integrated gasification,
combined cycle (IGCC) power plants. The study accounts for all greenhouse gas emissions associated with
conversion of the fuels into syngas and subsequent cleanup and conversion of the syngas into liquid fuels
using the Fischer-Tropsch reaction process and associated product upgrading and refining. Next, the study
takes into account the greenhouse gas emissions associated with delivery of the fuel to consumers and finally
the consumption of the fuel in a standard transportation vehicle. This study emulates the work performed by
the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and investigations by other federal, university
and private organizations to assess ``well-to-wheel`` greenhouse gas emissions associated with various
transportation fuels. While such studies invoke specific assumptions, it should be noted that the majority of
the greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to the CTL plant and end-state combustion as illustrated in the
Figure that follows.
This INL-Baard life-cycle greenhouse gas study corroborates the findings of other organizations, but varies
to the extent that the design of the CTL plant differs from the other studies. It is important to understand there
can be significant variation in the CTL plant emissions depending on unit operation choices, the options
selected for the integration of heat and material recycle, and the decision to co-produce electricity or other
chemical products. I herby state without reservation that greenhouse gas emissions for coal-derived
transportation fuels can be reduced by at least 20% relative to petroleum fuels. The INL-Baard study shows
that a 30% reduction may be possible before credit is taken for the clean power produced by the plant. When
apportioned credit is taken for the green power co-produced by the plant, the GHG emissions reduction is
estimate to be 46% as previously indicated by Baard Energy in a press conference just last May. It is also
important to state that these reduced levels of GHG emissions can be accomplished by using existing
technologies to concentrate and remove the CO2 produced by the process, and by blending biomass with the
coal feedstock.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (2/2)
The plan reduces net CO2 emissions

As for greenhouse gas emissions, coal-to-liquids refineries generate carbon dioxide in highly concentrated
form allowing carbon capture and storage. Coal-to-liquids refineries with carbon dioxide capture and storage
can produce fuels with life-cycle greenhouse gas emission profiles that are as good as or better than that of
the petroleum-derived products they replace.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Ethanol Fermentation

Biofuels shift coming now
Renewable Energy Today 6 (“EERC receives DoD grant to create renewable fuel for jets”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2006_Dec_7/ai_n27096912)
The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota has received a $5 million award from the US Department of
Defense's Defense-Advanced Research Projects Agency. The EERC will use the funds to create a domestic bio-jet fuel for
the US military, which will be a replacement for JP-8 petroleum-based fuel. The EERC fuel will replace the
majority of all fuel used by the US military to power the Boeing B-52 bomber, the Abrams A1 Battle Tank, the
Apache Helicopter, and others. "This replacement will allow an easy transition from a petroleum-based fuel
to a 100% domestic renewable fuel," EERC Senior Research Manager Ted Aulich said.
Plan net reduces biomass associated warming emissions

Non–food-crop biomass resources suitable as feedstocks for F-T biomass-to-liquid production plants include
mixed prairie grasses, switchgrass, corn stover and other crop residues, forest residues, and crops that might
be grown on dedicated energy plantations. When such biomass resources are used to produce liquids through
the F-T method, our research shows that greenhouse gas emissions should be well below those associated
with the use of conventional petroleum fuels. Moreover, when a combination of coal and biomass is used, for
example, a 40-60 mix, we estimate that net carbon dioxide emissions will be comparable to or, likelier, lower
than well-to-wheels emissions of conventional, petroleum derived motor fuels. Finally, we have examined
liquid fuel production concepts in which carbon capture and sequestration is combined with the combined
gasification of coal and biomass. Our preliminary estimate is that a 50-50 coal-biomass mix combined with
carbon capture and sequestration should yield negative carbon dioxide emissions. Negative emissions imply
that the net result of producing and using the fuel would be the removal of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. One perspective on the combined gasification of coal and biomass is that biomass enables F-T
coal-to-liquids production, in that the combined feedstock approach provides an immediate pathway to
unconventional liquids with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and an ultimate vision, with carbon
capture and sequestration, of zero net emissions. Another perspective is that coal enables F-T biomass-to-
liquids production, in that the combined approach reduces overall production costs by reducing fuel delivery
costs, allowing larger plants that take advantage of economies of scale, and smoothing over the inevitable
fluctuations in biomass availability associated with annual and multiyear fluctuations in weather patterns,
especially rainfall.
CTL reduces ethanol production GHG

Additionally, it can be shown that this manner of converting biomass to liquid fuels, specifically woody
biomass as well as most herbaceous materials, is a much more efficient method of converting and utilizing
the chemical potential of biomass. The GHG emissions associated with indirect conversion of biomass to
liquid fuels are significantly less than ethanol fuels derived from the popular fermentation process.
CTL reduces biomass production

The fact that biomass itself can be converted to liquid fuels begs an answer to the supposition that the U.S.
need not develop its coal resources to produce liquid transportation fuels. The short explanation is that
resource availability and economics do not support this assumption. In order to match the current U.S.
consumption of over 20 million barrels of oil per day, two-thirds of which is converted to transportation
fuels, a formidable amount of biomass would be required. However, a ratio of 30 % biomass and 70 % coal
for synthetic fuels is much more plausible. For additional information, I refer you to the 2005 ``Hirsch
Report`` that discusses peaking of world oil production and its impacts and mitigation alternatives.1
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Hybrids

CTL reduces GHG emissions from new hybrid production

Auto manufacturers in Europe and Japan are now producing hybrid cars that will operate on diesel fuel and
will attain higher fuel mileage than their gasoline-electric driven counterparts. Therefore, it is not difficult to
conclude that diesel fuels produced in the manner outlined in the INL-Baard study will further reduce
greenhouse gases emitted from a hybrid vehicle. In other words, the greenhouse gas emissions are mainly
due to the production of the fuels, and are not a strong function of type of fuel used in the hybrid vehicle.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Efficiency

CTL decreases CO2 emissions over standard coal and improves overall fuel efficiency

CTL fuels are ultra clean to use - no sulphur, significantly reduced NOx, particulate matter and carbon
monoxide emissions. CTL fuels offer higher efficiencies than conventional oil resulting in lower CO2
emissions when used Carbon dioxide capture and storage offers the potential for major reductions in CO2
emissions from coal. CCS may result in greenhouse gas emissions being some 20% lower over the full life
cycle than fuels derived from crude oil.
More ev…
To reduce the risk of dependence on foreign oil, a new emphasis should be placed upon coal to supplement
our nation’s liquid fuels supply portfolio. Refined petroleum products were once viewed as the exclusive
domain of the oil industry. Now, however, they can be provided by well-developed technologies that convert
the energy embodied in coal into liquids that are very close substitutes for oil. In fact, liquid fuels produced
from coal via indirect liquefaction are generally superior to petroleum products because they have higher heat
value and are considerably cleaner, with virtually no sulfur.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (1/4)

( ) The plan is a bridge to full-scale RE, solving warming
Phillips 7 (Don, Writer for International Herald Tribune (Business), http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/17/business/ravbio.php?page=1)

A U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber flew a successful test earlier this year on a blend of jet fuel and Fischer-
Tropsche fuel produced from natural gas. Sasol of South Africa and Shell Oil Products have now been certified to
supply fuel blend for tests, Altman said. The problem is that these fuels can produce even more carbon dioxide than
petroleum-based fuels, and only a small portion of the U.S. Air Force's fuel needs are likely to be met from such
sources. Virgin Fuels, a subsidiary of Virgin Atlantic Airlines, headed by Richard Branson, is also working with
Boeing and General Electric to test-fly a Boeing 747 with alternate fuels. Over the next 5 to 15 years, which
Altman called a "mid-term" period, other fuels are likely to evolve, including fuel from renewable resources
and from sources like oil shale. Eventually, he said, there will be breakthroughs on much cleaner fuels that
may be produced without petroleum. Bollinger said fuel might some day come from animal fat, garbage or
even sea algae. In fact, he said, sea algae may well become a vast source of natural clean fuel some day, using
excess carbon dioxide from the fuel-making process to grow algae more rapidly and create more feedstock for
the process. For the airlines, time may be too short to wait for that.
( ) SQ crowds-out renewables – Only the plan bridges the gap by proving markets work
Klare 8 (Michael T., May 19, defense correspondent of The Nation, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College,
http://www.pace-cleanenergy.org/scripts/top_bottom.cgi?../articles/geopolitics_of_energy.html)
It is essential that America reverse the militarization of its dependence on imported energy and ease
geopolitical competition with China and Russia over control of foreign resources. Because this would require
greater investment in energy alternatives, it would also lead to an improved energy economy at home (with
lower prices in the long run) and a better chance at overcoming global warming. Any strategy aimed at reducing
reliance on imported energy, especially oil, must include a huge increase in spending on alternative fuels,
especially renewable sources of energy (solar and wind), second-generation biofuels (those made from
nonedible plant matter), coal gasification with carbon capture and burial (so that no carbon dioxide escapes
into the atmosphere to heat the planet) and hydrogen fuel cells, along with high-speed rail, public transit and
other advanced transportation systems. The science and technology for these advances is already largely in
place, but the funding to move them from the lab or pilot-project stage to full-scale development is not. The
challenge, then, is to assemble the many billions--even trillions--of dollars that will be needed. The principal
obstacle to this herculean task is the very reason for its necessity in the first place: massive spending on the
military dimensions of overseas resource competition. I estimate that it costs approximately $100 billion to $150
billion per year to enforce the Carter Doctrine, not including the war in Iraq. Extending that doctrine to the Caspian
Sea basin and Africa will add billions. A new cold war with China, with an accompanying naval arms race, will
require trillions in additional military expenditures over the next few decades. This is sheer lunacy: it will not
guarantee access to more sources of energy, lower the cost of gasoline at home or discourage China from
seeking new energy resources. What it will do is sop up all the money we need to develop alternative energy
sources and avert the worst effects of global climate change.

The plan bridges the gap to full-scale renewable deployment
Geiselman 6 (Bruce, Waste News Correspondent, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; Pg. 26, October 23, Lexis)
it with cleaner-burning, domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Air Force already has large numbers of cars
running on alternative fuels, but now it wants to find alternative fuel sources for its aircraft. A B-52 bomber
containing a blend of synthetic and regular jet fuel took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California on Sept. 19,
marking the first time the U.S. military has attempted to fly a plane with nontraditional fuel. ``This test flight sets
the stage for a more comprehensive plan the Air Force has toward conservation,'' said Air Force Undersecretary
Ronald Sega, a former test pilot who flew with crew members aboard the plane. ``This test fits into this overall
vision and is the first step in a long process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels.'' The plane appeared
to function normally using a liquid fuel produced from natural gas by Syntroleum Corp., of Tulsa, Okla., according
to company and Air Force officials. Particularly appealing to the Air Force is the fact that domestically
produced coal, available in abundant supplies in the United States, could also be used to produce the fuel.
``The feedstock for this process could include natural gas or it could be coal or oil shale,'' Sega said. ``The
United States has significant reserves in coal and oil shale, something on the order of 2 trillion barrel
equivalents.'' Using a domestically produced fuel would make the Air Force less vulnerable to interruptions in
foreign oil supplies. Also appealing are the environmental characteristics of the fuel. The Air Force initially tested
a blend of synthetic fuel with 50 percent normal jet fuel. However, tests have revealed that jet engines burning
pure synthetic fuel produce about 90 percent less particulate matter and soot emissions, which also improves
engine performance. ``This test is a significant milestone for Syntroleum and is a result of more than four
years of research and development efforts with the DOD,'' said Jack Holmes, company president and CEO. The fuel is
produced using Fischer-Tropsch technology, which is named for the German scientists who developed it in the 1920s. The German military used
similarly produced synthetic aviation fuel during World War II as did South Africa during the apartheid-era because the governments had
difficulty obtaining enough oil-based fuel. The Air Force also is using a similarly produced synthetic diesel fuel at
Edwards Air Force base for one of its shuttle buses as part of an ongoing road test.
Synfuels are the key bridge to full-scale RE deployment
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Col, USAF, masters in aerospace engineering from Stanford “WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE
TRANSFORMATION” http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)
Synthetic liquid fuels are only one bridging energy alternative. At present, they provide
the only real option for mobile systems which rely on high-energy-density liquid hydrocarbon
fuels to provide the maneuver and logistics capability that allows the U.S. military to dominate
all others. They would be intended to serve as the main mobility bridge to the 20-40 year
hydrogen energy future America has placed great faith in as evidenced by the 2005 Energy
Policy Act allocating $2.1B for hydrogen research over the next 5 years.113 In the mean time,
other bridging options exist for non-mobility energy requirements such as base facilities at home,
overseas, and in expedition. If fully developed, many of these emerging installation bridge
energies can become permanent infrastructure energy solutions.

( ) CTL is also a pre-requisite for other alternative energies in the military.
Reid 7 (Clayton B., Staff Writer for NewsMax, November 6, http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/air_force_fuels/2007/11/06/47114.html)
“We are creating this synthetic fuel to be a drop-in fuel, as a replacement for straight JP-8.” the Air Force
official tells Newsmax. “It burns hotter than straight JP-8, which gives us potential performance
enhancement. So later, we may be looking at engine modifications to capitalize on the fuel’s advantages. Right
now, it just goes straight into the tank.” In November, synthetic fuel tests will begin in Tennessee on B-1 bomber
engines, as, one by one, the Air Force certifies its aircraft on the new fuels. Creating synthetic fuel is not a new
process – the Nazi Luftwaffe in oil-poor but coal-rich Germany flew on coal-based fuels in World War II. The so-
called Fisher-Tropsch process, named for its inventors in the 1920s, produces fuel or lubricating oil from just about
anything, but mainly from natural gas and coal. With one-quarter of the world’s coal reserves in the U.S., such
fuels are a natural fit for its military. And, according to Air Force officials, synthetic fuel burns very clean —
with nearly zero sulphur and very little particulate matter. Still, the fuel production process has come under fire
from environmentalists, who criticize coal mining techniques and claim synthetic fuel refineries release double the
amount of carbon dioxide as their traditional petroleum counterparts. “Coal is going to play big in the future, we
believe,” Anderson says. “We believe that we have to find an environmentally friendly way to mine coal and burn
coal. We believe the technology is very close, and we believe that an organization with the market size and
presence of the USAF can help move technology forward to make coal a much cleaner and greener alternative
across the board.” The Air Force isn’t stopping at coal and natural gas. The drive to reduce oil consumption
has led engineers into some pretty strange places for new sources of energy, officials say. Researchers are
experimenting with fuels made from switchgrass, poplar trees, and even chicken fat. The Air Force is looking
at several ways of producing such domestic synthetic fuel, including a collaboration between Conoco, Tyson Foods
and Syntroleum.

Synthetics will be the stopgap that solves oil dependence-It’ll give us time to develop more
tech
Elser`7 (David, Aviation Week, Alternative Fuel for Jet Engines, September 17, 2007,
Growing Our Fuel
So, anticipating the competition that will ensue for the planet's remaining petroleum reserves, a strong
and logical argument can be made for finding alternative fuel sources to ensure both "oil security" --
that is, an uninterrupted energy supply -- and unhook nations like the United States from dependence
on oil imported from foreign sources (read: the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world).
Many analysts believe that "oil politics" will characterize the century, leading to friction and even open
conflict among nations (e.g., much in the fashion of Russia using distribution of its huge natural gas
reserves as a political tool to dominate its western neighbors), another good reason to step up research
into fuels that can be derived from renewable sources. And thus the focus on "biofuel" that can be grown
and replenished, as opposed to recovered from a diminishing resource. After fueling 100 years of powered
flight with petroleum, it may be hard to accept the concept of running a 0.85 Mach-capable jet on an energy
source derived from soy beans, palm oil, switch grass or a desert weed called jatropha, but organizations as
serious as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), U.S. Air Force, FAA and NASA are
devoting considerable funding to support R&D precisely toward that end. In addition, serious research is
also being devoted to coal liquefaction using the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesizing process developed in
Germany during the 1920s and used by that nation and Japan, both with little or no indigenous petroleum
reserves, in World War II to make so-called "syngas." (Collectively, F-T synthesized products are referred
to as "synfuels.") Since none of the fuels derived from these diverse sources is a magic bullet in and of
itself, it's possible that we'll see a variety of them perfected to supplement fossil fuels. Different fuels
may be used in different regions of the world, depending on what local resources are available: oil, coal or
biostock. At this year's Paris Air Show, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey described two studies then under
way and intended to develop "a national roadmap on the viability of alternative fuels for aviation."
Commissioned under the auspices of the FAA's Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)
and scheduled for completion this month, the studies address feasibility, costs, technical issues and
environmental impact of alternative fuels. Also at the same venue, Blakey and Air Force Secretary Michael
Wynne jointly announced a plan whereby the service would power all its aircraft with a 50/50 mix of
petroleum-derived JP-8 and F-T synfuel as early as 2010. The concoction will be tested in the Air Force's C-
17 tactical transports and data derived from the trials shared with the FAA for eventual transfer to the nation's
airlines, if deemed successful. (The C-17 is powered by a military derivative of the Pratt & Whitney
PW2000, a commercial turbofan, making it an ideal test bed for the program.) The obvious benefit of a
JP/synfuel blend would be to stretch, or dilute, available supplies of petroleum-based Jet-A. Synfuel
Stopgap Because synfuel can be refined from coal or natural gas (as well as biomass sources) using the F-
T process and is available now, it is expected to emerge first as a supplement to petroleum-based fuels.
In this regard, its primary purpose for the foreseeable future will be as a stopgap to ensure energy
security for the United States and other nations with large coal or natural gas reserves.
***A2: Other Enviro DA’s***

CTL Good – A2: Water DA – No Link: Heat Recovery

Heat recovery systems reduce water usage

A custom-design heat recovery system for combined-cycle power generation and process water recovery,
treatment, and recycle can reduce the water consumption for bituminous coal-to-liquids plants from 15 to
10.5 barrels of water per barrel of liquid hydrocarbon product. Combined use of moist biomass with coal can
further reduce the process water requirement by one-half (1/2) barrel of water per barrel of liquid product. In
this case, the plant water use is approximately apportioned among the following sinks:
-- 1.75 barrels of water per barrel of liquid fuels for process requirements
-- 6.0 barrels of water per barrel of liquid fuels for cooling tower evaporation losses and blowdown
-- 2.25 barrels of water for cooling tower evaporation losses and blowdown associated with surplus power
generation
These relative figures hopefully contribute to the understanding of the water requirements for a CTL plant.
Studies regarding water requirements vary widely, but are generally consistent with the plant design and
reporting basis. The most important point to capture is that cooling tower losses and waste water blowdown
constitute the majority of water required for a CTL plant (8.25 of 10 barrels for the INL case study). In order
to reduce the water duty, gas-to-gas heat exchangers could for used for steam cooling. Alternatively, a closed-
loop heat recovery system, such as that referred to previously in my testimony, would eliminate the cooling
tower and water evaporation losses, while also increasing electrical power generation by 15-20 percent. This
process improvement is comparable to a modern natural gas furnace that achieves higher efficiency by
condensing the steam in the exhaust gas before it vented to the atmosphere. Incorporation of a closed-loop
heat recovery system would provide the joint benefit of reducing water use while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Thus, the water requirement can be reduced to as little as 3-5 barrels of water per barrel of
synthetic liquid product.
Coal-bed methane solves water use

Another point to consider is the opportunity for CTL plants located near the coal mine to use coal-bed
methane (CBM) produced water, or oil field water. For example, the Wyoming Coal Gas Commission
estimates the potential water production from nearly 24,000 wells in existence in the Powder River Basin
could yield upwards of 15 billion barrels of water over approximately 30 years. The water quality of a large
portion of the PRB basin CBM water is adequate for direct use in a CTL plant. The salinity or hardness of the
remainder of the water can be reduced with minimal water treatment, possibly comparable to the current
cleanup requirements for much of the surface or well-produced waters used in power plants throughout the
United States.
If two-thirds of the estimated CBM produced water in Wyoming were used for CTL plants in conjunction
with advance steam cooling technology, then there would be sufficient water to produce 4 million barrels of
synthetic fuels per year over a 50 year period.2 This is equivalent approximately 25-30% of the
transportation fuels currently consumed in the United States.
CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Turn: SQ Worse

Water creates fewer problems for gasification plants than for current coal power plants.

In general, water effluents may create fewer problems for IGCC than for combustion-based power
generation, because the steam cycle in an IGCC plant typically produces less than 40% of the plant’s
power. While effluents from cooling-water blowdown are significantly less, BFW blowdown may be the same as, or even larger, than
a PC-based plant of comparable output, even if it is well designed, operated and maintained. A gasification process can easily consume
considerable quantities of BFW via tap purges, pump seals, intermittent equipment flushes, as well as syngas saturation for NOx control
and direct steam injection into the gasifier as a reactant and/or temperature moderator. The amount of process water
blowdown is about the same for both gasification and a PC-based steam plant.
Coal gasification plants consume 30-60% less water than competing technologies.

While air emissions can affect large geographical areas and are often of greatest concern to regulators, both water consumption and
aqueous discharges from coal-fired plants are quite important at the local level. Water is required for the plant’s steam
cycle as boiler feedwater and cooling water, as well as for process operations, such as syngas emissions control.
While the steam cycle in an IGCC plant typically produces less than 50% of the power plant’s total power output, its water consumption
is not proportionately lower (compared with a similarly sized conventional steam plant), since the gasification process itself consumes
considerable quantities of boiler feed water. On an output basis, IGCC will consume roughly 30% to 60% less
water than the competing technologies, which gives it more siting and permitting flexibility.
Gasification plants are more water efficient than coal combustion plants.

The water required to operate an IGCC plant is approximately one-half to two-thirds that needed
to operate a PC plant with FGD or an FBC plant. Approximate estimates are shown in TABLE
2-26. An IGCC plant generally produces fewer water effluents than the PC and FBC plants. The
amount of process water blowdown is about the same for these plants. However, the steam
cycle
in IGCC power plants yields much lower amounts of wastewater blowdown since less than 50%
of the total power generated comes from the steam cycle.
CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Recycling

Water is reused to prevent high amounts of consumption.

Gasification cycles minimize water consumption and water discharge by reusing process water. Process
water produced within the gasification process is treated to remove dissolved gases before being
recycled to the slurry preparation area or being discharged to the water outfall. The gases are removed from
the process water (sour water), in a two-step process. CO2 and the bulk of the H2S are removed in a steam stripper column. The
removed H2S is sent to the sulfur recovery process. The water is further cooled and the majority is recycled to the slurry preparation
area. Any excess water is treated in an ammonia stripper column to remove ammonia and trace
components. The stripped ammonia is combined with the recycled slurry water. The water out of the ammonia stripper is purified
sufficiently to meet environmental requirements for discharge. If the discharge water is out of specifications, for any reason, it can be
stored in holding tanks for further testing and possible recycle before final disposition.7,i Gasification processes that produce organics
(tars and oils) typically require additional processing steps to separate them.
Excess water is cleaned and recycled back to the plant to minimize water consumption.

Process wastewater potentially contains small amounts of dissolved solids and gases and is treated to
remove the contaminants before being recycled to the slurry preparation or being discharged to the
water outfall. Dissolved gases are driven from the water via flashing (sometimes under vacuum) or steam
stripping with low-pressure steam (which provides heat and a sweeping medium to expel the gases from the water). The flash
gas is sent to the Claus plant or sulfuric acid decomposition furnace. Removal of solid contaminants, such as trace metals, may require
additional wastewater treatment using other equipment, such as a mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) system. Most of the
treated process water is recycled to the plant, and only a relatively small amount is discharged as a
blowdown to a pond. Reuse of the water within the gasification plant minimizes water consumption
and water discharge. Chapter 2, Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 more fully discuss wastewater treatment.
Through recycling and less use of steam, gasification plants consume less water than
current coal plants.

Because of these BFW needs, an IGCC plant may consume as much, or more, BFW than a conventional steam plant of comparable
output, even if it is well designed, operated, and maintained.58 On the other hand, the steam cycle CW requirement will
be
proportionately lower than the conventional steam plant due to its reduced share of the total plant
power output. Also helping to reduce water consumption, coal gasification processes recover most of
the water associated with the raw feed coal via condensation during syngas cleanup. This is not practical for
combustion-based plants due to their low-pressure operation.
The other large water requirement, process water, is used to cool and clean the syngas to remove fly
ash, halogens and trace organic and inorganic components. The concentration level of specific contaminants depends
upon the fuel characteristics and the type of gasifier employed in the design. The quantity of water required depends on the capacity of
syngas treated, the degree of gas cooling required, and the contaminants to be removed.
Coal-fueled plants also often use wastewater to control the dust and bulk density of the solid waste. The
net process water bleed stream is usually of higher quality than the cooling-water blowdown. In fact, some plants use process water
effluent as part of the cooling-water makeup.59
IGCC plants normally consume between 6 to 9 gpm of water per MW of electricity generated,
depending upon the specific design.4 In contrast, a PC plant, utilizing a wet limestone desulfurization
process for SO2 control, consumes about 10 to 11 gpm of water per MW of electricity generation.4
CTL Good – A2: Water Pollution

Technology available to recycle waste water
Tullo and Tremblay 8 [Alexander H. and Jean-François, Coal: The New Black,
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/86/8611cover.html, March 17, 2008]
Ordos is next to the Yellow River. In recent years, both the increasing pollution and decreasing flow of
the river have been the source of much controversy in China. But Zhang says his firm's coal-to-liquid-
fuels facility will be "water-serene." It will not draw its water from the Yellow River but instead from a
reservoir next to Shenhua's coal mines. "The water from the reservoir would evaporate if we did not use it,"
he says. The quantity of water consumed by the facility will be about the same as would be consumed
by a petrochemical plant of the same size, he says. AS FOR WASTEWATER, there won't be any.
Shenhua has spent $16 million on a GE Betz technology that will allow the company to recycle its used
water.
Gasification is more environmentally friendly than current coal combustion: Air emissions,
water discharges, and solid wastes.

The single most compelling reason for utilities to consider coal gasification for electric power
generation is superior environmental performance.1 As shown in Figure 2-1, gasification has fundamental
environmental advantages over direct coal combustion. Commercial-scale plants for both integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation and chemicals applications have already successfully demonstrated these advantages.
The superior environmental capabilities of coal gasification apply to all three areas of concern: air
emissions, water discharges, and solid wastes. This chapter of the report presents a comprehensive evaluation of the
environmental performance of IGCC power generation technology and compares performance with other coal-fired technologies.
Water treatments prevent the impacts of waste.

As discussed in Section 2.3, gasification plants have two principal water effluents
that are similar to those
from coal-fired plants. The first is wastewater from the steam cycle, including blowdowns from the
boiler feedwater purification system and the cooling tower. Gasification processes typically purify and recycle raw
process streams, and net water discharge is normally only a blowdown stream. These effluents contain salts and minerals that have been
concentrated from the raw feedwater. The second aqueous effluent is process water blowdown, which is typically high
in dissolved solids and gases with the various ionic species removed from the syngas, such as sulfide, chloride, ammonium, and cyanide.
Detailed test results from the Wabash River plant have generally shown wastewater constituents to be
well within environmental permit limits, with the exception of arsenic, cyanide, and selenium. However, recent installation
of an add-on mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) system appears to have brought the wastewater stream into full compliance,
although some operational problems have occurred. While the Polk IGCC plant has zero process water discharge, it comes at the price of
operating several wastewater treatment systems.
CTL Good – A2: Slag DA (1/2)

SQ slag is worse

These commercial IGCC power plants have proven capable of exceeding the most stringent emissions
regulations currently applicable to comparable combustion-basedc power plants. They have achieved
the lowest levels of criteria pollutant air emissions (NOx, SOx, CO, PM10) of any coal-fueled power
plants in the world. Emissions of trace inorganic and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are
extremely low, comparable with those from coal combustion-based plants that use advanced emission
control technologies. If mercury is regulated, commercial mercury control equipment is already available for IGCC. The ash
(slag or bottom ash) and sulfur (or sulfuric acid) generated by operating IGCC plants have been tested
to be environmentally benign and can be sold as valuable by-products. Discharge of solid by-products and
wastewater is reduced by roughly 50% compared with combustion-based plants. Another significant
environmental benefit is a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, by at least 10% for an
equivalent net production of electricity, due to higher operating efficiency compared to existing coal-
fueled, combustion-based power generation technology. If more significant CO2 reduction is required in the future,
gasification technology has major operating advantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than is currently possible
with combustion technology.
No net increase in slag compared to existing coal plants

None of the applicable solid waste discharge regulations appear to limit the introduction of IGCC
technology any more than they limit coal combustion-based technology. Forty-five (45) states, encompassing
96% of coal-fired utility generating capacity, duplicate the federal exemption of coal combustion by-products from being categorized as
a hazardous waste. Since IGCC byproducts have demonstrated better toxicity characteristics than wastes from coal combustionbased
plants, IGCC should be no more impacted than such plants. Leachability test data from demonstration and operating
plants indicate that IGCC slag is comparable to that produced in wet-bottom PC power plants and
should clearly fall under the classification of non-hazardous waste. Unfortunately, even if IGCC slag/bottom ash is
classified as non-hazardous, local regulations still may require disposal in a different class of landfill. As mentioned previously, the Polk
IGCC plant is currently required to use a Class I landfill (double-lined with leachate extraction and control) versus much less costly and
more available Class III landfills that don’t require such strict standards.
Slag is non-hazardous waste and has many benefits.

Laboratory analysis of slag from the Wabash River gasifier, as discussed previously, has been
determined to be non-leachable, non-hazardous material with regard to inorganic species; since gasifier slag is in a
vitrified state, it rarely fails the TCLP protocols for metals. Various feedstocks (lignite, subbituminous coal, bituminous coal, and
petroleum coke) processed through the E-Gas™ gasification process have consistently demonstrated a non-hazardous classification
based on TCLP (total) test results. Since slag is not a good substrate for binding organic compounds, it is
usually found to be non-hazardous, exhibiting none of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Consequently, it may be disposed of in a non-hazardous landfill, or sold as an ore for metals recovery.
Slag’s hardness also makes it suitable as an abrasive or roadbed material, as well as an aggregate in concrete formulations. Further
evidence of the long-term stability of this material is supported in an EPRI publication entitled Long-Term Leaching Tests with Coal
Gasification Slag.67
CTL Good – A2: Slag DA (2/2)

Slag waste helps increase the intrinsic value of land by preventing landfilling.

Another benefit associated with CUB utilization can be quantified as the intrinsic value of land not
needed for disposal purposes. It is presumed that almost any tract of land will have a lesser
environmental quality if it is used as a disposal site rather than left in its natural state. The mere operation of a
large disposal site over a long period of time increases the potential for accidental environmental
damage due to loss of vegetation, surface runoff, airborne dust from trucks, etc. It is, therefore, assumed that the
environmental benefit of diverting CUBs from disposal sites takes the form of a value assigned to each
acre of landfill space “avoided.” This benefit accrues to any use of CUB, assuming that there is no
additional environmental disturbance at the utilization site merely to accommodate the CUBs.75
Coal gasification has significantly less amounts of waste than current power plants.

Solid waste from coal-fired power plants is a significant local environmental issue due to the large quantities produced and the potential
for leaching of toxic substances into the soil and groundwater at disposal sites. In both these areas, IGCC power generation
poses minimal environmental impact. The largest solid waste stream produced by an IGCC that
incorporates a slagging gasifier (currently the preferred choice) is slag, a black, glassy, sand-like material that can
potentially be a marketable by-product. The amount of slag produced is a function of fuel ash content, so coal produces much more slag
than alternative fuels like petroleum coke. Regardless of the fuel, as long as the operating temperature is above the ash fusion
temperature, slag will be produced. Leachability data obtained from different gasifiers (see Section 2.4.2)
unequivocally shows that gasifier slag is highly non-leachable and indicates gasifier slag need not be
treated any differently than coal combustion wastes classified as non-hazardous. Even more important, the
possible use of this material in a variety of applications may negate the need for long-term disposal (see Section 2.4.6).
The other large-volume by-product produced by IGCC plants is solid (or liquid) sulfur or sulfuric acid.
Both can be sold as by-products that help offset plant costs. In comparison, most coal combustion processes recover
sulfur in the form of wet scrubber sludge, dry or semi-dry spent sorbent, or gypsum. These sulfur forms have significantly larger mass
and volume than pure sulfur, are often more difficult to handle and market, and must usually be disposed of in an appropriate landfill or
surface impoundment. Should IGCC solid by-products require disposal, Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5 discuss current storage stability,
management practices and handling experience to minimize site contamination. However, due to the potential economic value of IGCC
by-products, temporary surface impoundments for slag and containment vessels for sulfur or sulfuric acid may be the likely storage
practice.
IGCC’s solids generation amounts to about 50% less than that produced by a PC plant and 63% less
than that of the atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) technology when comparing plants of equivalent
size that consume a bituminous coal with 4% sulfur content. While all of these plants produce byproduct material that may have
commercial value, the slag and sulfur produced by the IGCC plant should be highly valued commodities in
numerous areas of the country.
CTL Good – A2: Radon DA (1/2)

1. The coming boom in nuclear power will increase the stock of uranium.
Seeking Alpha July 9 (2008, http://seekingalpha.com/article/84273-nuclear-power-s-second-coming-will-lead-to-a-uranium-boom)

The best way to play the future nuclear boom is to look to the most integral suppliers for the
production of nuclear power: the uranium producers. The uranium producers' stocks right now have
bargain basement prices and they stand to profit immensely in the coming years as nuclear production
begins to ramp up.
2. Coal is not the problem: Uranium is the significant cause of radon emissions.
University of Minnesota 4 (January 30, http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonfate.html)

-Tailings from uranium mines and residues from phosphate mines both contribute to global radon in
estimated amounts of 2 to 3x106 Ci radon-222 per year. Despite the fact that these sites are rather rare, emanation
rates to air may potentially be substantial. Former research has estimated that 20% of the radon
formed in tailings is released and that emanation rates can be as high as 1,000 pCi radon/m2/second.
-Coal residues, such as fly ash, combustion products, and natural gas also contribute to the
atmospheric radon levels, however, only in negligible quantities.
3. Radon in uranium mines is especially bad.
Edwards 92 (Perception Magazine, Dr. Gordon: President of Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,
http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html)
As the miners dig the uranium-bearing ore, they inevitably release large quantities of radioactive
radon gas into the mine atmosphere. Radon has a relatively short half-life (3.8 days); before long, the
air in the mine is heavily contaminated with radon daughters. Adhering to microscopic dust particles, these tiny,
pernicious particles are breathed into the miners' lungs where they lodge delivering a massive dose of alpha radiation to the sensitive
lung tissue. The result is an extraordinarily high incidence of lung cancer, fibrosis of the lungs, and other
lung diseases, all of which take decades to become manifest.
4. Coal and nuclear power are zero-sum (From Coal Industry DA in Nuke Power file)
The Daily Reckoning 7/2 (http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/thorium/2008/07/02/)

"Of the 439 nuclear power plants in the world today, 70 per cent are more than 20 years old," reports Sam Knight in the May 31st issue
of the Financial Times. "While global electricity demand grew by more than 60 per cent from 1980 to 2004, the number of new nuclear
reactors being built halved every 10 years. "There are political and environmental reasons for the decline of
nuclear power as a source of electricity. But there are practical and economic reasons to expect its
resurgence. One big reason is global electricity demand. World electricity demand is forecast to double
by 2030-yet 25% of all existing power plants (natural gas and coal) are scheduled for replacement by
then. If you having rising total demand and ageing fleet of power plants that run on coal and natural gas, how will you make up the
difference? For the developed world-which does not have an abundance of conventional hydrocarbons or cannot afford them-nuclear is a
sensible, reliable, long-term alternative. That is why India is trying to quintuple its nuclear capacity in the next twelve years. China
already has 11 working reactors, but wants at least ten times that number to get away from coal and
keep its economy booming.
5. No Impact: Radon emissions are not a health problem.
University of Minnesota 4 (January 30, http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonfate.html)

-Radon is continually being formed in soil and released to air as a result of the extended half-lives of
uranium and radium and their abundance in the earth’s surface. Atmospheric radon is not an issue of
health concern because the radon is rapidly diluted to low levels by circulation throughout outdoor air.
CTL Good – A2: Radon DA (2/2)

Studies prove that there is low risk of radon in the status quo.
Pearce 98 (Fred, March 14, New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721253.200-focus--undermining-our-lives--radon-

seeps-into-the-homes-of-millionsof-people-around-the-world-its-effects-may-have-been-seriously-exaggerated.html)
Cohen accepts that his use of averages is a "serious problem". But he insists it does not invalidate his data. On the crucial question of
smoking, he says: "Even if there were a perfect negative correlation between radon and smoking prevalence, this could explain only half
of the discrepancy. What I have found has still got to be explained, especially given the size of the study. Epidemiologists can't just
ignore this." He says his study "clearly shows that currently used analyses grossly exaggerate the cancer
risk from low-level radiation".
In his war with the epidemiologists Cohen has supporters, especially among physicists. Richard Wilson, at Harvard, says: "I don't
believe that the confounding effect of smoking can easily explain Cohen's findings. Nobody has a viable
explanation except that the linear extrapolation of risk doesn't work at low levels. But epidemiologists
close ranks."
The radon debate is hampered by the fact that few people are exposed to high levels of the gas, while
tens of millions are exposed to low levels. Most of the estimates of death rates at low exposure are based on extrapolating
from the risks at high exposure, measured mostly in miners. So while decrying Cohen's study for its methodology,
epidemiologists are trying to support their extrapolations with real data from studies of individuals
exposed to radon at household levels.
So far, the results have been mixed. Boice says that of eight studies that have now been completed, only
one—from Sweden—has found a statistically significant link between radon in the home and lung
cancer. It suggested that a house with the American maximum recommended radon level—150 becquerels per cubic metre, which is
exceeded in 6 per cent of homes in the US—increased the lifetime risk of lung cancer by 15 per cent. But two years ago, a study
of more than a thousand homes of lung cancer victims in Finland found no evidence that these kinds of
levels increased the risk of lung cancer (This Week, 27 July 1996, p 8). To date, says Boice, "the data are
consistent with a very low risk from radon at low levels—but they are also consistent with no risk at
all".
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – 2AC

1. Non-Unique: Increased coal demand due to high oil prices.
Teslik July 10 (2008, Lee Hudson, Council on Foreign Relations,

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16753/mining_turf_wars.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_analysis)
The reason for the mining boom is simple—rising commodity prices—but the underlying pressures
causing prices to rise are numerous and complex. New demand from emerging markets certainly plays
a role. Chinese demand for aluminum (MarketWatch), coal (NPR), gold (Bloomberg), and other mined commodities has spiked. So too
has demand from India, Russia, Brazil, and a host of other emerging economies. Beyond demand, market speculation also affects prices.
As institutional investors have increasingly sought alternatives to equity investments, they have
competed for purchases on commodities futures markets, pushing up prices. Michael W. Masters, a prominent
hedge fund manager, explains this dynamic in recent congressional testimony (PDF).
The price jump has meant a bonanza for certain well-placed mining regions. Australia and New Zealand, for
instance, have profited handily from commodity exports to China, particularly coal and aluminum exports. The Economist notes several
firms riding this wave. Rio Tinto's share price roughly doubled in 2007. The Brazilian mining firm Vale has seen its quarterly earnings
rise nearly tenfold since 2002. Some Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan is a good example—have seen similar booms, and firms have
rushed to forge relationships with African countries flush with commodities. A Reuters analysis notes that a banner year
for mining firms has also led to a spike in demand for mining services firms in the United States and
Canada.
2. Link Turn: Coal gasification is more efficient than current processes and saves coal.
Department of Energy April 22 (2008, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html)

Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is
used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. In some coal combustion plants, only a third of the energy value
of coal is actually converted into electricity, the rest is lost as waste heat.
A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the
coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one
source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for use in a more conventional steam
turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into
usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant in this type of combined cycle can
potentially be boosted to 50 percent or more.
Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or a fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies
nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining waste heat can be channeled into process
steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification
plants could reach 70 to 80 percent.
3. No Impact: Mining companies take precautions to not hurt the environment.
World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=126)

Coal mining – particularly surface mining – requires large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed.
This raises a number of environmental challenges, including soil erosion, dust, noise and water pollution, and impacts on local
biodiversity.
Steps are taken in modern mining operations to minimise these impacts. Good planning and
environmental management minimises the impact of mining on the environment and helps to preserve
biodiversity.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (1/4)

Greater demand for coal now.
Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)

Surface and underground mining equipment makers in the United States are riding high on surging
global demand for coal, raising hopes that the upswing in this industry is here to stay for a while.
Coal demand has been steadily increasing with rapid industrialization in China and India and new
coal-fired power plants coming online in Britain, Europe and the United States.
This coal boom will last due to increased demand and output problems in other countries.
Reuters June 26 (2008, Bruce Nichols, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?sp=true)

Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand
and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday.
Jim Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal
market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar.
But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor
and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent
coal demand.
"I do not believe this cycle will end like the last," Griffin said.
Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future.
Gerard McCloskey of The McCloskey Group, a conference sponsor, predicted world demand for seaborne coal will grow
to 800 million tonnes a year by 2017 from 650 million tonnes currently.
McCloskey said the anticipated growth in coal consumption comes against a background of supply challenges that may see export coal
coming from new places such as Tanzania and Alaska.
Jeff Watkins, president of Hill & Associates, a leading coal industry consultant, predicted that in the boom environment, U.S.
coal exports will top 90 million short tons (81 million tonnes) in 2009.
Steve Leer, chairman and CEO of Arch Coal Inc, a major U.S. producer, went further, predicting U.S. exports will reach 100
million tonnes by 2010.
Developing countries are leading the charge for coal.

Briggs-Ficks Securities analyst John Collopy said the
biggest increase in volume for both companies is coming
from developing markets.
"Whether it is China, India or Russia, there is a big demand for equipment," he said.
In April, Bucyrus entered into a joint venture with China's Huainan Mining Industry (Group) Co Ltd to set up a manufacturing facility in
the Huainan mining area.
"Foreign markets are incrementally the big ticker for these companies," Collopy said. "The more
aggressive growth is going to be offshore in the foreseeable future."
Interest in US coal has also risen.

Interest in U.S. coal, previously deemed too expensive, has also heightened, especially coal from the
Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States.
Appalachian coal output, which accounts for more than a third of U.S. production, had remained soft
till last year as it is harder to tap into.
"High Appalachian coal prices made investment in underground mining equipment attractive," analyst
Paul Bodnar of Longbow Research said in a note last month.

U.S. coal use is up

Energy demand will increase significantly over the next 25 years. The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) has projected that consumption will grow from 100 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2004 to
127 quadrillion Btu in 2030, a rise of 27%. This 27 quadrillion Btu increase is equivalent to the nation’s total
energy consumption increase from 1972 to 2004. But during those years, oil imports were available to meet
two-thirds of new demand. Such an international supply cushion no longer exists. Thus, the great bulk of new
energy supply for the next generation of Americans will come from coal in its many varied applications.
World coal use is up

The emerging economies of the world, led by China, are moving rapidly to develop their coal resources (see
Figure ES.1). China will increase coal production from 1.7 billion tons per year (tpy) today to over 3.2 billion
tpy by 2020. This additional coal will be used for electric generation, which will approach 1,000 gigawatts
(GW) in total capacity, for coal liquefaction and for coal-to-syngas. Syngas production is already well under
way in China and liquefaction will follow shortly. Both are regarded as strategic imperatives by the Chinese
government.
Global coal demand 
Reuters UK 6/17 (“Global coal boom spurs US mining equipment demand”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617)
global demand for coal,
raising hopes that the upswing in this industry is here to stay for a while. Coal demand has been
steadily increasing with rapid industrialization in China and India and new coal-fired power plants
coming online in Britain, Europe and the United States.
A shift to CTL is inevitable-The plan is preferable
Airforce Times`7 (Air Force Times, October 4, 2007, Coal-to-liquid-fuel plant eyed at Malmstrom,
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/10/airforce_malmstrom_energy_071003/)
The Air Force is seriously considering a partnership in which a potential commercial interest could
build a 20,000- to 30,000-gallon-a-day coal-to-liquid-fuel plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., by
as early as 2011. That was the briefing that Assistant Air Force Secretary William Anderson gave to reporters
at the Great Falls base last week following a closed two-hour meeting with local elected officials and
business leaders. Anderson said the Air Force, the government’s biggest user of fuel, is committed to
finding alternative fuel sources that will reduce the nation’s dependence on overseas oil. He said the Air
Force agrees with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer that the current price of oil and advances improving
aspects of synthetic fuels make it an attractive alternative.

Non-Unique: Increased coal demand due to high oil prices
Teslik July 10 (2008, Lee Hudson, Council on Foreign Relations,

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16753/mining_turf_wars.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_analysis)
The reason for the mining boom is simple—rising commodity prices—but the underlying pressures
causing prices to rise are numerous and complex. New demand from emerging markets certainly plays
a role. Chinese demand for aluminum (MarketWatch), coal (NPR), gold (Bloomberg), and other mined commodities has spiked. So too
has demand from India, Russia, Brazil, and a host of other emerging economies. Beyond demand, market speculation also affects prices.
As institutional investors have increasingly sought alternatives to equity investments, they have
competed for purchases on commodities futures markets, pushing up prices. Michael W. Masters, a prominent
hedge fund manager, explains this dynamic in recent congressional testimony (PDF). The price jump has meant a bonanza
for certain well-placed mining regions. Australia and New Zealand, for instance, have profited handily from commodity
exports to China, particularly coal and aluminum exports. The Economist notes several firms riding this wave. Rio Tinto's share price
roughly doubled in 2007. The Brazilian mining firm Vale has seen its quarterly earnings rise nearly tenfold since 2002. Some Central
Asian countries—Kazakhstan is a good example—have seen similar booms, and firms have rushed to forge relationships with African
countries flush with commodities. A Reuters analysis notes that a banner year for mining firms has also led to a
spike in demand for mining services firms in the United States and Canada.
Greater demand for coal now

global demand for coal, raising hopes that the upswing in this industry is here to stay for a while. Coal demand has been
steadily increasing with rapid industrialization in China and India and new coal-fired power plants
coming online in Britain, Europe and the United States.
US coal boom not expected to decrease
Reuters 6/26/8 http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand and
output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing
director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's
coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar.
But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor
and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal
demand. "I do not believe this cycle will end like the last," Griffin said. Griffin was one of several
speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future.

This coal boom will last due to increased demand and output problems in other countries.
Reuters June 26 (2008, Bruce Nichols, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?sp=true)

Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand
and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of
Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of
the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of
expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth
of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand. "I do not believe this cycle will end like the last,"
Griffin said. Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future. Gerard
McCloskey of The McCloskey Group, a conference sponsor, predicted world demand for seaborne coal will grow to 800
million tonnes a year by 2017 from 650 million tonnes currently. McCloskey said the anticipated growth in coal
consumption comes against a background of supply challenges that may see export coal coming from new places such as Tanzania and
Alaska. Jeff Watkins, president of Hill & Associates, a leading coal industry consultant, predicted that in the boom environment,
U.S. coal exports will top 90 million short tons (81 million tonnes) in 2009. Steve Leer, chairman and CEO of
Arch Coal Inc, a major U.S. producer, went further, predicting U.S. exports will reach 100 million tonnes by 2010.
Developing countries are leading the charge for coal.

Briggs-Ficks Securities analyst John Collopy said the
biggest increase in volume for both companies is coming
from developing markets. whether it is China, India or Russia, there is a big demand for equipment," he
said. In April, Bucyrus entered into a joint venture with China's Huainan Mining Industry (Group) Co Ltd to set up a manufacturing
facility in the Huainan mining area. "Foreign markets are incrementally the big ticker for these companies,"
Collopy said. "The more aggressive growth is going to be offshore in the foreseeable future."
Coal mining up as demand increases
The Sate Journal 7/10/8 http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=41045

The future looks good for West Virginia coal and for coal everywhere, according to Arch Coal Inc.
President John W. Eaves. "More and more of this coal's going to be exported out of the country," Eaves
said. "It's low sulfur, it's high BTU (energy content) and I think it's a coal that's going to be desired not only in the U.S. but all over the
world." Eaves was in Bridgeport July 7 for the Nationwide Tour Players Cup. Arch is a major sponsor of the annual event. One of the
bigger producers in the state, St. Louis-based Arch Coal mined about five million tons in West Virginia in 2007
and may be ramping up to nine million tons this year. High Demand Everywhere Eaves described an
environment of very strong coal demand globally and domestically. About six billion tons of coal was
mined worldwide in 2007, he said. New coal-fired power plants will increase demand by more than one
billion tons by 2012. More coal-producing countries are keeping their coal at home, Eaves said, and that's
creating a strong export market for U.S. coal. The industry forecasts U.S. exports at about 80 million tons this
year, nearly double the 2005 level.
Interest in US coal has also risen.

Interest in U.S. coal, previously deemed too expensive, has also heightened, especially coal from the
Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States. Appalachian coal output, which accounts for more than
a third of U.S. production, had remained soft till last year as it is harder to tap into. "High Appalachian coal
prices made investment in underground mining equipment attractive," analyst Paul Bodnar of Longbow Research
said in a note last month.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Turn: CTL = Efficiency

The combination of two turbines in coal gasification makes it more efficient than current
methods of coal extraction.
Department of Energy 7 (September 11,

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html)
The use of these two types of turbines - a combustion turbine and a steam turbine - in combination,
known as a "combined cycle," is one reason why gasification-based power systems can achieve
unprecedented power generation efficiencies. Currently, commercially available gasification-based systems can operate at
around 42% efficiencies; in the future, these systems may be able to achieve efficiencies approaching 60%. (A
conventional coal-based boiler plant, by contrast, employs only a steam turbine-generator and is
typically limited to 33-40% efficiencies.)
Higher efficiencies mean that less fuel is used to generate the rated power, resulting in better economics
(which can mean lower costs to ratepayers) and the formation of fewer greenhouse gases (a 60%-efficient
gasification power plant can cut the formation of carbon dioxide by 40% compared to a typical coal
combustion plant).
Gasification uses the creation of synthesis gas to increase efficiency.
PR Newswire May 1 (2008, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2008_May_1/ai_n25377335)

Integrated gasification combined cycle technology uses a coal gasification system to convert coal into a
synthesis gas (syngas). The syngas is processed to remove sulfur, mercury and ash before being sent to
a traditional combined cycle power plant, using two combustion turbines and a steam turbine to
efficiently produce electricity.
Coal gasification is more efficient than current plants with less CO2 emissions.
Logan 7 (Chris, August 31, http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/swol/july_sept_2007/coalgasification_31082007.html)

Moreover, as governments debate policies and trading frameworks to ensure the responsible management of CO2 from power plants,
coal gasification could provide a technical solution. It is more energy efficient than a conventional coal-
fired plant, emitting less CO2 for the same amount of electricity produced. Coal gasification also offers
the potential of a cheaper and easier way of capturing CO2, so that it can be piped away for underground storage or
injected into ageing oil reservoirs to help produce more crude. Stripping it from the syngas before combustion, when
the CO2 is highly-concentrated and the gases are at high pressure, is simpler and less costly than
capturing CO2 from flue gases, where it is at lower pressure and diluted with other exhaust gases.
Gasification is more efficient than current electricity generation systems.

Gasification is the first step for IGCC electricity generation, which is more efficient than conventional
coal combustion. Gasification also produces a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide than direct combustion of coal in air,
which makes carbon capture and storage more economical.
Coal gasification is also the first half of the indirect coal liquefaction process.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – No Impact

Studies are taken by mining companies to prevent environmental damange.

In best practice, studies of the immediate environment are carried out several years before a coal mine
opens in order to define the existing conditions and to identify potential problems. The studies look at the
impact of mining on:
 surface and ground water
 soils
 local land use
 native vegetation
 wildlife populations.
Computer simulations can be undertaken to model impacts on the local environment. The findings are
then reviewed as part of the process leading to the award of a mining permit by the relevant
government authorities.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Waste

Effective design of mines prevents problems of waste.

AMD is formed when the pyrite reacts with air and water to form sulphuric acid and dissolved iron.
This acid run-off dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead and mercury into ground and surface water.
There are mine management methods that can minimise the problem of AMD, and effective mine
design can keep water away from acidgenerating materials and help prevent AMD occurring.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Dust and noise pollution

Mining companies take actions to prevent the effects of dust and noise pollution.

Dust levels can be controlled by spraying water on roads, stockpiles and conveyors. Other steps can also be
taken, including fitting drills with dust collection systems and purchasing additional land surrounding the mine to act as a buffer zone.
Trees planted in these buffer zones can also minimise the visual impact of mining operations on local
communities.
Noise can be controlled through the careful selection of equipment and insulation and sound enclosures
around machinery.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Mine reclamation solves

Mine reclamation solves all your impacts.

In best practice a
detailed rehabilitation or reclamation plan is designed and approved for each coal mine,
covering the period from the start of operations until well after mining has finished.
Mine reclamation activities are undertaken gradually – with the shaping and contouring of spoil piles,
replacement of topsoil, seeding with grasses and planting of trees taking place on the mined-out areas.
Care is taken to relocate streams, wildlife, and other valuable resources.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Emissions

Clean Coal helps the environment by reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
CARE No Date Given (http://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_environment/clean-coal-technology.asp)

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.
Carbon sequestration solves for warming.
Bartis 7 (May, James, Rand Corporation, http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.pdf)

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: By carbon capture and sequestration, I refer to technical approaches being developed in the
United States, primarily through funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, and abroad that are designed to capture carbon dioxide
produced in coalfired power plants and sequester that carbon dioxide in various types of geological formations, such as deep saline
aquifers. This same approach can be used to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from F-T
coal-to-liquids plants and from F-T plants operating on biomass or a combination of coal and biomass.
When applied to F-T coal-to-liquids plants, carbon capture and sequestration should cause “mine-to-
wheels” greenhouse gas emissions to drop to levels comparable to the “well-to-wheels” emissions associated with
conventional petroleum-derived motor fuels. Moreover, any incentive adequate to promote carbon capture at coal-fired power plants
should be equally, if not more, effective in promoting carbon capture at F-T plants producing liquid fuels.
The U.S. Department of Energy program on carbon capture and sequestration appears to be well
managed and has made considerable technical progress. However, considering the continued and
growing importance of coal for both power and liquids production and the potential adverse impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions, we believe this program has been considerably underfunded. While we are
optimistic that carbon capture and geologic sequestration can be successfully developed as a viable approach for carbon management,
we also recognize that successful development constitutes a major technical challenge and that the road to success requires multiple,
large-scale demonstrations that go well beyond the current DOE plans and budget for the efforts that are now under way.
CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Electricity

The plan wouldn’t wipe out coal supplies
The National Coal Council finds that the United States could increase coal production by 1,300 million tons
per year by 2025 for Btu conversion technologies and still have a supply that would last at least 100 years.
Maximizing coal production would reduce dependence on imported energy and the economic benefits for the
United States would be enormous.
More ev…
In addition, significant coal reserves can be found in over 25 states, and extensive coal mining, refining,
gasification, and electricity production at enhanced levels can be distributed across these states. The
transportation infrastructure, of course, must be strengthened and supplemented. But the benefits will be
widely dispersed—lower energy prices, millions of jobs in thousands of communities, and improved national
security and economic well-being for all Americans.
CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Generic

CTL captures toxic by-products

Not only would greenhouse gases be stored underground, but particulate emissions, mercury and other heavy
metal emissions that typically come out of the stack of a coal-fired power plant would be captured and stored,
Metz said.
Their evidence assumes antiquated CTL tech
Tulsa World 5 (11-3)

But NPRC's conclusions about emissions are based on old technologies and ignore the improvements in a
modern-day coal-to-liquids facility, Schweitzer said.
"They looked at one plant in South Africa with technology of 60 years ago," he said.
CTL reduces toxics compared to standard coal processes

The production of coal-to-liquids fuels is also environmentally responsible. Because coal liquefaction
processes remove contaminants from coal prior to combustion, process emissions from coal-to-liquids plants
are much lower than traditional pulverized coal power plants.
Metals contaminants are removed leading to clean processes
Lengyel 7 [Gregory J. Colonel, Colonel in USAF, Department of Defense Energy Strategy

Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf, August
2007]
In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a process to produce liquid
hydrocarbon fuel from coal that supplied a substantial portion of Germany’s fuel during the war. The Fischer-
Tropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced
from the partial combustion of coal which has been gasified and combined with molecular oxygen) is converted into
liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon
fuels produced from coal gasification and the FT process are intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal
contaminants are removed during the gasification process. The principal purpose of the FT process is to
produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as synthetic fuel. The FT process
can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually any carbon-containing feed stock, including
low-grade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the preprocessing steps would differ from the gasification process
used with coal.33
CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Turn: Biomass Slag

SQ biomass conversion worse – Coal blending reduces slag

An important technical point to make is that biomass by itself can be difficult to gasify due to its high
moisture content and other physical and chemical properties. Biomass gasifiers inherently produce tars and
oils that are troublesome to convert into syngas in conventional biomass gasifiers. Another problem can be
the low melting point of the ash which can be difficult to manage. Hence, significant attention continues to be
directed to developing efficient and reliable biomass gasifiers.
However, when the biomass is blended with coal and gasified in a high temperature slagging gasifier, the
issue of tar formation is eliminated. The slag produced by the biomass is readily incorporated into the higher
mass of slag produced by the coal. These facts underscore the benefits of gasifying biomass with coal. It is
technical the best method of converting the biomass to syngas and subsequently to synthetic fuels.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Laundry List

Gasification solves sulfur, nitrous oxide, and Co2 emissions.

Section 2.2.1 examines the release of criteria air pollutants from IGCC power plants. Sulfur
(as H2S and COS) and
particulates are very effectively removed from raw gasifier syngas by gas cleanup equipment located
upstream of the combustion turbine. A major advantage of a high temperature, slagging gasifier is that
most of the coal ash is discharged as molten slag from the bottom of the gasifier, with only a small
portion entrained with the syngas. Reducing conditions in the gasifier converts most of the chemically
bound nitrogen in the coal into harmless nitrogen gas, rather than into NOx as occurs in direct
combustion. While NOx is still formed when the clean syngas is fired in the combustion turbine,
turbine manufacturers have developed highly effective means of minimizing thermal NOx formation
without resorting to post-combustion control technologies, such as SCR. These combustion-based methods also limit
CO emissions to relatively low levels, but fugitive CO emissions from upstream components and the plant’s flare system, represent
sources of CO that must be efficiently controlled. In the aggregate, the criteria pollutant emissions from a state-of-the-art IGCC plant are
well-below current emissions standards for coal-fired power plants. TABLE 2-22 (on page 2-51) compares IGCC emissions with those
from other types of coal-fired power plants. Demonstrated IGCC criteria pollutant emission levels are:
Coal gasification solves for a laundry list of pollutants.

Other potential pollutants, such as sulfur and nitrogen compounds, form species that can be readily
extracted. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS), once hydrolyzed, are removed by dissolution
in, or reaction with, an organic solvent and converted to valuable byproducts, such as elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid. Fuel nitrogen is
mainly converted to diatomic nitrogen, but a small fraction is converted to ammonia (NH3) and some cyanide
and thiocyanate in the gasifier’s reducing environment, which is readily removed via water scrubbing. Most
trace pollutants are removed in the slag/bottom ash or in the particulate control equipment. Since some pollutants
end up in the wastewater, proper water treatment facilities are quite important for overall environmental performance.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Mercury (1/2)

Coal gasification removes a significant portion of mercury release.

As discussed in Section 2.2.3.3, mercury testing at the Wabash River, Polk, and LGTI IGCC plants has yielded relatively poor mass
balance closures (33 to 67%). Therefore, while there is no question that elemental mercury exits these plants in
the stack gas, it appears that a significant portion is removed within IGCC process components. There
is evidence that mercury is removed by the amine solvent, accumulates in the acid gas scrubbing loop,
and/or is stripped from the amine solvent upon regeneration and partitions to the sulfur recovery unit.
Some mercury, especially particulate-phase and oxidized forms, may be removed in the wet particulate
scrubber and discharged with wastewater sludge. Overall, mercury testing indicates that stack gas emission factors
range from 3 x 10-5 to 6 x 10-5 lb/MWh (1.5 to 5 lb/1012 Btu). Comparison with tests performed at PC power plants indicates that
IGCC mercury emissions are of a similar magnitude. If PC plants are obligated to control mercury as a result of expected EPA
regulations, then IGCC plants will also likely be required to control mercury emissions.
IGCC has a major advantage when it comes to mercury control. Commercial methods have been
employed for many years that remove trace amounts of mercury from natural gas and gasifier syngas.
As described in Section 2.2.6.2, UOP and the Eastman Chemical Company have used molecular sieve technology and activated carbon
beds, respectively, for this purpose. Eastman Chemical reports 90 to 95% mercury capture using Calgon
Corporation’s sulfur-impregnated activated carbon, with carbon lifetime ranging from 12 to 18
months. Thus, mercury emissions control for IGCC technology is likely to be more of an economic issue than a technical one.
Coal gasification solves for mercury.

While there is every indication that elemental mercury exits IGCC plants in the stack gas, a significant
portion also appears to be removed within the IGCC process. There is evidence that mercury is
removed by the amine solvent, accumulates in the acid gas scrubbing loop, and/or is stripped from the
amine solvent upon regeneration and partitions to the sulfur recovery unit. Some mercury, especially
particulate-phase and oxidized forms, may also be removed in the wet particulate scrubber and discharged with wastewater sludge.
Overall, mercury testing indicates that stack gas emission factors range from 3 to 6 x 10-5 lb/MWh (1.5 to 5 lb/1012 Btu).
Comparison with similar tests performed at PC power plants indicates that IGCC mercury emissions are of a similar magnitude. If PC
plants are required to control mercury as a result of expected EPA regulations, then IGCC plants will also likely need to control mercury
emissions. Compared with combustion-based power plants, IGCC plants have a major advantage when it
comes to mercury control. Commercial methods have been employed for many years that remove trace
amounts of mercury from natural gas and gasifier syngas. Both molecular sieve technology and
activated carbon beds have been used for this purpose, with 90 to 95% removal efficiency reported.
While such mercury control technology has not yet been incorporated into an operating IGCC system, the successful, long-term
experience with these processes indicates that mercury emissions control may be more of an economic issue than a technical one. A
recent DOE cost study was conducted for applying a packed-bed carbon adsorption system to an IGCC plant. Based on an eighteen-
month carbon replacement cycle and 90% reduction of mercury emissions, the total cost of mercury reduction is estimated to be $3,412
per pound of mercury removed, which is projected to be about one-tenth the cost of flue gas-based mercury control.
Despite the variety of results, gasification plants have a significant advantage in controlling
mercury emissions.

While limited, these results show that Hg emissions vary considerably from plant to plant. However, the
results do indicate that
IGCC mercury emissions are probably no worse than PC plants that have a full compliment of
emission control technologies. Results also indicate that the concentration of mercury in the flue gas
from IGCC plants may be no more of a control problem than for the other types of plants, and control
of mercury in the syngas prior to combustion may be a significant advantage (see Section 2.4.7).
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Mercury (2/2)

Technology in gasification exists to reduce the amount of mercury emissions.

A number of companies produce activated carbons that have been used commercially for mercury
removal from combustion flue gas, with most of the applications being for incinerator stack gas. Norit’s DARCO FGD is a
lignite-derived activated carbon manufactured specifically for the removal of heavy metals and other
contaminants typically found in incinerator flue gas.47 It has been proven in numerous full-scale
facilities to be highly effective for the removal of gaseous mercury, dioxins (PCDD) and furans (PCDF). Its open
pore structure and fine particle size permit rapid adsorption, which is critical for high performance in
gas streams where contact times are short. It is a free flowing powdered carbon with minimal caking tendencies that makes
it appropriate for automatic wet or dry injection systems. It has a very high ignition temperature, which permits safe operation at the
elevated temperatures inherent in incinerator flue gas. This material has also been successfully used in a number of
R&D programs focused on evaluation of mercury removal from coal-fired power plant stack gas.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Trace/Particulate Emissions (1/2)

Coal gasification solves for trace emissions.

Section 2.2.4 identifies and characterizes potential trace organic compounds (aldehydes and ketones, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, and
chlorinated dioxins and furans) that may be discharged with the flue gas, wastewater, or byproduct solids. Release of organic compounds
is also an environmental concern, since some of these compounds, such as formaldehyde, can have deleterious effects on the
environment or human health. Trace organics can be released from coal reactors via complex, non-oxidizing, pyrolytic processes.
While limited data is available to characterize trace organic releases to the air from gasification
systems, detailed test results from the LGTI IGCC plant indicate extremely low levels of all trace
organic emissions, in-line with emissions expected from plants that directly combust solid and gaseous
fuels. In particular, formaldehyde emissions from a syngas-fired combustion turbine appear to be more
than an order-of-magnitude lower than emissions from a natural gas-fired combustion turbine (see
Section 2.2.4.2).
Gasification plants have low levels of trace organic emissions: Data proves.

Release of trace organic compounds is also an environmental concern, since some of these compounds, such as formaldehyde, can have
deleterious effects on the environment or human health. While limited data are available to characterize trace organic releases to the air
from IGCC systems, detailed test results from the LGTI IGCC plant indicates extremely low levels of all
trace organic emissions, in-line with emissions expected from combustion-based plants. In particular,
formaldehyde emissions from a syngas-fired combustion turbine appear to be more than an order-of-
magnitude lower than from natural gas-fired combustion turbines. While this conclusion applies to this
particular unit, less detailed data from other IGCC plants seems to corroborate the overall low levels
of organic emissions.
Coal gasification plants achieve particulate removal.

The syngas exiting a gasifier contains fine char and ash particulate and therefore particulate removal (and recycle) is necessary for all
processes. Coal gasification, however, has an advantage over combustion technologies, as it operates at
high pressure and generates a significantly smaller gas volume. Fly ash and remaining char particles need to be
removed from the gas in both slagging and non-slagging gasifiers. The particulate is removed by either hot, dry barrier
filters, of the candle (either ceramic or metallic) type, located upstream of the high temperature heat
recovery devices or by “warm gas” water scrubbers located downstream of the cooling devices. Hot
candle filters are advantageous since the particulate is removed as a dry solid; however, these filters are subject to blinding and breakage.
In water scrubbers, the particulate is removed as a slurry which must be dewatered; however, the
water scrubber also removes the trace quantities of chlorides which may be present in the syngas and
which, if not removed, will poison the hydrolysis catalyst and cause metallurgy problems in
downstream equipment. In both cases, the recovered particulate is recycled back to the gasifier.
Conventional wet scrubbers are used for fine particulate removal in many coal gasification systems
currently operating commercially. The coal gasifier’s high operating pressure allows the scrubbers to
operate at reasonably large pressure drops, which makes them small, efficient, and inexpensive.
Scrubbers also remove ammonia, chlorides, and other trace organic and inorganic components from the synthesis gas. The blowdown
water from the scrubber is flashed, sometimes under vacuum, and the flash gas is sent to a Claus plant or sulfuric acid decomposition
furnace. Particulate-laden water is sent to a water handling system, which separates the solids for recycle to the gasifier or disposal.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Trace/Particulate Emissions (2/2)

Coal gasification causes low particulate emissions.

While ash is released from the solid fuel during the gasification process, most gasifiers release only a
small portion as fly ash that becomes entrained with syngas. Particulate control in gasification
processes is highly efficient for reasons provided in Section 1.1.4. Not only does the gasification process provide
an inherent capability to remove most ash as slag or bottom ash, but the fly ash that is produced is
concentrated is a relatively small gas volume relative to solid fuel combustion processes, which further
assists its cost-effective collection. Both the Polk and Wabash River plants use a wet scrubber to efficiently capture fine particulates that
are entrained in the syngas. Additional particulate removal occurs in the gas cooling operations and in the
acid gas removal systems. As a result, very low particulate emission levels are achieved.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – NOx

Gasification prevents the release of harmful nitrous oxide.

The gasification process differs significantly from combustion with respect to the impact of chemically bound
nitrogen in solid fuels, like coal. Gasification, because it operates with a deficiency of oxygen, converts most of the
fuel nitrogen into harmless nitrogen gas (N2). While a small portion is converted to ammonia (NH3)
and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), these watersoluble species are removed during fuel gas cooling and
cleaning and are usually converted to nitrogen in the sulfur recovery process.3 Therefore, the syngas
produced is virtually free of fuelbound nitrogen, and NOx formation is primarily the result of thermal NO produced at
the high temperatures in the turbine combustor. The following relationships exist between turbine combustor operating conditions and
thermal NOx production:7
 NOx increases strongly with fuel-to-air ratio or with firing temperature
 NOx increases exponentially with combustor inlet air temperature
 NOx increases with the square root of the combustor inlet pressure
 NOx increases with increasing residence time in the flame zone
 NOx decreases exponentially with increasing water or steam injection or increasing specific humidity.
Therefore, by maintaining a low fuel-air ratio (lean combustion) and adding a diluent (e.g., nitrogen from the air separation unit or steam
from the steam turbine), the flame temperature can be lowered to significantly reduce thermal NOX
formation (see Section 2.2.6.1.1). The gas turbines installed in commercially operated IGCC plants
have made use of this combustion based control method to minimize NOx emissions. TABLE 2-1 lists the
typical NOx emissions that have been recorded for commercially operated IGCC power plants in the U.S., and confirms that current
IGCC plants can meet the Federal NOx NSPS for utility power plants of 1.6 lb NO2/MWh or 0.15 lb NO2/106 Btu (about 25 ppm for a
gas turbine). As discussed below, the current state-of-the-art combustion control for a syngas-fired turbine has been demonstrated to be
15 ppm (15% O2 basis and ISO conditions), and a recent BACT determination for the Polk IGCC plant specifies this value.
Nitrogen emissions are low due to gasification and will continue to decrease with better
technology.

The use of a diluent to lower flame temperature, such as nitrogen or steam, is currently the preferred
method for minimizing NOx generation from a syngas-fired turbine. Nitrogen is usually available from the
cryogenic air separation unit, so it can conveniently be employed in the IGCC process. This control method can reduce NOx
emissions levels from syngas-fired turbines to approximately 15 ppm (at 15% O2). GE is currently
targeting development of combustors to reliably achieve below 10 ppm NOx with syngas, which would be
comparable to the NOx emission levels achieved through use of the lean-premix technology on gas turbines firing natural gas.
Gasification plants can use ammonia to reduce nitrogen emissions.

The ammonia-to-NOx (NH3:NOx) ratio can be varied to achieve the desired level of NOx reduction. It
takes one mole of ammonia to reduce one mole of NO, and two moles of ammonia to reduce one mole of NO2. Higher NH3:NOx ratios
achieve higher NOx emission reductions, but can result in increased unreacted ammonia being emitted into the atmosphere. This
unreacted ammonia is known as ammonia slip. SCR catalysts degrade over time, which changes the quantity of NH3 slip. Catalyst
life will typically range from 3 to 10 years depending on the specific application. IGCC applications,
with exhaust gas that is relatively free of contaminants, should yield a significantly longer catalyst
lifetime than for a conventional coal-fired application.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Lead

Less than 5% of lead from coal gasification plants actually end up as emissions.

Trace metal mass balance results for LGTI’s IGCC plant showed that about one-third
of the lead in the coal ended up in
the gasifier slag and less than 5% as air emissions. The remaining lead was assumed to be removed in
the particulate and acid gas cleanup systems and discharged with solid and liquid waste streams. Turbine
stack emissions showed an average lead content of 1.6 µg/Nm3, with 62% in the particulate phase and 38% in the vapor phase. A total
average air emission factor for lead at the LGTI plant was calculated to be 2.9 lb/1012 Btu of heat input.
In summary, trace amounts of lead contained in coal can be efficiently removed in an IGCC plant with
minimal discharge to the atmosphere. While lead discharged with the slag can be effectively sequestered, the form of the
lead species discharged in solid or liquid streams from the plant’s water treatment facility is not known.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Chlorine

Gasification plants also clean up chlorine.

Chloride is a common constituent in the effluent streams from coal-fired power plants due to the
chlorine in U.S. coals (primarily as sodium and potassium chlorides), ranging from 0.01 to 0.5% by weight. While most U.S. coals
have relatively low chlorine content, about 2.5% of the total estimated reserves have chlorine content above 0.2 percent, and these are
mostly concentrated in the states of Illinois and Indiana.19 Therefore, the relatively low chloride content of most coals
limits chloride levels in effluent streams to low levels.
Most of the chlorine in coal is organically bound. During gasification, most of the chlorine is converted
to hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas that appears in the untreated syngas.14 The concentration in solid waste effluent
streams (e.g., slag and ash) is affected primarily by a volatilization/condensation mechanism. The vapor-phase HCl and particulate-phase
chlorides can be efficiently removed from the raw syngas in a water scrubber. As explained in Chapter 1, the scrubber effluent
(bottoms) are treated in the water treatment system where particulates are separated for return to the
gasifier, and the effluent is concentrated and solids crystallized for use or disposal in a landfill.10 The
results of a chloride mass balance, performed at the LGTI power plant, are shown in TABLE 2-4.
In summary, regardless of gasifier type, low-temperature water scrubbing of the syngas can remove a
significant portion of the chlorides, input with the coal feed, that exit the gasifier as a constituent of the
syngas. However, more than one-third of the chlorides may exit the plant with the stack gas.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Flourine

Gasification plants clean up fluorine.

Fluoride is a common constituent in the effluent streams from coal-fired power plants due to the fluorine content of U.S. coals, ranging
from 10 to 295 ppm.14 The relatively low fluorine content of coal limits fluoride levels in effluent streams to
low levels. Most of the fluorine in coal is organically bound and during gasification, is converted to
hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas in the raw syngas. The concentration in the solid streams (slag and ash) is affected primarily by a
volatilization/condensation mechanism. The highly soluble vapor-phase HF, and particulatephase fluorides can
be efficiently removed from the raw syngas in a water scrubber.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Sulfur (1/2)

Coal gasification solves for sulfur.

Sulfur recovery processes recover sulfur either as sulfuric acid or as elemental sulfur. Sulfuric acid
plants convert the H2S to SO2 by combustion with air. The SO2 is oxidized to form SO3, which is then scrubbed with
weak sulfuric acid to make 98% H2SO4, which can be sold commercially. The remaining SO2 and SO3 are at low
enough concentrations to permit discharge to the atmosphere. A sulfuric acid plant typically recovers
99.8% of the H2S feed.
For high recovery efficiency, sulfur recovery processes often are comprised of two processes, one for
bulk removal, and a second for fine recovery from the bulk tail-gas. The most common removal system is the
Claus process followed by a tail-gas treating process such as the SCOT (Shell Claus Off gas Treatment) process. A Claus sulfur
recovery unit produces elemental sulfur from the H2S in the syngas in a series of catalytic stages. Part
of the H2S is burned to produce SO2, which is then reacted with the remaining H2S to produce
elemental sulfur and water. The Claus process removes about 98% of the sulfur in the syngas, and the tail-
gas is then sent to a SCOT process for further sulfur recovery.g The SCOT system is amine-based and can achieve an overall sulfur
recovery of 99.8%. High quality elemental sulfur is recovered which can be sold commercially.4 Other commercially available processes
include wet oxidation systems such as Stretford, LO-CAT, and Sulferox.
95% of sulfur is removed in the process of coal gasification.

As described in Section 1.1.5, the acid gas removal equipment extracts from 95% to greater than 99% of the
H2S and COS, once hydrolyzed, from the fuel gas and converts it to a salable sulfur or sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) byproduct.2 The small amount of residual sulfur that remains in the syngas is converted to SO2 in
the combustion turbine and released to the atmosphere in the HRSG stack gas. Other secondary sources of SO2 emissions in an
IGCC plant will typically include the sulfur recovery system’s tail gas incinerator stack, auxiliary boilers (if applicable), and the syngas
flare during gasifier startup and system upset conditions. These secondary SO2 sources are typically be significantly
smaller than the HRSG stack emissions.
Coal gasification plants control sulfur emissions.

Sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) has been identified as a constituent of incinerator tail gas emissions at the
Wabash IGCC plant. In general, emissions are controlled by limiting fuel gas to less than or equal to 360
ppmdv of sulfur and ensuring that exhaust stack temperature is maintained at or above 264 ºF.11 Initial compliance testing at the
plant measured acid emissions of 2.69 lb/hr versus a permit limit of 3.79 lb/hr (6.8 tons/yr). 1997 annual emissions of sulfuric acid were
estimated to be 3.84 tons/yr, and 1998 emissions were estimated to be 0.63 tons/yr.
Another potential source of sulfate emissions, as mentioned in Section 2.2.1.1, is the flare system that is
used during cold start-up, shutdown, and during upset conditions, when the combustion turbine is
unavailable. Since the flare is designed to efficiently combust the clean syngas at high temperatures (>
1830o F), emissions of H2SO4 are small compared to the rest of the plant.
Gasification solves the problems of sulfur waste by making it more pure and usable.

In contrast with IGCC, the amount of solid waste discharged from direct coal combustion can increase
by a factor of 2 to 3 with the use of throw-away desulfurization systems and high-sulfur coals. Coal
gasification avoids this problem totally by recovering the fuel’s sulfur as a pure, byproduct that is
readily marketable or as marketable sulfuric acid. Most direct coal combustion processes recover the sulfur as wet
scrubber sludge or a dry or semi-dry spent sorbent, or gypsum. These forms of sulfur have significantly larger mass and volume than
pure sulfur. Furthermore, they are more difficult to handle, market, and dispose of. If the gypsum is pure enough, it can be
marketed for a variety of applications.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Sulfur (2/2)

Gasification is better than all other methods for removing sulfur.

The approach to sulfur control in an IGCC plant is fundamentally different than that used with other
power plants. Emission control strategy usually is focused on the fuel gas, which is pressurized (typically
300 to 500 psi) and has a substantially lower volumetric flow rate than combustion flue gas, which flows
near atmospheric pressure. Furthermore, the sulfur in the fuel gas is in a reduced form (mostly H2S) which can be removed by
a variety of commercial processes such as the Selexol® process previously mentioned. H2S and COS are removed and the
concentrated acid gas is then processed for elemental sulfur recovery. Up to 99% of the sulfur can be
removed.
Treatment of water can increase valuable sulfur.

One method of treatment for process water offers an additional opportunity to recover sulfur. Process
water taken directly from high temperature and pressure systems can be “flashed” in a vessel at low or
negative pressure to release dissolved gases. The flash gas is routed to the sulfur removal unit with the
raw synthesis gas, and the water is either recycled to the system or it is blown down to a conventional
wastewater treatment unit before discharge. Gas condensate, also known as sour water, may also be steam-stripped to
remove ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. The stripper overhead can be routed to the sulfur recovery unit or incinerated,
subject to permit limitations for NOx and SO2 emissions. The sour water stripper recovers water suitable for recycling to the process as
make-up. A portion of the recovered water from the sour water stripper may be discharged to a conventional wastewater treatment
system.
CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Cyanide

Gasification plants also solve for cyanide.

IGCC process effluent gas streams that may contain HCN are the gas turbine/HRSG stack gas and the
incinerator stack gas. Cyanide compounds may also occur on surfaces of particle entrained in gas
streams. Aqueous streams may also contain dissolved cyanide as a result of syngas scrubbing to remove particulates and acid gases.
Emissions testing at both the LGTI and Wabash plants indicates extremely low levels of cyanide in
both the turbine and incinerator stack gases, as indicated in TABLE 2-6.
***A2: Econ DA’s***

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: 2AC General

The plan is a massive boost in growth

Implementation of these technologies could generate unprecedented socioeconomic benefits for the American
people for decades to come. If the recommendations presented by the National Coal Council are
implemented, an independent scholarly analysis conducted at Penn State University indicates that by 2025
energy prices would be reduced by 33%, more than 1.4 million new jobs per year would be created, and the
cumulative gain in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would exceed $3 trillion (see Volume II). If carbon
dioxide from these technologies is captured and used to enhance domestic oil production, these benefits
would exceed $4 trillion.
The plan is critical to U.S. economic growth
Even though the U.S. and other market economies are far more flexible in responding to energy price shocks
than in the past, there remains a measurable relationship between energy prices, economic growth and
employment. High energy prices reduce consumer discretionary income, consumer confidence, and
consumption. Business costs increase and profitability declines under the weight of higher energy prices. The
coal energy conversion future envisioned in this report will ensure protection from these adverse impacts and
foster the low inflation/high productivity economic environment the United States has enjoyed since the early
1990s. In short, the vision for coal developed in this report should be considered an integral component of
economic policies for ensuring long-term economic growth and full employment.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Renewables Bridge

New energy sources inevitable and high cost – The plan bridges the gap, saving the
economy
Under reasonable projections for world energy demand and somewhat more uncertain expectations for
conventional oil and NG production over the next two decades, the world appears to be on a threshold of a
historical transition to a growing reliance on more unconventional sources of energy. This transition will
involve a shift from primary energy extraction to a greater reliance upon energy product manufacturing that
will require significant infusions of capital, labor and technology. Such a transition is similar to the historical
development of many mineral resources in which high-grade deposits were depleted and replaced with large
volumes of low-grade reserves that became economic with advances in technology. For example, high oil
prices are once again renewing interest in developing oil shale and coal liquefaction. Similarly, expensive NG
is stimulating interest in coal gasification. The U.S. government, in partnership with the coal industry and
electric generation companies, has been developing these technologies to reduce and, in some cases, virtually
eliminate the environmental residuals generated from using coal to produce electricity. After more than 20
years of development, these technologies are now poised for full-scale commercial development. With
superior environmental performance and competitive costs, these coal technologies could displace significant
quantities of imported oil and NG.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Manufacturing

The plan results in massive business spin-offs and saves US manufacturing
This import displacement could significantly reduce our energy trade deficit, which presently accounts for
nearly half of our current trade account deficit. Also, additional energy supply in a capacity constrained
market would reduce the frequency of periods with high energy prices. In such a world, hurricanes would no
longer imply sharply higher prices for gasoline and NG. Coal-based energy manufacturing would stimulate
domestic production of coal and employment in rural coal-producing regions in Appalachia, the Midwest and
Rocky Mountain regions. The construction of coal gasification and liquefaction plants would stimulate a
wide range of industries including building trades, steel, concrete and industrial equipment. The operation of
these facilities would create large numbers of high-wage, skilled manufacturing jobs and revitalize the
manufacturing base of America.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Aviation (1/3)

Commercial airlines are critical to US economic dominance
Meilinger 3 (Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, “The Air and Space Power Nation is in Peril” Air and Space Power Journal Spring 2003.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXL/is_1_17/ai_100727610/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)
THIS IS A GOOD news, bad news story. The United States is the world's first and only air and space nation. That fact is
evidenced in our dominance of air and space technology and infrastructure, as well as in the future visions shared by our political, economic,
military, and cultural leaders. This domination has important implications for our national security. Unfortunately, many
Americans have come to view air and space dominance as their birthright. It is not, and troubles are brewing, so we must take steps now to ensure
our dominance in the future. Americans have always looked to technology to ease their problems, so they took naturally and quickly to air and
space power-the epitome of advanced technology. America was the birthplace of aviation, and it is now difficult to
imagine life without our television satellites, cell phones, Internet, and air travel. Indeed, US airline-passenger
traffic has tripled over the past 25 years (fig. 1). Speed is the engine of commerce and economic growth.
Rapid means of transportation have been essential for nations seeking economic dominance. The rise of Britain in
the eighteenth century was based on global trade carried by its large merchant fleet, which in turn was protected by the Royal Navy, the world's
largest and most powerful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was also a maritime power, possessing a sizeable
merchant fleet and navy. As the twentieth century progressed, however, speed became synonymous with aircraft, and expanding American
aviation began to push out the ship. Over the past 40 years, the growth of the US airline industry has been dramatic, in
contrast to the decline of our shipping industry. Since 1960 the number of airliners has quadrupled (and aircraft have more than doubled in size),
while the size of the US merchant fleet has dropped 84 percent, a mere 2 percent of the world's total (fig. 2). In addition, airport expansion is
under way at many airports because airline-passenger travel is expected to double over the next decade. As for cargo, 95 percent of the world's
air-cargo capacity resides in Boeing airframes, and the value of goods shipped is telling. In 1997 the average pound of cargo traveling by boat
was worth seven cents; by rail it was 10 cents, but by air it was $25.59. When Americans have something important and
valuable to ship and it needs to get there quickly, they send it by air. Air and space trade has significantly
increased over the past several decades. In 1999 America's air and space industry contributed $259 billion to
the nation's economy. The black ink in the air and space balance of trade rose to over $32 billion in 2000, making it the largest net
exporter in the US economy (fig. 3). At the same time, the overall US trade balance has been negative for 27 of the past 30 years, and the deficit
now exceeds $250 billion annually. Given these statistics, it is apparent that the United States has now become an air and space nation--indeed,
the air and space nation. One must remember, however, that America once led the world in other transportation technologies, but over the past
two centuries, it has relinquished leads in railroads, shipbuilding, and automaking. The US share of the world auto market, for example, has fallen
from 48 percent to 15 percent over the past 40 years. We cannot allow our lead in air and space to evaporate similarly.
High oil prices cripple aviation industry and cause US econ collapse
ETN 8 (Global Travel Industry News Service, 7/23/08, “Oil-fueled catastrophe in the airline industry would cripple US economy and
eliminate US jobs, study reveals” http://www.eturbonews.com/3283/oil-fueled-catastrophe-airline-industry-would)
A new study prepared by the Business Travel Coalition (BTC) has revealed that the skyrocketing price of aviation fuel will have
devastating implications far beyond new surcharges for checked bags and in-flight beverage services.
According to the BTC study, not only are US airlines and their passengers facing their darkest future, but
fast-approaching airline liquidations will cripple the US economy that depends on affordable, frequent
intercity air transportation. The BTC study, “Beyond the Airlines’ $2 Can of Coke: Catastrophic Impact on the US Economy from Oil-
price Trauma in the Airline Industry,” is projecting that massive job losses, supply chain disruption, declining business
activity, shrinking tax revenues, weakened American competitiveness, devastated communities, and reduced
tourism are just some of the predictable results from airline liquidations that could happen as early as the
second half of 2008 as a direct result of unsustainable fuel prices. The study expands on the analysis released on June 13,
2008 by AirlineForecasts, LLC and BTC and points to the real news about the airlines’ fuel problems: how multiple
liquidations at legacy US airlines – now a serious possibility – would have a wide-ranging impact on many facets of
the US economy. “The airline industry stimulates so much economic activity – much more than many people
currently understand,” said BTC chairman Kevin Mitchell. “Airline networks are an integral part of the transport
grid that supports the US economy, and without immediate action to bring down fuel costs, we face the
economic equivalent of a major blackout later this year or early next. Unlike in a blackout, however, the cabin lights may never
come back on for many US airlines.” “The runaway price of oil is seriously hurting working families at every level, and as the airline fuel crisis
intensifies, the risk of major job losses in all travel and tourism sectors and in other airline-dependent industries
increases as well,” stated Jean McDonnell Covelli, BTC member and president of The Travel Team, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Rich
Products Corporation. “As a matter of highest priority, elected officials must focus on devising an energy policy that will keep Americans
productively traveling and working.” According to the paper, “Airlines move people, but also high-value, time-sensitive or perishable cargo.
Failure of one large airline would disrupt the travel of 200,000 to 300,000 passengers per day and thousands of tons of goods. The almost-full
planes of remaining airlines would not be able to absorb much of these volumes. Failure of multiple airlines would paralyze the
country and our American way of life, leaving us less productive, more isolated, less happy and more vulnerable.”

High oil prices threaten airline collapse
The Dallas Morning News 8 (June 9, 2008 “Fuel costs may ground more airlines”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Airlines_09bus.ART.State.Edition2.45f91e7.html)
It's certain that the summer of 2008 won't be pretty for the airline industry: higher fares and fees for
customers, more red ink for the airlines. But what about next year, assuming that jet fuel prices remain at their historic highs?
Experts are predicting higher fares, a lot fewer travelers, a lot less capacity, fewer flights to fewer places and maybe a lot fewer airlines. U.S.
airlines are already outlining plans to make huge cuts in capacity. In recent days, United Airlines Inc., American Airlines
Inc. and Continental Airlines Inc. have announced airplane groundings and schedule reductions for the latter part of 2008 and into 2009. Many
airlines have revealed plans to defer or cancel airplane deliveries in 2008 and 2009. Even rapid growers such as
AirTran Airways, Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. have slammed on the brakes. But retrenching won't be enough
to avoid big financial losses, industry observers say. Finance professor Harlan Platt at Northeastern University in Boston said he expects
oil prices to drop as the U.S. economy slows down and the impact ripples to other countries such as India and China. But oil prices must
drop considerably from today's levels to save the airlines. "If you don't have an oil price of about $75 or $80 a
barrel, at the end of 2009, you'll have most of the airline industry on the financial ropes," Dr. Platt said. "They
will have run out of cash or virtually run out of cash." He noted one industry analyst's prediction that oil will hit $150 a barrel soon. "If
that happens and if that price holds, the industry will continue to hemorrhage through the end of 2009, and they'll have run out of options," he
said. "They'll need to file for bankruptcy protection. And by 'they,' I mean most of the airline industry." Richard Gritta, finance professor at the
University of Portland, also sees major financial problems in 2009 if jet fuel bills keep draining money from airlines. "I think you're going to see
more consolidations," Dr. Gritta said. "I think we're going to see a couple more bankruptcies, although at this juncture, it's hard to predict which
ones. They're all so weak." Since Dec. 24, six airlines including Aloha Air Inc. and ATA Airlines Inc. have filed for bankruptcy and ceased
operations. Frontier Airlines Inc. has filed for bankruptcy and kept flying. Four others have either stopped flying or announced plans to do so. For
customers, the prospects of the future aren't pretty either, he warned.
High oil prices are hurting the airline industry, which is key to the economy
May`8 (James C., Aviation woes Cap-and-trade bill will harm industry, June 5, 2008,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/05/aviation-woes/)
The U.S. airline industry is undergoing a fuel crisis of epic proportions. The cost of crude oil is hitting
all-time highs and increased refining costs are adding to expenses incurred. As a result, jet fuel firmly
constitutes the industry's largest expense - accounting for 30 percent to 50 percent of costs, depending
on the carrier. This year, U.S. airlines are projected to spend $61.2 billion on fuel, $20 billion more than
in 2007 - an increase equivalent to the compensation and benefits of 267,000 airline workers or the acquisition of 286 new, more fuel-
efficient jets. Ticket prices and other travel costs continue to rise. Simultaneously, routes are being
cancelled. Just when we thought things could not get worse, along comes the climate change cap-and-trade legislation sponsored by Sens. Joseph I.
Lieberman , Connecticut independent Democrat, and John W. Warner, Virginia Republican. The bill, if enacted, would impose a carbon tax on the airline
This would throw a cold, wet blanket on a U.S. economy that is already
and other transportation industries.
hamstrung by soaring food and energy costs. Compounding injury with irony, the Lieberman-Warner bill would require cash-
strapped airlines to remit their carbon taxes to cash-rich oil companies. The airline industry does not require climate-change legislation in order to fly green.
Since the cost of jet fuel is the industry's largest cost center, no industry in America is more motivated to limit energy consumption and resulting emissions
than commercial aviation. Between 1978 and 2007, U.S. airlines improved their fuel efficiency by 110 percent. Also, between 2000 and 2006, the airlines
reduced fuel burn and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 4 percent - while moving 12 percent more passenger traffic and 22 percent more cargo traffic. In
fact, U.S. airlines account for only 2 percent of this nation's GHG emissions. Yet they drive three times more economic activity.
No other industry is more economical and carbon-efficient in moving people and critical goods. Further taxing this already over-taxed
industry will hinder significantly the airlines' ability to invest in the innovations that have driven its exceptional environmental track
record. It is indisputable that the Lieberman-Warner bill would significantly increase the cost of transportation fuel. Let us assume that
emissions allowances are modestly priced at $25/metric ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2012 when the bill would go into
effect: In this scenario, this legislation would add another $5 billion to the airlines' fuel costs. These costs would escalate each year
thereafter. Such costs would result in further job losses, higher ticket prices, elimination of services and a negative economic ripple
effect beyond what we are experiencing today. Instead of piling on additional punitive measures to the airlines, the federal government
should focus on measures that complement the airlines' initiatives and enhance our nation's transportation infrastructure. For example,
modernizing the nation's aging air traffic control (ATC) system would enable more efficient flying routes and decrease emissions by an
additional 10 to 15 percent. The airlines want Congress to give them credit for their exceptional environmental record, fuel-efficiency
achievements and history of investing in new technologies and innovations that benefit our economy. If a cap-and-trade system is
applied to aviation, why doesn't Congress reinvest proceeds into aviation, allowing for additional funding of programs and technologies
(ATC modernization, environmentally-friendly synthetic jet fuels, etc.) that promise to further reduce aviation's GHG emissions?
Congress should work with the airlines so as not to counter the industry's investments. For generations, flying has contributed to
a better quality of life for Americans. Commercial aviation has been an engine of growth for our
economy, yielded breakthrough technologies, brought people together, and transported critical cargo -
while achieving a stellar environmental track record. As Congress debates the Lieberman-Warner bill and the significant additional fuel
tax it proposes to levy on aviation, we urge lawmakers to consider commercial aviation's environmental efforts to
date and how dependent our economy is on the growth of air transportation in the United States.

CTL saves airlines money on fuel costs, pollution abatement, and components

of fuel.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Rare Mineral Extraction

CTL allows extraction of valuable minerals

Additionally, the chemical conversion process gives off heat, which, if captured, could add to the amount of
energy produced by the coal plant, Metz said. In addition to storing carbon dioxide, the process may allow
recovery of copper, nickel and platinum minerals from the volcanic rock, Metz said.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry (1/2)

The plan saves the coal industry
WSJ 7 (9-11)
Expanding coal demand beyond the traditional uses of generating electricity and making steel could lead to
big profits for both coal miners and companies that develop coal-to-liquids technology. Greg Boyce, chief
executive of major coal miner Peabody Energy Corp. of St. Louis, said at a conference last week that using
coal to make transportation fuel could increase annual U.S. coal demand by one billion tons by 2030,
compared with demand of 1.2 billion tons in 2006.
The effect on growth is massive
The National Coal Council's recommendations are tantamount to the creation of an entirely new energy
manufacturing industry in the United States, generating millions of jobs, resulting in a significantly improved
balance of trade, and producing greater income, wealth, and environmental quality for all Americans. The
initial expenditures to jumpstart this new energy manufacturing industry will require a significant investment
of capital. The risk associated with such an undertaking will be perceived as substantial, given the historic
volatility of oil prices, and more recently, the price of natural gas. The most significant contribution
government can make to this endeavor is to lower the risk profile of investment. The National Coal Council
recommends that capital funding policies be implemented to encourage the private sector to step forward on
a massive scale. The specific fiscal, tax, financial, and regulatory recommendations presented here are all
designed to encourage private sector commitments to seize this opportunity and secure America’s energy
future.
More ev…
These technologies, and the industries arising from them, will reinvigorate U.S. industry, make our country
more secure, significantly reduce the trade deficit, contribute to lower and more stable fuel prices, and
stimulate economic growth. For these reasons, coal should become part of our thinking, planning and
investment in the provision of liquid fuels for society.
The plan saves the coal industry
Brown 8 (Matthew, Associated Press, March 22, http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/032208/bus_260502419.shtml)

Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last
year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The Air Force's involvement comes at a
critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen
proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change
quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan. "This is a
change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on
a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that would be needed just
to support (the Air Force's) needs alone." Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would
be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel
for vehicles, trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry. That means the Air Force would
need at least seven plants of the same size to meet its 2016 goal, said Col. Bobbie "Griff" Griffin, senior assistant to
Anderson. Coal producers have their sights set even higher. A 2006 report from the National Coal Council said a
fully mature coal-to-liquids industry serving the commercial sector could produce 2.6 million barrels of fuel a day
by 2025. Such an industry would more than double the nation's coal production, according to the industry-
backed Coal-to-Liquids Coalition.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry (2/2)

Two years ago coal company profits would increase tenfold into the trillions with liquid fuel
– this is not adjusted for current oil prices
Andrews 7 [Edmund, Writer for the New York Times, Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29coal.html?ex=1338091200&en=7c0346180c71f4e0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&p
agewanted=all&pagewanted=all, May 31, 2007]
Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so volatile and the
upfront construction costs are so high. “We’re not asking for everything. All we’re asking for is something,”
said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of Rentech Inc., which is trying to build two plants at mines owned by
Peabody Energy. But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of
Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years
ago that the value of Peabody’s coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its
coal in the form of liquid fuels.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry – Coal Prices

Coal prices declining sharply
Financial Post 7/11 (7/11/08 “Fording's price cools off” http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=645958)

In the last week of June we used three separate online stock screeners to identify Canadian companies whose shares had more than
doubled in price over the past year. The handful of stocks traded at lofty multiples to earnings, book value and sales per share --and
looked ripe to cost their owners money when they fell. Among the vulnerable was Fording Canadian Coal Trust (FDGun/TSX), which
had enjoyed a banner year, as the price of metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, had soared on rising demand and a flood in Australia
that reduced supply. Fording was up more than 150% over the past year, and was one of several companies
whose shares looked precariously expensive. But that was in late June, and before we could type the
words of warning on the page, the coal price plunged by more than US$25 a tonne to below US$200,
taking Fording and its competitors with it. Fording fell 16.2% to $81.70 on July 2, and has since slid to about the $75 level. It now
trades about 20% below its June 30 high of $97.50. The coal trust, which looked overpriced just a couple
of weeks ago, now looks more like a buy than a sell. Yesterday, European coal futures fell to the lowest
in almost three weeks.
Coal prices
Anthony 7/10 (Mark Anthony is an IT professional and Ph.D. student. http://seekingalpha.com/article/84411-the-brightest-stars-in-the-

commodities-boom-part-two)
Wow, what a slaughter in the coal sector on Wednesday, July 2nd, 08, as coal spot price plummeted nearly
10% in one day! I have warned on June 20 that there was something not right in the coal sector. The coal rally has gone
too far too fast. The basic numbers of supply and demand does not warrant such a strong coal rally. I
warned folks invested in coal stocks to take profit now, and move to other, more bullish commodity sectors. It's been proven correct and
timely. Coal stocks peaked on June 23, right after I issued the warning.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Heating Oil

Plan boosts household income

In a 2005 analysis of the strategic benefits of oil shale development, RAND estimated that 3
million barrels per day of additional liquid-fuel production would yield a world oil price drop of
between 3 and 5 percent.3 Our ongoing research supports that estimated range and shows that
the price drop increases in proportion to production increases. For instance, an increase of 6
million barrels per day would likely yield a world oil price drop of between 6 and 10 percent. This
more recent research also shows that even larger price reductions may occur in situations in
which oil markets are particularly tight or in which OPEC is unable to enforce a profit-optimizing
response among its members.
This anticipated reduction in world oil prices yields important economic benefits. In particular,
U.S. consumers would pay tens of billions of dollars less for oil or, under some future situations,
hundreds of billions of dollars less for oil per year. On a per-household basis, we estimate that the
average annual benefit could range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
Plan lowers the cost of heating oil

"The chemical industry is looking at coal gasification as a demand-side fuel- and feedstock-diversity action,"
adds Lynn L. Schloesser, legislative counsel for Eastman Chemical. "If we can get off natural gas and
substitute syngas, it will benefit all Americans. The more demand reduction there is from industrial
consumers, the more the price of natural gas should drop, which would benefit residential consumers who
use gas to heat their homes."
Coal prices are lower than oil prices

Coal prices are generally lower and more stable than oil prices. CTL can produce oil at US$25-45/barrel of
oil equivalent – including the costs of carbon capture and storage. In 2006 oil prices reached highs of US$78/
barrel and could exceed US$90/barrel by 2030.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Chemical Industry (1/4)

The U.S. chemical industry is hampered by high natural gas costs

But the days of $2.00 natural gas appear to be gone. Since the turn of the century, natural gas prices have
more than tripled, largely because of a surge in demand from the electric power sector. This has eroded the
competitiveness of the U.S. chemical industry. But while natural gas prices have risen, coal still sells for
about the same price as natural gas did back in its heyday.
More ev…

Since 2001, 95% of all new electric utility plants built in the U.S. have been natural-gas-powered facilities,
greatly increasing demand for the clean-burning fuel. At the same time, Congress has refused to lift a
moratorium that has kept 85% of the U.S. coastline off-limits to new oil and gas drilling for more than two
decades. As a result of the growing imbalance in supply and demand, chemical makers are now paying the
highest natural gas prices in the world.
"It makes no sense to build new chemical facilities in the U.S. when raw materials are significantly cheaper
abroad," American Chemistry Council (ACC) President Jack N. Gerard told a panel of the House Resources
Committee in November 2005. The U.S. chemical industry has lost $50 billion in business to overseas
operations and more than 100,000 jobs since natural gas prices began climbing in 2000, according to the
industry group. So far, more than 100 chemical facilities have been forced to close in the U.S. "Policies that
drove utilities to switch much of their power-generating capacity from coal to natural gas have turned out to
be the straw that broke the camel's back," Gerard declared. "From a policy perspective, what is most obvious
to us is that new sources of supply are needed to meet the new sources of demand."
CTL boosts the chemical industry

COAL DAWN The Shanghai-based engineering firm Wison Chemical built this coal-fed carbon monoxide
plant in Nanjing. It supplies an adjacent acetic acid plant owned by Celanese.Coal's potential as a chemical
raw material is greatest in China, the U.S., and India. Not only do these countries have about half of the
world's coal reserves combined, they also are suffering from dwindling domestic supplies of oil and natural
gas and are seeking to reduce dependence on foreign resources. As a result, they are exploring the
gasification of coal to make methanol, which can be transformed into ethylene and propylene, the major
building blocks of today's chemical industry.
More ev…

Over the years, a handful of companies in China and the U.S. have made fertilizers via the gasification of
coal. Additionally, for decades South Africa's Sasol has been making chemicals such as α-olefins as a
coproduct of its Fischer-Tropsch process for producing synthetic fuels out of coal.
Gasification produces valuable chemicals

But the future vision for coal is to make olefins, which can be transformed into such chemical industry
mainstays as ethylene oxide, polyethylene, and polypropylene. Newly developed technologies that can
convert methanol to olefins are making this goal a reality.

Chemical extraction is feasible in the U.S.

In the U.S. high natural gas prices have prompted chemical producers to consider incorporating coal into
their feedstock diet. Traditionally, the U.S. chemical industry consumes natural gas, cracking ethane into
ethylene and transforming methane into methanol and ammonia. That's because in the decades before 2000,
natural gas prices were about $2.00 per million Btu, making the U.S. an attractive place to invest in
petrochemicals.
More ev…

Eastman Chemical is behind the most ambitious chemical gasification projects in the U.S. It will be a partner
in and operator with Green Rock Energy of two $1.6 billion projects to make hydrogen, ammonia, methanol,
and downstream chemicals from the coal-like refinery by-product petroleum coke, otherwise known as
"petcoke." Other companies are looking to deepen their involvement in coal and petcoke as well.
Demand for CTL for chemical feedstocks exists

The chemical industry has also been looking carefully at coal gasification technology as a way to replace the
natural gas feedstock used in chemical production. The motivator has been the escalating and volatile costs of
natural gas in the last few years. A notable example in the U.S. of such a use is the Tennessee Eastman plant,
which has been operating for more than 20 years using coal instead of natural gas to make chemicals and
industrial feedstocks. If natural gas is replaced by coal gasification as a feedstock for the chemical industry,
first and foremost CO2 capture and disposal must be an integral part of such plants. In this case, the net
global warming emissions will change relatively little from this sector compared to the conventional natural
gas based process. Steam reforming of natural gas, however, could also potentially capture its emissions too,
resulting in even lower emissions. Therefore, before such a transformation occurs with coal as a feedstock, a
careful analysis of the entire life cycle emissions needs to be carried out against the baseline and alternatives,
along with an assessment of how future emissions reductions from this sector can be most effectively
accomplished.
CTL dovetails w chemical extraction processes
In addition to these technology distinctions, much of America`s chemical industry infrastructure is located in
or near geographic regions where carbon sequestration may present a win-win opportunity with enhanced oil
recovery.

Chemical industry is losing money due to high oil prices.
New York Times June 25 (2008, Abha Bhattarai, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25dow.html)

Economists say the $664 billion chemical industry has been among the hardest hit by soaring energy
prices. Every $1 increase in crude oil prices costs the industry $660 million a year, said Kevin Swift, chief
economist at the American Chemistry Council.
For Dow Chemical, its feedstock and energy costs, which are up more than 40 percent since last year,
have increased fourfold in the last five years, to more than $32 billion this year. Dow, whose shares fell nearly
3 percent on Tuesday, has been steadily increasing prices for the last several years, but it is only in the last month that consumers have
been directly hit.
Coal gasification is critical to increasing the profits of the chemical industry.
Tullo and Tremblay March 17 (2008, Chemical and Engineering News, Volume 86, Number 11, Alexander and Jean-Francois,
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/86/8611cover.html)
In the U.S. high natural gas prices have prompted chemical producers to consider incorporating coal
into their feedstock diet. Traditionally, the U.S. chemical industry consumes natural gas, cracking ethane into ethylene and
transforming methane into methanol and ammonia. That's because in the decades before 2000, natural gas prices were about $2.00 per
million Btu, making the U.S. an attractive place to invest in petrochemicals.
But the days of $2.00 natural gas appear to be gone. Since the turn of the century, natural gas prices have more
than tripled, largely because of a surge in demand from the electric power sector. This has eroded the
competitiveness of the U.S. chemical industry. But while natural gas prices have risen, coal still sells for about the same
price as natural gas did back in its heyday.
Eastman Chemical is behind the most ambitious chemical gasification projects in the U.S. It will be a partner in and operator with Green
Rock Energy of two $1.6 billion projects to make hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, and downstream chemicals from the coal-like refinery
by-product petroleum coke, otherwise known as "petcoke." Other companies are looking to deepen their involvement in coal and
petcoke as well.
Coal's lineage in the chemical industry is actually far longer than that of oil or natural gas. Coal tar
has been a key source of organic chemicals since the 19th century. Originally the by-product of the coal gasification
process used to fuel streetlights, coal tar is still distilled to yield cresols, dye intermediates, and naphthalene.
Additionally, geographical curiosities, including regions with lax environmental standards or oil scarcity, have spawned pockets where
coal-based routes to commodity chemicals more commonly derived from petroleum or natural gas have thrived for years.
For example, the acetylene route to making vinyl chloride, the raw material for polyvinyl chloride, is widely practiced in China,
although Shenhua, the country's largest producer of chemicals from coal, shuns the route because of environmental concerns. In this
process, coal and limestone are used to make calcium carbide, which in turn is reacted with water to make acetylene. Acetylene is then
converted into vinyl chloride with hydrogen chloride acid.
Chemicals from Coke Eastman Chemical and Green Rock Energy will partner in a project in Texas to make hydrogen, ammonia, and
methanol from petroleum coke
Over the years, a handful of companies in China and the U.S. have made fertilizers via the gasification
of coal. Additionally, for decades South Africa's Sasol has been making chemicals such as α-olefins as a coproduct of its Fischer-
Tropsch process for producing synthetic fuels out of coal.
Similarly, Eastman has been making chemicals from coal for nearly 25 years in Kingsport, Tenn. There the
company gasifies coal to make methanol, which it converts into acetic acid, acetic anhydride, and acetate fiber. It is because of this
experience with coal that the company is encouraged to invest further. The firm's coal-based
production stream represents only about 20% of its product volumes but has provided about half of its
profits in recent years, according to Mark Costa, Eastman's senior vice president of corporate strategy and marketing. "The
gasification facility has been a big driver for our success," he says.
Chemical industry down
Business Week July 10 (2008,

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jul2008/pi20080710_811206.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis)
The current environment for chemical companies like Dow is difficult. "Things are pretty grim right
now," Johnson says. Raw materials—especially oil and natural gas, main ingredients in many chemicals—
are at record prices. Meanwhile, end markets like housing and the automotive industries are in
recession. So far this year, Dow has already announced two major price hikes of up to 20% or more each, to cover its higher costs.

Coal increases involvement of chemical industry.
Hayes June 14 (2008, Times News, http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9006792)

“Gasification is an environmentally responsible choice,” he said. “As the first company to use gasification to produce
commercial quantity chemical products from coal, we’ve developed a strong track record.”
That experience could help boost Eastman’s position among chemical companies into the future,
particularly with crude oil prices continuing to skyrocket.
And although coal is not a renewable energy source, Trapp said the United States has enough coal to last another 250 years. In
comparison, this country has a natural gas supply that will last only 40 more years, he said.
“So coal will last a lot longer than natural gas. But coal won’t last forever. There has to be another solution out there. But in the
short
term, there is no other answer — you better be using coal, and you better use it cleanly. And that’s
gasification,” Trapp said.
And with its vast coal reserves, the U.S. would benefit greatly if the chemical industry, like Eastman,
recognized coal as the answer to its raw material and energy needs, Trapp said.
He pointed out the United States has the greatest abundance of coal in the world. The state of Illinois, for instance, has more coal than
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have oil combined, he said.
“If you consider coal, it’s right here. You can transform the chemical industry and keep it here. If you
don’t do gasification, it (the chemical industry) will all eventually move away,” Trapp said.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Chemical Industry – Key to Econ

The chemical industry is critical to every sector of our economy.
Economy Watch No Date Given (“Chemical Industry”, http://www.economywatch.com/world-industries/chemical/)

Chemical Industries are very important for the economy of any country. This is because, these
Chemical Industries supply
the farmers Pesticides and Fertilizers which are essential for crop growing. In this way Chemical Industries
contribute to agriculture and food self sufficiency of every country.
Other than direct contribution to agriculture, Chemical Industry contributes indirectly to almost every
sector of every economy. In our every day life, we use a lot of industrial products and most of them are related to Chemical
Industry in some way or the other. Chemical Industry produces the fibers and dyes which are used in textile
industries. It supplies the Synthetic Sweeteners and Synthetic Flavors which are used by Food
Manufacturing Companies. Chemical Industry indirectly helps the Pharmaceutical Industry and
Health Care Industry by providing the essential Chemical Components. Not only that Plastic
requirement of Packaging Industry and Artificial Rubber requirement of the Automobile Industry are
also met by the very same Chemical Industries.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – No Link

No immediate impacts- contracts are appropriated over 25 years
Bunning 7 Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky Keynote Address to the Air Force Energy Forum on Coal-to-Liquid Fuel
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=c62d7eed-0298-4ad9-9ce4-
fe865bc193e3&Region_id=&Issue_id=
The military is the largest single fuel purchaser in the country and of course its support will help develop a
domestic synthetic fuel industry. But long-term contract authority is a national security issue that addresses
the military’s fuel needs. Second, there are concerns with how the budget would account for a long-term
contract. It is unreasonable to ask that the entire value of the contract be appropriated in the first year.
Any long-term contract should be amortized over the life of the contract. Third, there is the market price
issue. I believe the D.O.D. should be authorized to pay a premium for a high-quality, clean, domestic
fuel. Long-term contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These
contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-
year contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts. While my legislation provides
25-year contract authority for the Department of Defense, I look forward to working on these other issues
that will make long-term contracts a viable tool for the Air Force. Finally, I would like to address the
legislative forecast for passing my bill in the 110th Congress. Just last week, the Finance Committee held a
hearing on energy tax incentives.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – Turn: Royalties

The plan produces federal revenue

Beyond the strategic benefits for the nation associated with coal-to-liquids production are certain
direct benefits. If coal-derived liquid fuels can be produced at prices well below world oil prices,
then the private firms that invest in coal-derived liquid fuels development could garner economic
profits above and beyond what is considered a normal return on their investments. Through taxes
on these profits and, in some cases, lease and royalty payments, we estimate that roughly 35
percent of these economic profits could go to federal, state, and local governments and, thereby,
broadly benefit the public.
CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – Turn: Reg’s Inevit

Ad hoc regulations are inevitable and crush the economy – The plan solves
As the MIT study correctly points out, in Eastman`s view, the same incentives should apply to carbon capture
and geologic sequestration. With the exception of conventional EOR projects, where sequestration may or
may not occur, there is no practical reason why a company would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to
separate, transport and store carbon underground. However, doing so now could have significant informative
benefits for the entire nation if carbon management is a policy objective in the future.
Federal incentives necessary to stimulate experience in carbon capture and long-term geologic sequestration
and the subsequent development of protocols will be expensive. Twelve projects, based on different
technologies and geologic circumstances will likely cost up to $10 billion just for the carbon capture,
transportation and storage aspects of the projects. Incentives for gasification technology deployment would
be a few billion additional dollars. However, the cost of imposing greenhouse gas reduction regulations in the
future without a program of technology development and commercial scale deployment would certainly lead
to inefficient choices, much greater expense to the country and serious loss of productivity for our economy.
Carbon controls are inevitable
Our security is affected by the decisions we make about how we use energy, the kind of energy we use, and where we get it.
Paradoxically, the more fossil energy we use, the more we contribute to the kinds of climate-induced geo-political instabilities that
threaten traditional energy sources and the extreme weather that threatens our energy infrastructure. There are two approaches
to our energy problem—figure out how to use less, the demand side; or figure out how to get more, the
supply side. Supply side approaches to meeting our energy demands can mitigate climate change, but they must be renewable sources that reduce the
amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy produced. Supply side approaches that increase the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy may respond to
security or economic concerns in the short term, but increase our longer term climate risks. For example, if we choose to meet our growing electricity
demand by building more pulverized coal plants without sequestering the carbon emissions, we accelerate climate change and increase our future security
risks. Choosing synthetic fuels that produce higher carbon emissions than petroleum to replace foreign oil, such as coal-to-liquid, tar sands, or oil shale,
have the same effect. Conversely, choosing energy paths that reduce our carbon emissions, such as energy efficiency to displace demand or renewable
sources, will have the opposite effect. Reducing energy consumption has a positive climate effect. So, we have choices, and those choices have
consequences. Supply side remedies need to be sensitive to their carbon consequences, and demand side remedies should be valued for their contribution to
reducing climate risks. For those still questioning the science of causation, there is a pragmatic aspect to consider. There
is growing
acceptance by both government and industry leaders that the future constraints on carbon emissions
are inevitable. The question is not if carbon emissions will be controlled; but rather when and how.
***A2: CP’s***
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – “Say No”

NATO will say no
Kagan 2 (Robert Sr assoc @ Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jul 2002
“Power and weakness”, Policy Review)
IT IS TIME to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they
occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power - the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the
desirability of power - American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to
put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational
negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization
of Kant's "Perpetual Peace." The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the
anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense
and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major
strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on
little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory - the product of one
American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development,
and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and
fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways.
This crushes relations
Kolko 3 (Gabriel, research professor at York University, 2003 (“A Geopolitical Earthquake?,” Sydney Morning Herald
h, Feb 18, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/21/1045638474560.html)
Today, NATO's original raison d'être of imposing American hegemony is now the core of the controversy that is
now raging. Washington cannot sustain this grandiose objective because a reunited Germany is far too powerful to
be treated as it was a half-century ago, and Germany has its own interests in the Middle East and Asia to protect.
Germany and France's independence is reinforced by inept American propaganda on the relationship of Iraq to Al-
Qaeda (from which the CIA and British MI6 have openly distanced themselves), overwhelming antiwar public
opinion in many nations, and a great deal of opposition within the U. S. establishment and many senior military men
to a war with Iraq. The furious American response to Germany, France, and Belgium's refusal, under article 4 of the
NATO treaty, to protect Turkey from an Iraqi counterattack because that would prejudge the Security Council's
decision on war and peace is only a contrived reason for confronting fundamental issues that have simmered for
many years. The dispute was far more about symbolism than substance, and the point has been made: some NATO
members refuse to allow the organization to serve as a rubber stamp for American policy, whatever it may be.
Consultation alone guarantees rejection
Today, NATO's original raison d'être of imposing American hegemony is now the core of the controversy that is now raging. Washington cannot
sustain this grandiose objective because a reunited Germany is far too powerful to be treated as it was a half-century ago, and Germany has its
own interests in the Middle East and Asia to protect. Germany and France's independence is reinforced by inept American propaganda on the
relationship of Iraq to Al-Qaeda (from which the CIA and British MI6 have openly distanced themselves), overwhelming antiwar public opinion
in many nations, and a great deal of opposition within the U. S. establishment and many senior military men to a war with Iraq. The furious
American response to Germany, France, and Belgium's refusal, under article 4 of the NATO treaty, to protect
Turkey from an Iraqi counterattack because that would prejudge the Security Council's decision on war and peace is
only a contrived reason for confronting fundamental issues that have simmered for many years. The dispute was far
more about symbolism than substance, and the point has been made: some NATO members refuse to allow the
organization to serve as a rubber stamp for American policy, whatever it may be.
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – Non-Binding Perm

Perm -- The Agent(s) of the affirmative plan will enter into consultation with the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization on whether or not to do the plan and will enact the plan.
Non-binding consultation is critical to US strength
Krauthammer 2k1
(Charles Krauthammer, won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary in 1987, Washington Post, June 18 2001)
Ask yourself: If you really wanted to reassert American unilateralism, to get rid of the cobwebs of the bipolar
era and the myriad Clinton-era treaty strings tying Gulliver down, what would you do? No need for in-your-face
arrogance. No need to humiliate. No need to proclaim that you will ignore nattering allies and nervous
exenemies.
Journalists can talk like that because the truth is clarifying. Governments cannot talk like that because the
truth is scary. The trick to unilateralism -- doing what you think is right, regardless of what others think -- is
to pretend you are not acting unilaterally at all. Thus if you really want to junk the ABM Treaty, and the
Europeans and Russians and Chinese start screaming bloody murder, the trick is to send Colin Powell to smooth
and soothe and schmooze every foreign leader in sight, have Condoleezza Rice talk about how much we value
allied input, have President Bush in Europe stress how missile defense will help the security of everybody. And
then go ahead and junk the ABM Treaty regardless. Make nice, then carry on. Or, say, you want to kill the
Kyoto protocol (which the Senate rejected 95-0 and which not a single EU country has ratified) and the Europeans
hypocritically complain. The trick is to have the president go to Europe to stress, both sincerely and correctly, that
the United States wants to be in the forefront of using science and technology to attack the problem -- but make
absolutely clear that you'll accept no mandatory cuts and tolerate no treaty that penalizes the United States and lets
China, India and the Third World off the hook.Be nice, but be undeterred. The best unilateralism is velvet-glove
unilateralism. At the end of the day, for all the rhetorical bows to Russian, European and liberal sensibilities,
look at how Bush returns from Europe: Kyoto is dead. The ABM Treaty is history. Missile defense is on.
NATO expansion is relaunched. And just to italicize the new turn in American foreign policy, the number of those
annual, vaporous U.S.-EU summits has been cut from two to one.
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – No Solve: One Act

One shot consultation wont solve the multiple causes of declining relations
President Bush is strongly unilateralist, and he repudiated the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, opposes further
restrictions on nuclear weapons tests or land mines, and is against a host of other existing and projected accords. He
also greatly accelerated the development of Anti-Ballistic Missile system, which will ostensibly give the U.S. a
firststrike
capacity and which China and Russia justifiably regard as destabilizing--thereby threatening to renew the
nuclear arms race. Downgrading the United Nations, needless to say, was axiomatic. The war in Afghanistan was
fought without NATO but on the U.S.' terms by a "floating" coalition "of the willing," a model for future conflicts
"that will evolve and change over time depending on the activity and circumstances of the country." It accepted the
small German, French, Italian, and other contingents that were offered only after it became clear that the war, and
especially its aftermath, would take considerably longer than the Pentagon expected. But it did not consult them on
military matters or crucial political questions.
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – No Impact: Resilience

NATO is resilient
Kwok 5 (James, Harvard International Review, 2005 “Mending NATO: Sustaining the Transatlantic Relationship,” Defining
Power Vol. 27, Summer 2005, http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1344/)
In a recent interview with a reporter from Le Monde, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder pointed out that NATO is “no
longer the primary means for dialogue in the transatlantic relationship.” While this is hardly surprising in a
contemporary context, it would surely have shocked the US and European representatives who negotiated the North
Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Indeed, the US-European relationship has come a long way since the Cold War began.
What started as a shield against possible Soviet aggression has transformed into something of an albatross around
Europeans’ and Americans’ necks. However, assuming that NATO is in its death throes is spurious. The Cold War
is over, and Europe is no longer under the clear danger it once was from the Soviet Union. Yet NATO remains the
touchstone of the transatlantic relationship. While the current state of the bond between Europe and the United
States is anything but rosy, US-European collaboration is a fundamental ingredient not only in their liberal ideals
and freedom, but also in the stability of the world order.
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – Turn: Heg

Binding consultation kills leadership
Dole 95 (Former Senate Majority Leader, Bob, “Shaping America’s Global Future”, Foreign Policy v98, Spring)
The United States, as the only global power, must lead. Europe--as individual states or as a collective--cannot.
China, Russia, India, Brazil, and Japan are important regional powers, and some may be potential regional threats.
But only the United States can lead on the full range of political, diplomatic, economic, and military issues
confronting the world. Leadership does not consist of posing questions for international debate; leadership consists
of proposing and achieving solutions. The American attempt in May 1993 to discuss lifting the Bosnian arms
embargo with NATO allies, for example, was simply wrong: It was a discussion, not a U.S. initiative, and was
readily perceived by the Europeans as a half-hearted attempt lacking President Clinton's commitment. By
comparison, if President Bush had followed a similar course after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Saddam
Hussein would still be in Kuwait today--if not in Saudi Arabia--and he would very possibly be armed with nuclear
weapons. Leadership is also saying what you mean, meaning what you say, and sticking to it. That includes a
willingness to use American force when required. To state that North Korea "cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear
bomb" and then one year later to sign an agreement that ignores the issue of the existing arsenal is confusing to the
American people and to our allies. To threaten to withdraw most-favored-nation trading status from China because
of human rights violations and then to extend such status months later--despite no change in Chinese human rights
practices--makes the world wonder why the linkage was made in the first place. To introduce a resolution in the
U.N. Security Council to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina, while top administration officials claim the
war is over and the Serbs have won, severs any link between the words of U.S. policymakers and their deeds.
U.S. Sovereignty Must Be Defended, Not Delegated International organizations--whether the United Nations, the
World Trade Organization, or any others--will not protect American interests. Only America can do that.
International organizations will, at best, practice policymaking at the lowest common denominator--finding a course
that is the least objectionable to the most members. Too often, they reflect a consensus that opposes American
interests or does not reflect American principles and ideals. Even gaining support for an American position can
involve deals or tradeoffs that are not in America's long-term interests. Acquiescence in Russian activities in
Georgia and other border states, for example, may be too high a price for Russian acceptance of U.S. positions.
The choices facing America are not, as some in the administration would like to portray, doing something
multilaterally, doing it alone, or doing nothing. These are false choices. The real choice is whether to allow
international organizations to call the shots-- as in Somalia or Bosnia--or to make multilateral groupings work for
American interests--as in Operation Desert Storm. Subcontracting American foreign policy and subordinating
American sovereignty encourage and strengthen isolationist forces at home--and embolden our adversaries abroad.
More evidence…
Long before September 11, 2001, Washington was determined to avoid the serious constraints that NATO could
impose. The only question was of timing and how the United States would escape NATO's clear obligations while
maintaining its hegemony over its members. It wanted to preserve NATO for the very reason it had created it: to
keep Europe from developing an independent political as well as military organization. Coordinating NATO's
command structure with that of any all-European military organization that may be created impinges directly on
America's power over Europe's actions and reflects its deep ambiguity. Some of its members wanted NATO to reach
a partial accord with Russia, a relationship on which Washington often shifted, but Moscow remains highly
suspicious of its plans to extend its membership to Russia's very borders. When the new administration came to
power in January 2001, NATO's fundamental role was already being reconsidered.
CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – A2: NATO K Heg

Unilateralism produces better coalitions
Krauthammer 1 (Charles, Wash Postcolumnist, Dec 17, https://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2001/12/17/161907.html)

WASHINGTON--Last month's Putin-Bush summit at Crawford was deemed an arms control failure because the rumored deal--Russia agrees to let us partially test, but not deploy, defenses that
violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty--never came off. In fact, it was a triumph. Like Reagan at the famous 1986 Reykjavik summit, at which he would not give up the Strategic Defense
Initiative to Gorbachev,Bush was not about to allow Putin to lock the United States into any deal that would prevent us from
building ABM defenses. Bush proved that on Thursday when he dropped the bombshell and unilaterally withdrew
the United States from the treaty, and thus from all its absurd restrictions on ABM technology. This is deeply significant, not just
because it marks a return to strategic sanity, formally recognizing that the ballistic missile will be to the 21st century what the tank and the bomber were to the 20th, but because it
unashamedly reasserts the major theme of the Bush foreign policy: unilateralism. After Sept. 11, the critics (the usual troika: liberal media,
foreign policy establishment, Democratic ex-officials) were clucking about how the Bush administration has beaten a hasty retreat from reckless unilateralism. President Bush `ìs strongly
supported by the American people,'' explained former Senate leader George Mitchell, `ìn part because he has simply discarded almost everything he said on foreign policy prior to Sept. 11.''
Bush had wanted to go it alone in the world, said the critics. But he dare not. `Ìt's hard to see the president restoring the unilateralist tinge that colored so many of his early foreign policy
We need friends, they said. We need
choices,'' wrote columnist E.J. Dionne just two months ago. ``Winning the battle against terror required an end to unilateralism.''
allies. We need coalition partners. We cannot alienate them again and again. We cannot have a president who kills
the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, summarily rejects the `ènforcement provisions'' of the bioweapons treaty,
trashes the ABM Treaty--and expect to build the coalition we need to fight the war on terrorism. We cannot? We
did. Three months is all it took to make nonsense of these multilateralist protests. Coalition? The whole idea that the Afghan war is being
fought by a ``coalition'' is comical. What exactly has Egypt contributed? France sent troops into Mazar-e Sharif after the fighting had stopped, noted that renowned military analyst Jay Leno.
(``Their mission?'' asked Leno. ``To teach the Taliban how to surrender.'') There is a coalition office somewhere in Islamabad. Can anyone even name the coalition spokesman who makes
announcements about the war? The ``coalition'' consists of little more than U.S. aircraft, U.S. special forces, and Afghan friends-of-the-moment on the ground. Like the Gulf War, the Afghan war
is unilateralism dressed up as multilateralism.We made it plain that even if no one followed us, we would go it alone. Surprise: Others
followed. A unilateralist does not object to people joining our fight. He only objects when the multilateralists, like
Clinton in Kosovo, give 18 countries veto power over bombing targets. The Afghan war is not a war run by
committee. We made tough bilateral deals with useful neighbors: Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia. The Brits and the Australians added a
sprinkling of guys on the ground risking their lives, and we will always be grateful for their solidarity. But everyone knows whose war it is. The result? The
Taliban are destroyed. Al Qaeda is on the run. Pakistan has made a historic pro-American strategic pivot, as have the
former Soviet republics, even Russia itself. The Europeans are cooperating on prosecutions. Even the Arab states
have muted their anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric, with the Egyptian foreign minister traveling to Jerusalem for the first time in three years. Not
because they love us. Not because we have embraced multilateralism. But because we have demonstrated
astonishing military power and the will to defend vital American interests, unilaterally if necessary. Where is the
great Bush retreat from unilateralism? The ABM Treaty is dead. Kyoto is dead. The new provisions of the totally
useless biological weapons treaty are even deader: Just six days before pulling out of the ABM Treaty, the administration broke up six years of absurd
wordmongering
And the world has not risen up against us--no more than did the `Àrab street'' (over
over a bio treaty so worthless that Iraq is a signatory in good standing.
The essence of unilateralism is that we do not allow others, no
the Afghan war), as another set of foreign policy experts were warning just weeks ago.
matter how well-meaning, to deter us from pursuing the fundamental security interests of the United States and the
free world. It is the driving motif of the Bush foreign policy. And that is the reason it has been so successful.
Bandwagoning solves coalitions best—veto power is net worse for cooperation

Krauthammer 2 (Charles, “Fictional Rift,” Sept. 17, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer091702.asp)
That leaves Colin Powell, supposedly the epicenter of internal opposition to the hard line on Iraq. Well, this is Powell last Sunday on national television: "It's been the policy of this government
When
to insist that Iraq be disarmed. . . . And we believe the best way to do that is with a regime change." Moreover, he added, we are prepared "to act unilaterally to defend ourselves."
Powell, the most committed multilateralist in the administration, deliberately invokes the incendiary U-word to
describe the American position, we have ourselves a consensus.It turns out that the disagreement among Republicans was less about going to Iraq than
about going to the United Nations. It was a vastly overblown disagreement, because even the most committed unilateralist would rather not go it alone
if possible. Of course you want allies. You just don't want to be held hostage to their veto. And as the first President
Bush demonstrated when he declared that the United States would liberate Kuwait unilaterally if necessary, the best
way to get allies is to let others know you are prepared to go it alone and let them ponder the cost of missing the
train.
CTL Good – A2: Actor CPs – US Key

The US is critical to technical leadership

In conclusion, moving forward with a set of clean CTL plants today, and the research roles identified earlier,
responsible infrastructure can be established to help ensure our nation`s energy and political security.
Workforces can be trained and engaged and economic prosperity sustained by industrial construction and
plant operations on home soil. The U.S. can provide technical leadership to other nations poised to utilize
coal to meet their increasing energy demands.
CTL Good – A2: XO CP

( ) Congressional oversight good – multiple reasons.
Ornstein and Mann 6 (Norman J., Thomas E., Staff Writers for Foreign Affairs, November/December
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85607-p40/norman-j-ornstein-thomas-e-mann/when-congress-checks-out.html)
The making of sound U.S. foreign policy depends on a vigorous, deliberative, and often combative process
that involves both the executive and the legislative branches. The country's Founding Fathers gave each branch
both exclusive and overlapping powers in the realm of foreign policy, according to each one's comparative
advantage -- inviting them, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin has put it, "to struggle for the privilege of
directing American foreign policy." One of Congress' key roles is oversight: making sure that the laws it writes are
faithfully executed and vetting the military and diplomatic activities of the executive. Congressional oversight is
meant to keep mistakes from happening or from spiraling out of control; it helps draw out lessons from
catastrophes in order to prevent them, or others like them, from recurring. Good oversight cuts waste,
punishes fraud or scandal, and keeps policymakers on their toes. The task is not easy. Examining a department or agency, its
personnel, and its implementation policies is time-consuming. Investigating possible scandals can easily lapse into a partisan exercise that ignores
broad policy issues for the sake of cheap publicity. The two of us began our immersion in Congress 37 years ago, participating in events such as
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's extended hearings on the Vietnam War. Throughout most of our time in Washington, tough oversight of
the executive was common, whether or not different parties controlled the White House and Congress. It could be a messy and contentious
process, and it often embarrassed the administration and its party. But it also helped prevent errors from turning into disasters and kept
administrations more sensitive to the ramifications of their actions and inactions. In the past six years, however, congressional
oversight of the executive across a range of policies, but especially on foreign and national security policy, has
virtually collapsed. The few exceptions, such as the tension-packed Senate hearings on the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004, only prove the rule. With
little or no midcourse corrections in decision-making and implementation, policy has been largely adrift. Occasionally -- as during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
last year -- the results have been disastrous. OFF KILTER In October 2005, Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.) reached the 50-year mark for service in the House.
Through seven presidents, much of the time as the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, often as the chair of its vaunted Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee, Dingell oversaw the executive branch to make sure it acted without bias or malfeasance. He did not shrink from making presidents, Democrat and
Republican alike, uncomfortable. At times, even colleagues winced when he grilled bureaucrats. But the result was better execution of policy. Dingell is now a unique
figure on Capitol Hill, but he was not always alone. To be sure, the failure to ask tough questions of the military or challenge wartime decisions is neither new to
Congress nor limited to Republicans. There has never been a golden era of congressional oversight. More often than not, oversight of foreign policy has taken the
form of "fire alarm" hearings, responding to scandals or crises, rather than of "police patrols," designed to prevent problems before they occur. But at one time there
was more robust give-and-take, even when the country was at war or when the president and the majority in Congress belonged to the same party. Perhaps
the
most noteworthy effort was the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, which was
created during the buildup to World War II to investigate alleged overspending in the construction of a camp
for draftees in south-central Missouri. After visiting the site and talking to the president, in February 1941 then
Senator Harry Truman proposed the creation of a special committee. Within a few months, the body had begun a
long series of hearings. "At Truman's insistence," the Truman biographer David McCullough has written, "any
member of the Senate was welcome to ...take part in the hearing... There was no browbeating of witnesses, no
unseemly outbursts tolerated on the part of anybody." In the weeks after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt
was urged to try to disband the body. He demurred. The committee produced more than 50 reports, all
unanimous, and conducted more than 500 hearings. It is said to have saved the country $15 billion. Vigorous
oversight was the norm until the end of the twentieth century. During the Korean War, a special committee chaired
by then Senator Lyndon Johnson strongly criticized the Truman administration. According to the historian Bruce
Schulman, it also "reduced waste, improved the efficiency of wartime agencies and reaffirmed the patriotism
of administration officials -- no trivial matter when [Senator Joseph] McCarthy and his allies saw every small mishap as evidence of disloyalty and
subversion." In the 1970s, there were the Church committee investigations of intelligence failures and secret illegal surveillance. In the 1980s, joint congressional
committees scrutinized the Iran-contra affair. In the 1990s, authorizing committees and appropriations committees in both houses reviewed military operations in
Kosovo. When the Republicans took control of Congress under President Bill Clinton, overall oversight declined. (Joel Aberbach, a political scientist at the University
of California, Los Angeles, has found that the overall number of oversight hearings in the House -- excluding the appropriations committees -- dropped from 782
during the first six months of 1983 to 287 during the first six months of 1997. The falloff in the Senate between 1983 and 1997 is just as striking: from 429 to 175.)
But there were still some visible and aggressive investigations, albeit often driven by an obsession with scandal.
CTL Good – A2: PIC EISA CP – WTO Add-On

EISA violates the WTO
Bloom et al. 8 (David, 3-4, Mayer Brown Law Firm, http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58310)

Section 526 apparently was included in EISA because the US Air Force has been considering various coal-to-
liquid proposals. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis
already have asked the Department of Defense how it intends to comply with respect to coal-to-liquid fuel,
fuels from tar sands, and other alternative or synthetic fuels. The effects on federal procurement are clear, and
government contractors will have to watch closely as regulations are established in this area. In order to
implement Section 526, the government will have to develop uniform standards and contract language
through a public rulemaking process. Any such requirements could end up being quite demanding because, as
noted in the Waxman/Davis letter, the government will be buying from many refiners of petroleum products
that use inputs from a variety of sources. The rulemaking will be critical for industry in both expressing its
views regarding implementation and understanding any final standards or contract language adopted by the
government.
While Section 526 is neutral on its face as to the country of origin of synthetic fuels, the provisions would
have a direct, and arguably disproportionate, effect on producers of fuel from tar sands and nonconventional
crude oil reserves, such as Canada and Venezuela. Thus, there may be an issue as to whether Section 526
violates the WTO Government Procurement Agreement or other WTO rules. The Canadian government has
already publicly warned top-ranking US officials to avoid an "expansive interpretation" of the provision that
could block government purchases of fuels derived from Canada’s tar sands reserves.
CTL Good – A2: Ban Iran Strikes CP

( ) The U.S. threatening Iran is good – three reasons.
Barnett 7 (Thomas, Columnist for Milford Daily News, http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/8998973993943826424)

In international affairs, the best threats are often left unpublicized. In his state of the union speech this week,
President Bush signaled to the Iranians in no uncertain terms that America will not let it develop nuclear
arms. Behind the scenes, the White House reportedly tells Tehran's leaders that unless they stop messing
around in Iraq, we will take the fight directly to Iran. Rumor mongering or legitimate diplomatic demarche?
Even if there's no intention on following through, this threat - if actually delivered - can be a smart play on
Bush's part. First, the Iranians expect it. Not to do so signals we're more nervous about the surge strategy
than we're letting on. Hard, I know. Second, when you've got it, flaunt it. We can strike Iran at will, given our
air superiority. Plus, we Americans in general and Bush-Cheney in particular are known as the bomb-happy
sort. So the Iranians must seriously consider our threat. Third, when they're unsure, make 'em really
uncertain. Bush and Cheney have gone out of their way to state that neither is willing to leave office with Iran
grasping nuclear weapons - the second bird they'd hope to kill with this stone.
( ) U.S. threatening Iran is good. The Middle East would believe and in turn comply by the
U.S. interests.
Barnett 7 (Thomas, Columnist for Milford Daily News, http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/8998973993943826424)
On nukes, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who just suffered a worse mid-term election than
Bush, is being publicly chastised by mullahs clearly worried that he's writing checks with his mouth that their
regime can't cash. So why not turn the tables on him now? Richard Nixon employed this tactic during the
Vietnam War: Letting your enemies wonder just how crazy you might be.
In the Middle East, where conspiracy theories reign supreme, everyone hears what they believe and believes
what they hear. So with chief neocon Richard Perle boasting this week at Israel's preeminent security
conference that the Bush administration is committed to going to war against Iran to derail its nuclear
program, consider that chain good and yanked.
Bush and Cheney have entertained all these arguments by now, because they've been building the public case
for military action against Iran for well over a year. Hill Republicans are already pushing Iran as a litmus test for
2008 to make the Democrats seem weak on something other than Iraq, where that charge now fails with voters.
CTL Good – A2: Fuel Cells CP

Fuel cells are infeasible for military use – Links to readiness
Morehouse, Sheets, Hulme, and Schroeder 5/8 (Thomas, David, Karen, Christopher): Strategic Studies Institute of the
US Army War College (SSI) )5/8 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?v21=108732&lng=en&id=56036
Alternative Fuels and Fuel Cells. We are required, under law, to convert to 85 percent Ethanol blend (E-
85) vehicles and 20 percent biodiesel (B-20) vehicles in our nontactical fleet. We are doing fairly well with
this—48 percent of our light duty vehicles can use alternative fuels. So far, 12 installations have
alternate fuel capacity. We have 23,000 vehicles, so the Army has, in fact, done a lot to get these
alternate fuel vehicles. We also have 310 a full range of fuel cell initiatives, from battery size to these
generator-size tactical units. There are also fuel cell units for housing. Several units have been tested at
Watervliet Arsenal in New York. The Army even has a fuel cell Segway that they are testing. Fuel cells have
problems, however, especially in the battlefield. First, the platinum in a vehicle fuel cell costs about
$3,000. You have to get the cost of platinum down—this is just too expensive. Second, the sulfur in JP-8
makes them ineffective by contaminating the platinum. Unless we bring methane to the battlefield, or
find a way to use fuel cells that can handle the sulfur, fuel cells are going to be hard to use in the field.
Fuel cells fail
December 09, 2006]
Fuel cells are low power density systems, if the required thermal-management systems are included. Fuel cells
generally scale poorly to high power densities on a mass basis. Low temperature fuel cells are poisoned by fuel
impurities such as sulfur and carbon monoxide and, as a consequence, require highly purified fuel. Additionally,
even if the fuel feedstock were suitably purified, introduction of these contaminants into the air intake of a fuel cell
vehicle rapidly poisons the catalyst and immobilizes the vehicle. ‘
More ev..
December 09, 2006]
Another drawback of H2-fuel-cell based vehicles is the logistics train that would be required to supply the gas-phase
fuel, H2, to theater. Canisters to contain H2 gas are large and heavy; an obvious flammability and, under some
conditions, an explosion and detonation liability would exist throughout the logistics train. On-board H2 storage also
requires much larger mass (weight) or volume than liquid fuels. This drawback would deleteriously impact vehicle
range, military performance, and supply-chain logistics of such a system. For direct diesel use in a fuel cell, high-
temperature ceramics are also prohibitively expensive, have long start-up times, suffer coking, and scale poorly to
high power. Fuel cells used in conjunction with reformers exhibit low efficiency at moderate power and energy
density.
CTL Good – A2: Hybrid Cars CP

Synfuels and hybrid cars solve best together

I recommend a balanced federal focus on renewable energy and development of the nation`s coal. Mass
deployment of ``smart`` hybrid and electrically powered cars should be pursued in conjunction with the
development of synthetic fuels from coal. These two objectives are complementary and mutually compatible.
In this manner, the U.S. can establish greater energy independence, while assuring there is a proper fuel
choice for aircraft, shipping vessels, trains, heavy vehicles, and machinery that currently consume a high
percentage of the petroleum-derived fuels in the U.S. - namely diesel and jet fuels. The aims of
environmental protection advocacy groups and the coal industry should not be viewed as being exclusive. A
balanced portfolio of clean energy is needed, inclusive of coal utilization and conversion to electricity,
chemicals, and transportation fuels. I believe it is possible to reverse greenhouse gas emissions when
considering methods to reduce the greenhouse gas emitted from coal-derived fuels and chemicals. Incentives
to encourage clean CTL projects are therefore both important and necessary.
Hybrid costs are too high relative to alternative fuels for marketability
Fleet Equipment 7 (7-10, p. 10)

The flaw in the hybrid approach is the relatively high initial cost of hybrid vehicles as compared to diesel
or gasoline-fuelled vehicles utilizing alternate fuels. Studies by such respected sources such as Ricardo
(England), the U. S. DOE, NaHonal Resources Canada, and others, all conclude that the timing is right for a
light-duty diesel "boom" in the U. S..
CTL Good – A2: Nat Gas-to-Liquid CP

CTL is more cost-effective and efficient than NGTL
Tulsa World 5 (11-3)

Syntroleum has a patented process for converting natural gas into synthetic fuel. The same process can be
applied to coal, which is cheaper and more cost effective than gas.
The company was recently awarded a $4.5 million grant from the Department of Defense to determine
whether its patented technology is compatible with coal.
"We are confident that our process works once that coal is gasified and cleaned up," Holmes said. "We are
looking to put small pilot plants at sites of existing coal gasifiers to demonstrate that our catalyst works just
as well with coal."
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: AF (1/2)

Only CTL solves military vehicles and weaponry

As part of RAND’s examination of coal-to-liquids fuels development, we have reviewed the
technical, economic, and environmental viability and production potential of a range of options for
producing liquid fuels from domestic resources. If we focus on unconventional fuel technologies
that are now ready for large-scale, commercial production and that can displace at least a million
barrels per day of imported oil, we find only two candidates: grain-derived ethanol and Fischer-
Tropsch (F-T) coal-to-liquids. Moreover, only the F-T coal-to-liquids candidate produces a fuel
that is suitable for use in heavy-duty trucks, railroad engines, commercial aircraft, or military
vehicles and weapon systems.
Biofuels can’t be used as jet fuels
National Journal 7 (1-6)

But coal-to-liquids proponents call such criticism shortsighted. They argue that energy security is an
immediate problem that can't be solved by making cars more efficient, boosting the amount of ethanol on the
market, or waiting for breakthrough technologies for cars and trucks. In fact, ethanol and other biofuels do
not contain enough energy to be used as jet fuel, according to Paul Bollinger, special assistant to the assistant
secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment, and logistics.
Cellulosic biomass can’t solve for years

If we expand our time horizon to consider technologies that might be ready for use in initial
commercial plants within the next five years, only one or two new technologies become available:
the in-situ oil shale approaches being pursued by several firms and the F-T approaches for
converting biomass or a combination of coal and biomass to liquid fuels. We have also looked
carefully at the development prospects for technologies that are intended to produce alcohol fuels
from sources other than food crops, generally referred to as cellulosic materials. Our finding is
that, while this is an important area for research and development, the technology base is not yet
sufficiently developed to support an assessment that alcohol production from cellulosic materials
will be competitive with F-T biomass-to-liquid fuels within the next 10 years, if ever.
Biomass for jet fuels fails – production is too limited
Bartis 6 [James, speaker for the RAND Corporation, Policy Issues for Alternative Fuels for Military Operations,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2006/RAND_CT268.pdf, September 2006]
Beyond the co-feeding of biomass with coal, no other technically viable approaches are ready today for
using renewable resources to produce significant amounts of JP-8 or similar fuels in the distillate fuel
oil group. In particular, the potential for bio-diesel produced from vegetable oils is severely limited
because of low oil yields per cultivated acre and because of the amount of suitable arable land available
in the United States. Moreover, at the current state of technology development, there is no fermentation-type
process, such as the distillation-based methods used for ethanol production, capable of producing a product
that would be suitable for formulating or blending with a distillate fuel oil for transportation, including
aviation. These opportunities may expand in the future with further advances in renewable energy-producing
technologies.
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: AF (2/2)

No other alternative fuel works in aircraft as well as FT
Other fuels have been floated about as alternatives to crude, but all of them so far have fatal flaws. Biofuels
may be nifty for powering your Nissan, but fuels derived from soybeans, palm oil and such have real
limitations. Boeing estimates that a US fleet using a 15% biofuel blend would require 2.04 billion gal. of biojet
fuel. That in turn would require some 34 million acres of land, a chunk of property about the size of Florida.
Assuming crop subsidies would encourage that kind of land use, there are inherent problems with biofuels themselves, says
Seto. First is the low-temperature fluidity because they possess very high freezing points. Jet fuel specifications call
for freeze points in the -40/-60C range while biofuels freeze at closer to zero. Then there's a matter of energy. "They don't have
comparable heating values, BTUs per pound of mass," he says. Methane, ethanol, liquefied petroleum gas, even
hydrogen have gotten popular play of late. How about them? "They're all very challenging to use," says Seto. Because
they're not drop-ins, each would require "some change in the aircraft or fuel delivery systems." In an era
where craft like the 787 are being purpose-built to conserve fuel and extend range, these exquisitely exotic
formulations just won't fly. "The amount of energy you can store in these fuels is not as high as petroleum," he explains. Conventional
petroleum-pegged product produces 42.3-42.4 megajoules of heat per kg., as do FTs. Biofuels fall 10% short of that and the exotics pack only
half as much energy per kg. The upshot, he says: "You'll either have to pack in a lot more [fuel] or reduce the range of your aircraft." Seto
concedes a possible future for exotics, perhaps 50 years from now. For the present, he and virtually everyone ATW interviewed for this article
returns to Fischer-Tropsch. The proximate aim is to get as close to conventionally contrived Jet A as possible without wrecking the planet. "The
problem is, the dream fuel is Jet A," says Waitz. "It's really very nice to work with. To the extent that we can
produce fuels that have the same behavior through the Fischer-Tropsch process, we'll be fine. What we need to do
is solve the environmental and economic problems that come along with that production process."
Ethanol is horrible for combat situations
December 09, 2006]
Ethanol, however, has a 50% lower volumetric energy density than gasoline. With 50% less energy density
than gasoline, DoD operations will require 50% more fueling sorties by tanker trucks, implying a 50%
greater danger for those responsible for that endeavor. To keep the same range per fillup by combat vehicles,
fuel tanks would have to be increased in size by 50%. Furthermore, ethanol has a lower flash point and,
therefore, more prone to explosion than is gasoline. Hence, even if it were comparable on a WTW energy or
GHG emissions basis, ethanol would still be unsuitable for use on DoD missions on a performance basis. On
this performance basis, liquid hydrocarbon fuels emerge as the preferred energy source for mobility on DoD tactical
and combat vehicles, both air and land-based. Since these fuels are most cheaply made from fossil energy of one
type or another, and since, barring unforeseen upheavals, the fossil-fuel feedstock supplies appear adequate for
sometime into the future, the best method for reduction of a DoD fuel consumption is to reduce demand, as
described above, through a variety of methods including patterns of use, lightweighting vehicles, re-engining tanks
and B-52 bombers, and replacing manned platforms with unmanned ones. In aggregate, these approaches can yield
considerable fuel savings while at the same time enhancing performance of DoD platforms and opening up new
mission capabilities for DoD forces.
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve – General

( ) Biodiesel can’t solve carbon emissions, have enormous production costs, and present
serious infrastructure problems. CTL solves all of these.
James 6 (Steve, Reuters News Agency, The Globe and Mail (Canada), REPORT ON BUSINESS:
INTERNATIONAL; ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; Pg. B5, December 18, Lexis)
When railways ruled, it was the sweating firemen shovelling coal into the furnace who kept the engines
running. Now, nearly two centuries after Stephenson's "Rocket" steam locomotive helped usher in the
Industrial Revolution, that same coal could be the fuel that keeps the jet age aloft. But with a twist: The
planes of the future could be flown with liquid fuel made from coal or natural gas. Already the United States Air Force
has carried out tests flying a B-52 Stratofortress with a coal-based fuel. And JetBlue Airways Corp. supports a bill in Congress that would extend
tax credits for alternative fuels, pushing technology to produce jet fuel for the equivalent of $40 (U.S.) a barrel - far below current oil prices.
Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil,
are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon. The technology of producing a liquid fuel from
coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch
in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during the Second World War to produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5
million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day. And coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 per cent of
transportation fuel needs. In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally
friendlier and would also help the United States wean itself of foreign oil imports. "America must reduce its
dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid technologies," said JetBlue's
founder and chief executive officer, David Neeleman. "Utilizing our domestic coal reserves is the right way to
achieve energy independence." In a recent briefing to power and energy executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman
for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offer little in the way of reduced carbon dioxide
emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious transmission and infrastructure" problems.
In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-burning than conventional fuels. Mr. Popovich
warned that the United States risks falling behind economic competitors such as China, which plans to spend
$25-billion on CTL plants. The United States is "already behind the curve" when it comes to tapping the vast liquid fuel potential of coal,
said John Ward, of natural resources company Headwaters Inc., which builds CTL plants. He said U.S. plants would likely each produce 40,000
barrels of CTL fuel a day, with a typical plant using 8.5 million tons of coal a year. In contrast, China is focused on building plants capable of
producing 60,000 barrels of CTL fuel a day, he said. "There is significant investor interest in what could be a major
growth opportunity," said Paul Clegg, an alternative energy analyst with Natexis Bleichroeder.
Biofuels are not competitive with other alternatives
December 09, 2006]
Presently, liquid fuel from biomass processes do not compete economically with production of fuel from crude
oil. Biofuels provide little, if any, net energy benefit, especially if the complete process is taken into account,
and are not economically competitive (without subsidies) with other uses of agricultural land, e.g., growing
food. Current biomass-to-fuel methods of production present a significant environmental burden (GHGs, soil
depletion and erosion, waste water, etc.).
Biofuels fail – low energy output, high flammability and transport problems
December 09, 2006]
Ethanol’s low energy density, high flammability, and transportation difficulties, relative to diesel and JP-8, for
example, render it unsuitable as a DoD fuel. The primary considerations that enter this finding are logistics, energy
density (high volume per unit energy content), and safety.
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – Perm Solves

Perm solves best

In promoting the production of alcohol fuels from cellulosic feedstocks, the federal government is
making major R&D investments. In our judgment, the appropriate approach to balance this fuelsproduction
portfolio is not to lower the investment in cellulosic conversion, but rather to
significantly increase the investment in F-T approaches, including coal, biomass, and combined
coal and biomass gasification.
The long and mid-term research efforts that I have described would significantly enhance the
learning and cost-reduction potential associated with early production experience. As a collateral
benefit of this public investment, such longer-term research efforts would also support the training
of specialized scientific and engineering talent required for long-term progress.
In closing, I commend the Committee for addressing the important and intertwined topics of
reducing demand for crude oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has
before it many opportunities—including coal and oil shale, renewable sources, improved energy
efficiency, and fiscal and regulatory actions—that can promote greater energy security. Coal-toliquids
and, more generally, F-T gasification processes can be important parts of the portfolio as
the nation responds to the realities of world energy markets, the presence of growing energy
demand, and the need to protect the environment.
More ev…

In promoting the production of alcohol fuels from cellulosic feedstocks, the federal government is
making major R&D investments. In our judgment, the appropriate approach to balance this fuelsproduction
portfolio is not to lower the investment in cellulosic conversion, but rather to
significantly increase the investment in F-T approaches, including coal, biomass, and combined
coal and biomass gasification.
CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: Oil Demand

Biofuels can’t solve US oil demand – Plan produces 10x as much fuel

Rentech is one of the world's leading developers of Fischer-Tropsch technologies. As such, it is the company's vision to
develop technology and projects to transform underutilized hydrocarbon resources such as coal, petroleum coke, remote
or stranded natural gas and biomass and municipal waste into valuable clean fuels and chemicals that will help
accommodate our nation's growing energy needs. Our company has been in the business of developing alternative and
renewable energy technologies for more than 25 years, having been initially affiliated with the Solar Energy Research
Institute which became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. Rentech’s focus is on the
technology for converting synthesis gas, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, into ultra clean synthetic diesel and jet fuels via
the Fischer-Tropsch process followed by hydroprocessing.
The goal of our efforts is to demonstrate the viability of this technology for diverse alternative feedstock materials into
fungible transportation fuels in volumes great enough to reduce importation of crude oil and refined fuel products.
Currently the United States imports approximately 65% of our crude oil and fuel products. Conversion of biomass into
first generation biofuels is estimated by EIA to provide only 11.2 billion gallons in 2012 per year or 458,000 barrels of oil
equivalent per day, which would account for about 2.3% of today’s consumption of 20 million barrels per day. The largest
plants will have a capacity of no more than about 7,000 barrels per day. Rentech’s first plant will produce 30,000 barrels
each day or 460 million gallons per year, and it will be scalable to more than 80,000 barrels per day.
( ) Synthetic fuel is more realistic and successful than biofuels.

Warwick 8 (Graham, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 00052175, 6/2/2008, Vol. 168, Issue 22; EBSCO)
Biofuels face a hurdle as experts meet in Warsaw, this week to debate amending the long-established
specification for jet fuel to allow the certification of alternative fuels. The aviation fuels subcommittee of
standards body ASTM International is meeting June 3-5 to discuss whether the specification for Jet A should
be opened up to include biofuels or limited to allowing coal-to-liquid (CTL) and gas-to-liquid (GTL) synthetic
fuels to be used as alternatives to petroleum-based kerosene. A fuel industry official says there is a strong push,
led by Boeing, for a "compositional approval." This would allow any synthetic fuel that meets certain
composition requirements, including bio-jet, to be mixed with kerosene in blends up to 50%. Others, including
some engine manufacturers, want to restrict opening up of the Jet A specification to only CTL and GTL synthetic
kerosene produced using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. This is because bio-jet fuels produced from
hydrogenated vegetable oils (HVO) are not yet available for engine tests. FT kerosene and HVO bio-jet fuels are
the only candidates being considered for inclusion in the Jet A specification, the official says, adding, "There is no
talk of 100%--it is all 50% blends." If they miss the cut this time, it will be another three years before bio-jet
can be included in the standard, says Jennifer Holmgren, director of the renewable energy business for UOP, a
Honeywell company developing refining technology for sustainable biofuels. Manufacturers were finalizing their
positions at presstime, but Boeing says, "Our overarching goal is to ensure that any potential modification [to
the Jet A specification] allow a reasonable pathway to all types of alternative fuels that meet performance and
quality needs."
( ) Biofuels suffer from a lack of availability for testing. Only a risk of solving.
Warwick 8 (Graham, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 00052175, 6/2/2008, Vol. 168, Issue 22; EBSCO)
A powerplant manufacturer confirms that the concern with bio-jet fuels is their lack of availability for
engine-testing. Samples of biofuels produced from sustainable feedstocks that do not compete with the food chain are only just
emerging from the laboratory. Small quantities of bio-jet fuel produced from soybean, coconut and other vegetable oils have been
tested under the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's BioFuels program, but the major interest is in non-crop
sources such as camelina and jatropha, plants that grow on arid land and produce inedible oils. Ultimately, the industry
wants sustainable biofuels from feedstocks that do not compete with food for land or water. These include
cellulosic waste from farming and forestry as well as algal oils. Such fuels are still 5-10 years away, believes
Holmgren. "Generation 1 biofuels use vegetable oils and greases and compete with the food chain. Generation 2 uses lignocellulosic waste and
algae," she says. "Jatropha is not true Generation 2, but it does not compete the same way as Generation 1 and is a bridge to Generation 2." UOP
has teamed with Airbus, International Aero Engines and JetBlue Airways to study sustainable bio-jet fuels from feedstocks including jatropha and
algae. The schedule calls for flight tests in 24 months and certification in 36 months, Holmgren says. The issue remains availability.
UOP's bio-jet fuel is "still in the 5-8-liter [1.3-2-gal.] testing stage," she notes. So far, the fuel has been produced
in 20-40-gal. quantities, but Holmgren says UOP has plans for sourcing the "thousands of gallons" needed to
support the Airbus testing.
CTL Good – A2: Fuel Efficiency CP (1/4)

CTL key to solve the inevitable oil shocks-Efficiency takes too long
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Hornitschek, Lt Col, USAFA Research WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE
TRANSFORMATION, February 17, 2006
Developing bridge energies – Conservation and efficiency can provide immediate returns, but the total
impact will not be sufficient to eliminate (foreign) petroleum dependence. Because full-scale transition
to the “new energy” will take at least 40 years to complete, and many professionals predict Hubbert’s
Peak will occur by 2020, bridge energy sources are necessary to maintain combat capability. Bridging
energy sources are those energies and fuels other than petroleum which are available or can be made
available in sufficient quantity in the near term to supply necessary energy needs until a revolutionary
energy is deployed; examples include natural gas; synthetic fuels from oil shale, tar sand, or coal
liquification; nuclear power; possibly methane hydrates; and renewables like biofuels, solar, wind, and
geothermal power. Catalyzed by the 2002 OSD(AS&C) Clean Fuels Initiative, the DoD began exploring the
mechanics of liquid fuel production from Western U.S. oil shale and Canadian tar sands through the German-
developed Fischer-Tropsch process used in WWII.101 The Clean Fuels Initiative segregated development
into two parallel foci: 1) Total Energy Development (TED) for overcoming the economic and technical
obstacles necessary to enable large-scale industrial fuel production, and 2) certifying a Joint Battlespace Use
Fuel for the Future as a single nonpetroleum- derived fuel suitable for use in all current, legacy, and emerging
systems.
DOD fuel efficiency programs fail
While these and other individual efforts are under way to reduce mobility energy demand and DOD has
identified energy as one of its transformational priorities, DOD lacks key elements of an overarching
organizational framework to guide and oversee these efforts. Our prior work has shown that such a
framework is critical to successful transformation in both public and private organizations. In the
absence of an overarching organizational framework for mobility energy, DOD cannot be assured that
its current efforts will be fully implemented and will significantly reduce its reliance on petroleum-
based fuel. More specifically, we found that DOD’s current approach to mobility energy lacks (1) top
leadership, with a single executive-level OSD official— supported by an implementation team—who is
accountable for mobility energy matters; (2) a comprehensive strategic plan for mobility energy that
aligns individual efforts with DOD-wide goals and priorities, establishes approaches or strategies to
achieve goals, and evaluates progress through performance metrics; and (3) an effective mechanism to
provide for communication and coordination of mobility energy efforts among OSD and the military
services as well as leadership and accountability over each military service’s efforts. We also found that
DOD has made limited progress in incorporating fuel efficiency as a consideration in key business
processes—which include developing requirements for and acquiring new weapons systems. According to
OSD and military service officials, DOD has not established an overarching organizational framework
for mobility energy in part because of concerns regarding how such a framework would be
implemented, how it would integrate with other existing organizational responsibilities, and how it
would affect ongoing efforts to reduce mobility energy demand. However, DOD has created a
management framework to oversee facility energy, which accounts for about 25 percent of the department’s
energy use, and has established new organizational frameworks to address other crosscutting issues, such as
business systems modernization, corrosion control and prevention, contractors on the battlefield, and the
defeat of improvised explosive devices. The establishment of such a framework for mobility energy could
provide greater assurance that DOD’s efforts to reduce its reliance on petroleum-based fuel will
succeed without degrading its operational capabilities and that DOD is better positioned to address
future mobility energy challenges—both within the department and as a stakeholder in national energy
security dialogues.

The DOD’s lack of centralization on energy reduction kills solvency
DOD’s current approach to mobility energy is decentralized, with fuel oversight and management
responsibilities diffused among several OSD and military service offices as well as working groups.
More specifically, we found its approach lacks key elements of an overarching organizational
framework, including a single executive-level OSD official—supported by an implementation team—
who is accountable for mobility energy matters, a comprehensive strategic plan, and an effective
mechanism for department wide communication and coordination. Our prior work on organizational
transformations has found such a framework to be critical to successful transformation in both public
and private organizations. 15 In addition, it is important to note that DOD has a history of creating
organizational frameworks to address other crosscutting issues. DOD Has Not Established an Overarching
Organizational Framework to Guide and Oversee Mobility Energy Reduction Efforts DOD’s Current
Management Approach to Mobility Energy Lacks Key Elements of an Overarching Organizational
Framework 15 DOD’s policies for energy management assign oversight and management
responsibilities to several different offices without providing a single focal point with total visibility of,
or accountability for, mobility energy reduction efforts across the department. Table 2 outlines various
roles and responsibilities for fuel management and oversight .
The DOD’s unclear fuel reduction structure stops solvency

GAO`8 (General Accounting Office, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT Overarching Organizational Framework Needed to Guide
As table 2 shows, DOD policies do not assign responsibility for fuel reduction considerations—either
singly or jointly—to any of the various offices involved in fuel management. While DOD directives
designate the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the department’s
senior energy official, with responsibility for establishing policies, granting waivers, and approving changes
in the management of energy commodities, including petroleum, the extent to which this official provides
comprehensive guidance and oversight of fuel reduction efforts across the department is unclear. 16
Moreover, DOD has charged the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel
Readiness) to serve as the DOD central administrator for mobility energy policy with overall management
responsibility for petroleum and other commodities. We found that although this office plays an active
role in maintaining DOD policy on energy supply issues and participates in other department-level fuel-
related activities, its primary focus has not been on department wide fuel reduction efforts.

The DOD lacks an established hierarchy that ensures things get done
While DOD has begun to increase management attention and has identified energy as a transformational
priority, it has not designated a single executive-level OSD official—supported by an implementation
team—who is accountable for mobility energy matters across the department. Our prior work has shown
that top-level leadership and an implementation team with dedicated resources and funding are key
elements of an overarching organizational framework. Furthermore, leadership must set the direction,
pace, and tone and provide a clear, consistent rationale that brings everyone together behind a single
mission. The Under Secretary of DOD Has Not Designated a Single Executive-Level Official for Mobility Energy
17
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as the senior DOD energy official, is responsible for
management of energy commodities, but this individual also has a broad range of other responsibilities that
include, among other things, matters relating to the DOD acquisition system, research and development,
systems engineering, logistics, installation management, and business management modernization. Therefore,
this individual’s primary focus has not been on the management of mobility energy efforts. Moreover,
from a broader perspective, the extent to which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics has set a direction for the various OSD and military service offices involved
in mobility energy is unclear.
The DOD’s implementation mechanism fail

DOD also does not have an implementation team in place, with dedicated resources and funding, for
mobility energy issues. For example, the officials who lead DOD’s Energy Security Task Force’s integrated
product 18 The 3-Star Group within DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process
includes members from OSD’s Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation; OSD’s under secretaries of
defense; the Joint Staff Director for Structure, Resources, and Assessment; and the military services’ 3-Star
programmers. This group addresses major issues and presents decision options to the Secretary of Defense
team do so as an extra responsibility outside of their normal work duties. Other DOD officials said that the
task force provides a good forum for sharing energy ideas across the department, but lacks adequate
staff to carry out specific actions. Furthermore, a task force participant told us that it can be difficult to find
time to attend meetings while balancing other duties. The task force also does not receive any dedicated
funding to pursue department-level energy priorities. Our prior work on the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) 19 emphasizes the importance of relating funding to performance
goals. The establishment of a dedicated funding mechanism for corrosion, for example, enabled DOD to fund
high-priority corrosion reduction projects, which resulted in savings of more than $753 million during a 5-
year period. 20 Without a long-term funding mechanism, DOD may not be able to ensure that mobility
energy reduction efforts receive sustained funding over a period of years.

DOD can’t coordinate reduction efforts
DOD does not have an effective mechanism to facilitate communication and coordination of mobility
energy reduction efforts among OSD and the military services. Our prior work has shown that a
communication strategy involves creating shared expectations and reporting related progress. 25 While
DOD’s Energy Security Task Force aims to identify key players within the energy field, its current
structure does not ensure departmentwide communication of fuel reduction efforts, particularly
among the military services, which are responsible for most of these efforts. More specifically, during
our observation of a task force monthly meeting, we found that although this venue provides for some
sharing of information, the generally less than 2 hours allotted for each monthly meeting does not allow for
effective coverage of the spectrum of DOD’s mobility energy issues. Moreover, we noted that although the
task force’s senior steering group includes, among others, the service under secretaries and assistant
secretaries; the Director, Defense Research and Engineering; and several principal deputy under secretaries
of defense, it only meets two to three times a year. Furthermore, with the exception of the Air Force, none of
the other military service members on the senior steering group have primary responsibility for
mobility energy reduction efforts within their services. Without executive-level focal points, the
military services may not be well positioned to effectively coordinate on mobility energy reduction
efforts across the department or provide leadership or accountability for efforts within their services.
Lack of coordination means they can’t ensure overall reductions and dependency
In addition, we found a lack of cross-service coordination concerning mobility energy reduction
initiatives. Army officials told us that they were unaware of Navy research on fuel reduction metrics, while
Air Force officials said that they do not routinely discuss aviation fuel reduction initiatives with their
Army counterparts, even though both military services are concerned about aircraft fuel consumption.
OSD officials said that while several separate groups are making efforts to reduce fuel consumption, the
efforts are often not shared or integrated. Moreover, OSD officials told us that DOD generally lacks
incentives to reward the military services for reducing fuel consumption and faces challenges in
addressing departmental cultural barriers—such as the traditional view that fuel is simply a
commodity and that energy efficiency is not an important consideration for warfighting. Without an
effective mechanism to facilitate communication of mobility energy reduction efforts between OSD and the
military services, DOD cannot be certain that these efforts are effectively coordinated throughout the
department or consistent with DOD’s energy priorities and goals. On a broader level, DOD may not be
well positioned to respond to congressional or other agencies’ requests for information on mobility
energy.
***General Military Aff Misc.***

Gen Mil Aff – Non-UQ – RE Up Now

Renewable energy use by military up
Johnson 8 (Keith, Wall Street journal reporter 3/18, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/18/forget-iraq-

pentagon-mulls-drilling-on-bases/?mod=WSJBlog)
Mr. Arny explained the military currently has a host of renewable-energy programs which are actually cost-
effective—such as “North America’s largest solar array” at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Opening up
U.S. military installations to traditional energy prospecting could not only mean discounts on pricey oil, but
more cash to underwrite even more renewable-energy projects. The Dept. of Defense currently produces 12%
of all its electricity from renewable sources, Mr. Arny testified, putting it on “a glide path” to the target of
25% by 2025.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – DOD Key (1/2)

The Armed Forces consume the most energy in the US, supporting over 2 million people,
thousands of acres of land, and hundreds of installations
As you know, the Army has an energy management program in place which aims to eliminate/reduce energy waste in existing facilities,
increase energy efficiency, and improve energy security. There are a number of laws and regulations which set the parameters. Among
them, I should mention the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, which was the first major climate change program that affected the military.
This banned the production and venting of Class 1 ozone depleting substances (ODS), created a Department of Defense (DoD) reserve,
and allowed DoD use for Mission Critical Requirements (Crew Protection, 303 Fire Suppression, Tactical Vehicle A/C). A more recent
document is EO 123423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management,” January 2007.2 This calls
for, among other things, a 30 percent energy efficiency goal for federal agencies in 10 years, (50 percent more stringent than the Energy
Policy Act [EPACT] 05). It also states that at least 50 percent of current renewable energy purchases must come from new renewable
sources (in service after January 1, 1999); and it requires an increase of alternative fuels by at least 10 percent annually. The Army does
still have ODS in its legacy systems but has also met with some successes. Starting in base year 1992, it eliminated 80 percent of Halon
1301 use in Legacy systems, 9 percent of ODS solvents in industrial operations, and 98 percent of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) use on
Army installations. We all know that the DoD is the largest single user in terms of U.S. energy consumption,
but you may not necessarily know the details. In 2005, DoD spent $10.8 billion on fuel and consumed
approximately 100M barrels of oil. That represents only 1.4 percent of U.S. use—Americans as a whole used
about 2 million barrels per day that year—that is, 720 million barrels a year. Within the DoD, moreover, the
Army is not the leader in regards to energy usage—it is the Air Force. In fiscal year 2005, the Air Force
consumed 54 percent of the fuel, the Army 12 percent, and the Navy 33 percent. What are the energy
needs? Well, the Air Force flies a lot of jets and uses a lot of jet fuel. That is why they consume so much
oil. What the Army does have is the largest number of utilities—35 percent of DoD utilities, as compared to
34 percent for the Air Force and 27 percent for the Navy. That is because, as you will see, we have a really
large number of military installations, 304 both within the United States and overseas. The Army Universe is
big: We own 770 million square feet of buildings; we have 37,000 family housing units; we house 136,000
soldiers; and we own 13 million acres of land. We have about a million soldiers, which includes active duty,
National Guard, and Reserves. The Army also has 209,000 civilians and 712,000 family members. In short,
we have about 2 million people in the Army “family.” That gives you some sense of who we are and
where we are. Because of that, we do use a lot of energy. The energy used on installations is primarily
not from oil, but rather from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and/or nuclear power.
DOD solves overall oil dependence
Demand side solutions to DoD’s high fuel intensity can also help mitigate the nation’s dependence on
foreign oil and reduce future 300 climate risks. As DoD deploys more energy efficient technologies in its
combat systems, two important national benefits will result: Our industries will become more competitive
in a global market that increasingly values efficiency; and national use of oil will decline as the
technologies find their way into commercial products. Enacting the changes to DoD processes needed to
achieve these benefits will require determined and sustained leadership. They require some changes in the
factors DoD uses to make its most fundamental decisions affecting requirements, acquisition, force structure
and funding priorities. It requires facing the realities of the true costs associated with high fuel use, including
its drain on our operational effectiveness. These are factors DoD has not had to consider before, and is not
currently equipped to consider. But the payoff for both DoD and the nation can be significant.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – DOD Key (2/2)

The DOD is critical to overall energy use
2002]
Reducing GHG emissions and increasing energy efficiency makes good business sense. Technological and
process-oriented pollution prevention initiatives lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings. Executive
Order 13123 of 1999 requires DoD to achieve a 35 percent reduction in energy use by 2010. DoD is the
largest consumer of energy in the Federal government. DoD’s energy strategy includes enhanced
energy management and efforts to reduce waste and the release of global warming potential gases.
DoD’s energy management efforts have focused on three primary areas—reducing GHG emissions,
improving weapons systems and technologies, and increasing energy efficiency at our facilities. This
report gives DoD the opportunity to share its successes and vision for the future. The following pages
highlight important progress and outline key initiatives.
The DOD uses 75% of the nations’ total energy
2002]
The U.S. government consumes approximately 2 percent of the nation’s energy, with DoD consuming
approximately 75 percent of that total. Of DoD’s total energy use in fiscal year 1996 (FY96), operations
and training consumed 58 percent and facilities and non-tactical vehicles consumed 42 percent. DoD is
particularly focused on improving the energy efficiency of its facilities and non-tactical vehicles.
More ev…and we solve all federal facilities
The Council of State Governments 6 (RESOLUTION ON RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AT

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS http://www.csg.org/policy/document s/DoDRenewable
EnergyResolution.pdf)
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the federal government's single largest electricity user, consuming
55 percent of total government use. With more than $5 billion of its annual budget allotted to purchase
energy, the DoD is the largest energy consumer in the nation. The Defense Department can greatly
impact the federal government's overall demand for electricity by incorporating renewable sources of
energy such as wind, solar, biomass, landfill gas, ocean thermal and mechanical energy, geothermal,
municipal solid waste and new hydroelectric generation capacity.
More ev…
Menedez 6 (Robert Menedez, New Jersey Senator’s Office, June 22
http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/index.cfm?maxrows=30&startrow=691&)
"As the federal government's largest consumer of energy, the Defense Department can be at the
vanguard of renewable energy consumption," Menendez said. "The federal government must lead by
example if more American businesses and families are to increase their usage of renewable energy."
The Department of Defense is the federal government's most prolific user of electricity, using 55
percent of the government's total consumption. By using renewable sources of electricity, the Defense
Department would greatly impact the government's overall demand for electricity. Renewable sources
of energy include wind, solar, biomass, landfill gas, ocean, geothermal, municipal solid waste, and new
hydroelectric generation capacity.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – International Spillover

DOD international spillover is enhanced by cooperative efforts and diplomacy
2002]
Changes in the global climate and depletion of the Earth’s stratospheric ozone protection layers can have
national and global implications, particularly on environmental, political, social, and economic structures.
Rising sea levels, desertification, extreme storms, loss of farmland and food sources, salinization of fresh
water, and other physical and health-related effects can lead to increases in civil strife, the number of
environmental refugees, and conflicts among nations. As climate change affects the structures mentioned
above, DoD is working to understand where and under what circumstances environmental issues may
contribute to economic, political, and social instability and conflict. DoD’s international environmental
cooperation efforts promote democracy, trust, and environmental stewardship while strengthening
national defense. DoD works cooperatively with foreign militaries to promote regional stability and
integrate environmental goals into defense operations.
US alternative energy policies will be modeled internationally

SSEB 6 (Southern States Energy Board “American Energy Security Study” http://www.sseb.org/currentprograms/cpa_aes.htm)
One goal of the SSEB study is to show how America can replace approximately five percent of U.S. imported oil each year for 20 years, beginning in the next five
years. A key component of this plan will be construction of multiple alternative liquid fuel plants each year. Several important factors in this approach to energy
independence include, first, the fact that the United States has significant quantities of alternative oil resources rivaling the total worldwide conventional oil reserves.
Trillions of tons of American coal, oil shale and renewable biomass resources are available to be converted to premium quality liquid fuels using existing and rapidly
by producing environmentally superior transportation fuels from near-zero emissions
emerging technologies. Second,
plants that can recycle, utilize and sequester CO2, the United States can be an example for the world, in
particular the rapidly expanding energy production capabilities of China and India. Liquid fuels produced
from coal, oil shale and biomass have very low sulfur, low particulate and nitrogen oxides emissions and
higher performance characteristics than their conventional distillate counterparts. In addition, the plants that produce the
liquids can be capable of capturing carbon. Third, the SSEB study will focus primarily on the rapid development of coal/oil shale/biomass-to-liquid fuels production.
Finally, commercial enhanced oil recovery successes using CO2 flooding suggest that American oil and gas production can be dramatically increased using these
methods. Miscible CO2 flooding can revitalize certain mature oil fields. In addition, the study will support CO2 injection into coal and oil shale deposits in an
emerging technology that can increase natural gas production from these sources. At present, limited availability of CO2 supplies severely constrains this production-
enhancing technique. However, the liquids plants will produce and capture large quantities of CO2 that can be used by oil and gas producers for this purpose. Not only
can the CO2 be put to a positive use and sequestered beneath the earth's surface, the petroleum residuals generated by oil and gas producers can be upgraded to liquid
fuels in the new carbon-to-liquids plants.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Installations Key

Facilities are critical to DOD energy use
Fournier and Westervelt 5 (September, US Army Corps of Engineers, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-

bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A440265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Worldwide energy consumption is expected to increase by 2.1 percent/year and domestic energy
consumption by 1.4 percent per year. This will exacerbate global energy competition for existing supplies.
Army energy consumption is dominated by facilities consumption. Facilities consumption may
decrease in both total quantity and in intensity basis—but not without an aggressive energy program
with careful planning, diligent monitoring, and prudent investment. The absorption of overseas troops
onto domestic installations will make this outcome especially challenging. The energy consumption
associated with Army mobility is expected to remain constant, but may potentially increase depending of
future phases of the Global War on Terror and on geopolitical tensions resulting from the world energy
situation.
Installations are critical to readiness – One loss undermines the entire network
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
The concern about disruptions to the infrastructure due to deliberate attacks or natural events is drawing great
interest across the country. Recent damage in the Gulf Coast region of the US has heightened this concern as
many areas expect to be without grid power for months, perhaps more than a year. There is also a growing
understanding of the essential role that the energy infrastructure plays in other infrastructures,
including cyber, communications, water, transportation, and waste removal.
The US military is particularly concerned because a major disruption of the energy infrastructure at a
base could overwhelm its current backup generation resources and negatively affect its mission. To a
military base commander, the base’s mission is of paramount importance. Simply put, it is the reason that a
base exists. Moreover, since military bases are part of an integrated team of bases across the world, the
disruption of a single base’s mission could affect the missions of many other bases as the effects of the
disruption propagate through the system.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – RE Key

RE solves DOD energy use
Fournier and Westervelt 5 (September, US Army Corps of Engineers, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-

bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A440265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
In these times of tightening classical energy options, the Army needs to take steps comparable to those in
the national agenda mentioned above by modernizing infrastructure, optimizing end-use, minimizing
environmental impact, pulling technology markets, cooperating in regional purchases, and leveraging
alternate financing. Special attention to the diversification of sources is appropriate. This incorporates a
massive expansion in renewable energy purchases, a vast increase in renewable distributed generation
including photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, microturbines and biomass, and the large-scale
networking of on-site generation.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP [1/3]

Increased funding for the ECIP is key to DOD technological advancement on renewable
energy and efficiency
Wagner 6 (Mark, Federal Performance Contracting Coalition, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT DOD, CQ Congressional testimony,
September 26, 2006, Lexis)
The FPCC and our members are supporters of Research and Development (R&D) and we feel it should
continue as energy technologies and costs are constantly being improved and breakthrough technologies are
still being developed. The Department of Energy (DOE) has a relatively robust R&D activity for energy
efficiency technologies and renewable energy generation. It is appropriate to leave general energy R&D to
that Federal agency and concentrate DOD attention on applied research activities that have particular
applicability to DOD. These might include adapting technologies so they are compatible with military
fuels (JP8), integrating commercial technologies for specific defense deployment (such as distributed
generation for force forward applications and secure operations, back up power for installation
security and communications), and so forth. However, what is critical for the Department of Defense is
to deploy technology. In large part, technology exists today to cost effectively do most of what the Army
Corp Report has recommended and what is necessary to meet the energy reduction goals set by Congress in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Various DOD facilities have completed innovative energy upgrades in
recent years. For example: -- Elmendorf AFB, a 50-year old heating and power plant was replaced with a
new energy efficient distributed generation system. -- Picatinny Arsenal, again, distributed generation and
back up generation was installed to address energy and mission needs. -- Twentynine Palms Marine Corps
base, a dual-fueled cogeneration and photovoltaic plant was installed. -- Fort Bragg also now has new
combined heat and power for efficiency and security. -- Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, high tech windmills
are now providing power more cost effectively than the expensive grid power that was heretofore available.
(Attached are additional details on these projects.) Unfortunately, these successful projects are more the
exception than the rule. We need the will and the way to deploy efficiency and alternative energy
technologies and develop these types of projects at more military installations throughout the country
and the world. Only then will we significantly address our critical energy needs and reduce our energy
expenditures on military infrastructure. Funding Needs How do we replicate this? How do we
accomplish our goals of achieving energy efficiency, gaining on-site renewable energy sources and
maintaining energy security for military installations? How do we do this while upgrading our basic
infrastructure? Clearly investments must be made. But direct appropriations are, unfortunately, lacking.
The main energy efficiency program of the DOD, designed and created by the House Armed Services
Committee nearly 15 years ago is the Energy Conservation and Improvement Program (ECIP). This
program is designed exclusively to provide direct funding at Defense facilities to improve their energy
efficiency. It is the only real program of its kind left at DOD after the demise of the Federal Energy
Management Program in the mid-nineties (this program had been funded at approximately $200 million per
year and no longer exists). As for ECIP, the Office of Management and Budget recently gave the
program its highest Program Assessment Rating saying it has a 3:1 savings to investment ratio. This is
one of the best ratios in the Federal government; however, funding for ECIP is basically at the same
level it started at nearly 15 years ago -- $50 million/yr. The Department has asked for a $10 million
increase in ECIP for FY07 but to be honest, with a three to one return on investment, it should get a
$100 million increase. Even at this level, however, the ECIP program would barely scratch the surface
of what is needed at the Department of Defense in energy-related upgrades. By way of example, the
Navy is planning to execute $150- $200 million in energy projects next year but is receiving only about
$13 million in ECIP funds.

ECIP empirically solves
Grone`7 (Phillip, Deputy Under Secretary, Installations And Environment Department of Defense, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
IN ENERGY CONSERVATION, July 19 2007, Lexis)
DoD has achieved significant savings using the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP), with
projects saving on average at least $2.30 for every dollar spent. The demand for renewable energy technology
is keeping the implementation cost relatively high, resulting in that figure dropping over time. Regardless, a
savings to investment ratio greater than two to one is phenomenal within the Federal Government.
ECIP is a competitively bid program that invests in energy efficient upgrades for existing facilities. For
instance, in FY 2007 the Army is programmed to implement two wind generation projects totaling
nearly two megawatts of production at Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The
success of the ECIP program led DoD to increase investment, with $60 million requested for FY 2007,
and $70 million requested for FY 2008. The Department has also made wide use of Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs) which allows DoD to use industry funding to pay for equipment to
reduce life cycle costs of facilities and pay it back from the accrued savings. Since 1998, industry has
invested $1.7 billion across the federal government through ESPC with a net savings of $1.5 billion; 70
percent of the activity was in DoD. As an example, in November 2006, the Air Force entered into a solar
energy ESPC at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. Under this project, the Air Force installed a 375 kilowatt
photo voltaic system to power portions of the base.
ECIP saves two and a half dollars for every dollar the plan spends
Grone`7 (Phillip, Deputy Under Secretary, Installations And Environment Department of Defense, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
IN ENERGY CONSERVATION, July 19 2007, Lexis)
DoD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable energy and developing resources on
military installations. Renewable energy projects are consistently more expensive than similar
conventional energy sources, resulting in limited opportunities that are life cycle cost effective. The
Department has increased the use of Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funds for
renewable energy projects from $5 million in FY 2003 to $17 million planned in FY 2007, and to $24
million budgeted for FY2008 out of a $70 million ECIP request. ECIP projects have produced an
historical average savings of two and a half dollars for every dollar invested. The FY 2007 program for
ECIP also contains $2.6 million in hydrogen fuel cell projects. The Department exceeded the EPAct 2005
renewable energy goal of 2.5 percent in FY 2006. The Department’s total renewable energy purchases
and generation accounted for 9.5 percent of all electricity use. Also, while EPAct 2005 did not articulate a
specific water reduction goal, Executive Order 13423 does have a goal of a two percent water reduction per
year. The Department has reduced water usage by an impressive 29.6 percent from the FY 2003 baseline
year.

The Navy proves ECIP solves, but it is underutilized by the other branches
Committee Reports for the 108th Congress 5 “MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION BILL”
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp108aWmZt&refer=&r_n=sr309.108&db_id=108&item=&sel=TOC_65353&
The Committee recommends the full budget request of $60,000,000 for the Energy Conservation Investment
Program [ECIP]. The Committee maintains a strong interest in renewable energy resources, including
wind, solar, and geothermal, and commends the Services for the awards they have received for
renewable energy initiatives, including the Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy
Management. The Committee also commends the Navy for its geothermal energy program at China
Lake, California. According to the General Accounting Office, the program generates a revenue stream of, on
average, $14,700,000 a year, two-thirds of which the Navy invests in a variety of energy conservation and
renewable energy projects. However, the other Services do not have any similar renewable energy
revenue streams, and overall, renewable energy efforts to date represent a very small percentage of the
potential for increased renewable energy use at Department of Defense [DoD] installations. In fiscal
year 2002, the Committee provided $10,000,000 in ECIP funding to initiate an assessment of renewable
energy opportunities on or near U.S. Defense installations (Senate Report 107-68). In fiscal year 2004, the
Committee provided an additional $2,500,000 to enable the Air Force, which serves as lead agent for the
assessment, to complete the study by November 30, 2004. It is the understanding of the Committee that the
2004 funding has not yet been released, and that the study cannot be completed on time if the funding is not
forthcoming. The Committee is concerned that the delays have been caused by a lack of leadership and
cooperation between OSD and the Services. The Committee believes that renewable energy holds great
potential for helping DoD achieve energy efficiency targets and reduce energy costs. Moreover, in the face
of continued instability in the Middle East and rising threats to overseas oil production, renewable
energy resources have become an increasingly important component of energy security and reliability.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP-ESPC (1/2)
Using ECIP to fund ESPC solves DOD renewables and energy shift
Wagner`6 (Mark, Federal Performance Contracting Coalition, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT DOD, CQ Congressional testimony,
September 26, 2006, Lexis)
The ESPC program was specifically created by Congress to address the lack of appropriations for
energy efficiency upgrades. Under the program, private sector energy service companies finance, install,
and maintain new energy efficient equipment in federal facilities at no up-front cost to the government.
The energy service company is paid back over time from the dollars saved by the agency on its energy
and maintenance bills. The energy savings are contractually guaranteed to exceed cost of the contract and,
by law, the project costs are required to be fully off-set by the utility bill savings. If the energy savings do not
occur, the contractor does not get paid. In addition, the energy savings for each project are measured and
verified on a regular basis. The bottom-line is that energy use is guaranteed to be reduced, the military
base has new energy-efficient equipment, and it does not pay any more than it was paying for utilities
before the start of the project. The Department of Defense has been successfully using these alternative
financing mechanisms as their primary means to improve their energy infrastructure, reduce their
energy use per Presidential Directive, and reduce their energy costs. In fact, 70% of all Federal ESPCs
are within DOD facilities. The five successful energy programs mentioned earlier in this testimony were
all done with ESPC - that is, with no upfront funding from the government. These infrastructure
investments of these five projects alone are worth over $200 million. They were financed by private sector
capital and are being paid back with energy cost savings. The ESPC program has good support within the
Government as evidenced below: "These contracts provide agencies with important opportunities to improve
energy efficiency at thousands of Federal Buildings across our country. I encourage government officials to
utilize ESPCs to meet their energy reduction goals." President Bush, 8/3/06 "The Committee urges the
Department of Defense to utilize Energy Savings Performance Contracting whenever possible to upgrade
facilities and retain base operating funding." Senate Report on Defense Appropriations 7/25/06 (SR 109-292)
In summary ESPC pays for itself, provides energy efficiency and can offer renewable energy and energy
security. Unfortunately, like other energy efficiency programs, Federal agencies are not taking full
advantage of this program. The FPCC recommends that the Committee take steps to ensure more
widespread use of the ESPC option. Very few of these recommendations even require legislative
language - in fact, many of them can be implemented directly by the agencies with cover provided from
the Committee. -- Require agency energy reductions per the EPACT 2005 goals on every military base and
measure them. Currently, the DOD overall has a reduction goal; however, there is little ownership at the
individual facility level and there are no tangible compliance ramifications. Were energy reduction part of
facility personnel's evaluation criteria, a much larger effort to save the military energy and O&M
dollars would be evident. -- Make the fear of inaction greater than the fear of action by requiring
military installations to implement energy efficiency measures on a large scale. ESPC is a voluntary
program and to date, most installations have proceeded cautiously, and on a relatively small scale.
Installation leadership must be empowered to take bolder steps in order to have a substantial impact on
energy efficiency, security and renewable capabilities. Again, this might grow from the above
recommendation and/or providing incentives for energy projects. -- Work to make renewable energy
conservation measures affordable. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives double credit toward meeting
goals for implementing renewable projects. We should consider how to emphasize renewable projects
through the ESPC program, if achieving more on-site renewable energy is indeed a desirable outcome.
-- Take advantage of all the energy-related savings, including operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Although allowable by statute and regulation, many ESPC projects take longer to pay for themselves because
often the ESCOs are not allowed to use the full savings stream from reducing on site operations and
maintenance personnel and activities. -- Allow appropriated dollars to be used to leverage ESPC projects.
This would mean allowing Military Construction and ECIP funds to "buy down" certain portions of
an ESPC project in order to achieve maximum efficiency. This would substantially increase the
number of renewable projects under the program. -- Remove obstacles to the ESPC program. Although it
seems minor, micromanagement from Washington, DC, be it Congress or the Administration, has a very
obvious dampening effect on projects.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP-ESPC (2/2)

ESPC’s are cost effective and cause a 50% reduction in energy consumption
EPA 7 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, “Greening EPA” http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/energy/espc.htm)

The federal government spends billions of dollars on energy costs each year, and financing large-scale
projects can be prohibitively expensive for a federal agency. Congress authorized Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs) to encourage federal agencies to become more energy-efficient and to
reduce their energy costs. ESPCs enable agencies to improve energy efficiency—reducing energy use
and costs—through private investments. An ESPC is an agreement between a federal facility and an Energy Services
Company (ESCO). The ESCO designs a project to increase the energy efficiency at a facility. The ESCO then purchases and installs the
necessary equipment, such as new energy-efficient windows, automated controls, and updated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
equipment. In exchange for not having to pay for the equipment, the federal agency promises to pay the company a share of the savings
resulting from the energy efficiency improvements. The ESCO is responsible for maintaining the equipment, as well as measuring the
energy consumption and savings. EPA is pursuing ESPCs to finance the significant initial cost of
comprehensive energy upgrades. The Agency expects to achieve a greater than 50 percent reduction
from current energy consumption levels for each facility undergoing a comprehensive upgrade
financed through an ESPC.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Commercial (1/2)

The military has the best engineers. Only a change in the military can ensure the rise of a
renewable energy sector and the rebirth of technological dominance in the United States.
Rynn June 20 (2008, Foreign Policy in Focus, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html)

But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of
competitive competence. They dominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the
production of machinery for manufacturing industries in general (often referred to as the mechanical engineering
sector).
The European Union produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States,
according to data compiled by the EU, Japan produces almost as much as the US, with about half the population. The split among the
EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively.
A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert
climate catastrophe. Think of the industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the
plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a modern economic ecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology
that creates the goods and services that people consume.
The different niches of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a self-reinforcing web of
engineers, high-skill production workers, operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's manufacturing sector made up 32%
of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States comprised only 13% of its nonfinancial sectors. The
decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-again/off-again
nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the
United States in the transition to a more sustainable economy.
And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly
half of the world's military spending. For decades, as the late Professor Seymour Melman showed in many books (such as
After Capitalism) and in numerous articles, the Pentagon has been draining not just money but also the
engineering, scientific and business talent that Europe and Japan have been using for civilian
production. As Melman often pointed out, the US military budget is a capital fund, and American
citizens can use that fund to help finance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and
other green technologies that will help us to avoid economic and environmental collapse.
That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil,
coal and natural gas; and the decline of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both
problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and Japan are showing, by moving the economy
from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the
generation of renewable electricity.
Only the Army solves for pilot programs

The 20th Century will be known as the age of cheap oil, but it is beginning to dawn on many that the 21st
Century will not see the same easy access to low-cost oil that fueled the unprecedented technological
advances of 20th Century will be known as the age of cheap oil, but it is beginning to dawn on many that
the 21st Century will not see the same easy access to low-cost oil that fueled the unprecedented
technological advances of the last century. We are either at or very near the era when the demand for oil
will outstrip the ability of the earth to supply the needs of the global society.iv As Kenneth Deffeyes, a
geologist and observer of the oil industry over the past several decades has noted, “For the first time since the
industrial revolution, the geological supply of an essential resource will not meet the demand.”
The nation and the global community need a unique organization to show the way to transform the
energy infrastructure and resolve the countless challenges that will end our addiction to oil. The U.S.
Army is that unique institution with all the advantages of disciplined organizational leadership and
technical knowledge to pilot this essential energy transformation
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Commercial (2/2)

Empirically, DOD innovations spillover to commercial applications
Armed Forces Journal “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
Given the rhetoric about energy security today, the
energy research budget of the U.S. government is still modest, about
$3.5 billion annually compared with $8.8 billion for missile-defense research in fiscal 2009. And by any normalized
metric, by gross domestic product or per capita, the U.S. spends less on energy research than either Japan or the European Union. The
the
administration’s continued expansion of the budget for the Office of Science Research at the Energy Department should be applauded, yet
defense research agencies should see a similar first-tier priority of investment, specifically targeted at energy
innovation for the supply and demand sides of the energy consumption equation. Additionally, the Pentagon must
streamline programs that offer grants to private innovators for the development of demonstration prototypes.
The barriers to entry for small and enterprising energy-related scientists need to be reduced. Not only is it in the financial and
tactical interest of the U.S. to shift the military away from a majority reliance on oil, it is now in the greater
strategic interest of the country that the military’s extensive technological research enterprises focus on the
development of alternatives. Our instruments of national power that safeguard the flow of energy resources
should not themselves be powered by those same resources. The strategic risk of doing so is now rising with
the fiscal expense. And as with other enterprises and initiatives, the military’s investment in energy
innovation will result in more than military hardware advances — such innovation will accelerate invaluable
development and commercialization by the private sector. Given the current political environmental consensus growing with regard to
climate change, viable replacements for transportation power will require the dual C’s: low cost and low carbon.
The military has traditionally catalyzed innovation

“Armed Forces Journal” “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
None of this has gone unnoticed by the Pentagon. In 2006, before the prodding by Congress, the Defense Department sponsored several
symposiums to look at reducing the dependence. The Energy Conversation, a nonprofit consortium of private and public sector entities, was born
out of close collaboration with the Pentagon to connect the “best ideas, innovations, resources and people — all of which will be needed to create
a sustainable energy future.” Attempting to lead from the front, the Pentagon has begun to reduce its consumption of oil, now down to about
300,000 barrels a day. The bad news is that costs are clearly skyrocketing. At current prices, the Pentagon will spend more than $8 billion this
year on oil. But cost savings and incremental reductions in military consumption are not the real opportunity here. Rather, a renewed and
expanded investment in military energy research and development will catalyze methods and improvements that would become diffused
throughout industry. This pattern has played out many times before. There have been many tangible benefits to society from a
long history of technological exploration and innovation by the military. Now taken for granted for their civilian uses,
radar, microwaves, the Internet and GPS were initially sponsored and funded by military research. Most relevant here, military
requirements have also been key drivers of energy innovation. Perhaps the most significant and widely
underreported example of military requirements forcing energy innovation was the Navy’s pioneering
research in the use of nuclear power before the advent of the Manhattan Project. In 1937, Rear Adm.
Stanford Hooper, as director of the Navy’s Technical Division, explored the concept of nuclear energy at
Johns Hopkins University’s physics department, ultimately resulting in a Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)
meeting with physicist Enrico Fermi in 1939 and the launching of the Navy’s nuclear energy research, not to
build a bomb, but to power a submarine. The NRL made considerable progress in the key challenge of
uranium isotope separation, and the Navy’s methods were ultimately adopted by the Manhattan Project. After
World War II, Capt. Hyman Rickover, a Navy electrical engineer, realized the importance of uranium to harness the atom to drive submarines, culminating in the first
nuclear-powered vehicle, the Nautilus, launched in 1955. Today, retired Navy nuclear power officers now operate a good majority of the 103 operating nuclear power
plants in the U.S.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Microgrids

Microgrids in the military spill over to the civilian sector.
Surety microgrids concepts are currently being developed for military application because the threat to
their infrastructure is clearly perceived and there is a commitment to develop some protective
measures. Ultimately, the surety microgrid concept may be applied to civilian applications.
In many ways military bases and civilian communities are similar. They are both contained within limited
areas and contain people who both live and work in those areas. They both contain similar functions
including residential, commercial, educational, and industrial activities. From this view, it is easy to
conceive how the surety microgrid concept can be migrated from the military to the civilian sector.
Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Procurement Good

R&D subsidies improve investment and growth – studies prove
Zeng and Zhang 7 [Jinli and Jie, National Unviersity of Singapore and Ntional University of Singapore/University of Queensland,
Subsidies in an R&D growth modle with eladstic labor, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 861-886, March
2007]
In order to internalize the R&D externality and correct the distortion of the monopoly pricing, various types
of subsidies have been examined in the literature with lump-sum taxes and fixed labor supply. As expected, the
R&D subsidy can indeed promote R&D investment and growth (e.g., Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1995; Davidson
and Segerstrom, 1998). Much less obvious is that the R&D subsidy is dominated by other types of subsidies in terms
of social welfare (Barro and Salai- Martin, 1995): Subsidizing either final output produced by competitive firms or
the purchase of intermediate goods produced by monopolistic firms can achieve the social optimum, but subsidizing
R&D, though also welfare improving, cannot. This is somewhat surprising as the actual government policy has
tended to rely on R&D subsidies, e.g. the United States has long had an R&D subsidy in place. One reason
seems to be that the R&D subsidy is an “inexpensive” tool in terms of lost revenue, which can only be made
up with distortionary taxes, since lump-sum taxes assumed in the related studies mentioned above are hard to
implement.
R&D subsidies are more cost-effective
2007]
Our different approach brings to light several new insights. First, subsidizing R&D investment is more effective
than subsidizing final output or subsidizing the purchase of intermediate goods in terms of promoting growth.
This is because the former directly reduces the cost of R&D investment at a lower tax cost compared to the
latter forms of subsidies. The lower tax revenue for the R&D subsidy to achieve any given growth target than
other subsidies does give the R&D subsidy an advantage when the tax has to be distortionary.3 Second, in
terms of raising welfare, the R&D subsidy may also be more effective than the other subsidies and all of them are
dominated by their mix, but none can achieve the social optimum, because of the relative strength and weakness
associated with the different types of subsidies. As mentioned above, the R&D subsidy tends to be more effective in
engendering dynamic gains at a lower tax cost than the other types of subsidies, in a direction of mitigating the
under-investment caused by the R&D externality. As in the literature, however, the R&D subsidy is less effective
than the other subsidies in reducing the efficiency loss associated with monopoly pricing.
R&D subsidies directly lowers the cost of investment thus increasing growth
2007]
Overall, the two types of subsidies affect R&D incentives quite differently. The R&D subsidy directly lowers the
cost of R&D investment, while the production subsidy indirectly raises the marginal benefit of R&D
investment by strengthening the demand for intermediate goods. It turns out that the more directly a subsidy
affects R&D incentives, the more effectively it promotes growth. In fact, as shown in Table 2, the R&D subsidy
may generate excess growth compared to the growth rate in the social planner’s solution (derived in Section 3),
while the production subsidy always produces a lower growth rate than the socially optimal growth rate.
Government subsidies increase the pace of technological change
Davidson and Segerstrom 98 [Carl and Paul, Michigan State University, R&D subsidies and economic growth, RAND Journal
of Economics Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 548-577, Autumn 1998]
It is now widely recognized that technological change is a major factor contributing to economic growth and
that governments can influence the pace of technological change. Many endogenous-growth models have been
developed in which the research and development (R&D) decisions of profit-maximizing firms determine the rate of
technological change in the economy. One of the main conclusions to emerge from this literature is that
governments promote economic growth by subsidizing R&D expenditures.
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Solar Power Bad DA – N-UQ

Military solar power use is up
First, I want to talk about solar technology. It has great potential for both a garrison and field
environment. It is secure and reliable. It is also flexible to a wide range of loads. You can use solar
batteries in your watch. At the same time, there is a 15 megawatt solar system being designed at Nellis Air
Force Base on a 120 acre site near Las Vegas, Nevada. Solar systems are environmentally sustainable.
There is no waste. You can connect with a grid. You can actually use solar panels in a place like Yuma
Proving Ground, Arizona, where you may be 100 miles from a source of energy and be self-sustainable. If
you hook them up to a wind unit, which works better at night, you can work the lights at all times. Anywhere
in the United States can benefit from solar power, even typically cloudy, rainy environments such as Ft.
Lewis. For example, Germany has more solar panels than the United States, and their latitude is about even
with Canada, so they get less sun intensity. Therefore, there is no real reason for us not to be able to do
more. This technology is being used by the Army. At Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, 5,000 homes will be
powered by the sun. Instead of using the expensive crystalline solar panels, they will use the less efficient,
but cheaper amorphous kind. They are going to roll these solar panels down the roofs. And they are going to
generate about six megawatts of solar energy. Solar power is also being used in the field. A portable 308
container sized unit, which has a little wind turbo, is on display up in Arlington, Virginia. It can be
taken to the field to provide power to a small headquarters. The Army also has solar panels on tents,
portable solar rucksacks that can be opened and laid flat to collect solar energy, and hand-portable battery
chargers. These are really effective. The New Jersey National Guard is already using a 10 KW system on a
roof. Therefore, the Army is making some good use of solar power.
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Wind Power DA

Obstruction is not a problem: The DOD has procedures to deal with it.
DOD 6 (“The Effect of Wind Farms on Military Readiness”, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf)

Effective management procedures already are in place to deal with questions that may arise from
potential obstruction of airspace due to the proposed construction of wind turbines. As a general rule,
specific Department installations are assigned management responsibilities for a section of airspace. If a
proposed wind turbine is to extend more than 199 ft above local elevation, a notification of proposed
construction should come through the FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation / Airport, Airspace, Analysis (OE/AAA)
process. The FAA will notify the managers of any affected military flying routes. The affected Services
evaluate the proposal for any possible detrimental impacts to operations.
Wind turbines only affect ATC radars and not SSR systems.

In point of fact, those other radars with line of sight to large wind farms are generally ATC radars. Two
other surveillance radars employed to monitor objects in space. ATC radars can rely on primary radar
returns and SSR (beacon) returns to ensure safe airspace operations. As Figure 29 and the UK flight
trials demonstrates, the presence of a wind farm does not appear to significantly affect the performance of
SSR systems. This is not surprising since SSR systems are actually two-way communications systems
between the “tracking radar” and the aircraft. As described earlier, the SSR unit sends out an
“interrogation” pulse to the aircraft. The aircraft transponder then replies with its own independent signal to
the SSR. Note that even the UK flight trials relied on SSR returns to document actual aircraft positions
during the tests.
The DOD has obtained proprietary information for at least one U.S. ATC radar that provides
documentary evidence significant loss of primary radar tracking capability for aircraft flying over that
wind farm. Unfortunately, due to the proprietary nature of that data, the Department is legally prohibited
from publicly sharing that information.
No reason why past strategies for wind turbine development would not solve now.

The Department has developed and employed, for many years, strategies and mitigation techniques to
effectively address those possible impacts. To date, the Department has not identified any specific
information that would lead to the conclusion that those methods would not be similarly effective for
addressing potential impacts from proposed wind farm developments as they relate specifically to the subject
of Other Potential Impacts on DOD Readiness.
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Installations Key

Installations are critical to readiness
Dubois 3 [Raymond, deputy under Secretary of Defense, Before the subcommittee on Readiness House Armed Service Committee United
States House of Representatives, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_hr/03-03-18dubois.htm, March 18, 2003]
Military installations and facilities are an integral component of readiness. Installations are the
“platforms” from which our forces successfully deploy to execute their diverse missions. Over many
years, these “platforms” have deteriorated. For instance, each year the Major Commands of the Military
Services rate the readiness of their facilities by category. In the 2001 Installations’ Readiness Report (IRR),
the Component Commanders – the force providers – collectively rated 68 percent of facilities categories C-3
(have serious deficiencies) or C-4 (do not support mission requirements), a slight improvement from the 69
percent rate in 2000. The 2002 IRR is roughly the same as 2001. Investments made since fiscal year 2002
will take several years before the affects are apparent. We are in the process of reversing the decay, but
much remains to be done. From fiscal years 2002 to 2004, we will have put over $28 billion in the
sustainment and revitalization of our facilities, and we are beginning to see the results.
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Solvency

Renewable energy can enhance readiness and decrease costs within the US military.
DOD 5 (“DOD Renewable Energy Assessment: Final Report”, http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/irm/Energy/renew_energy/renewable.shtml)

Executive Order (E.O.) 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management, allows credits for renewable energy
activity toward Federal agency conservation goals. The Administration’s national energy plan, Reliable, Affordable, and
Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future, encourages development of renewable resources on Federal land. A finding of this
report is that renewable energy, in some cases, can also serve and sometimes enhance the military mission.
These contributions, while understood by military engineering personnel, are largely unknown to potential users in the larger military
population.
Renewable energy can make a valuable contribution to flexible, reliable, and secure electricity supplies
for military installations in specific locations. These findings are described in the “Renewables and Security” section of
this report. Some renewable electricity contracts may also provide a hedge against rising electricity costs;
these opportunities and the test case to lay an implementation path forward are described more fully in the “Purchasing Strategy” section
of the DoD Renewable Assessment Implementation Plan. DoD has identified installations where renewable energy generation may be
developed onsite, economically and consistent with the mission. Some renewable products and services may also help
reduce the logistical requirements on military installations and ranges. These opportunities are described in the
“On-Installation Resource Development” section of this report.
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – AE Deters

Alternative energy efficiency deters conflict
Lovins 2 (Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, 7/19,
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S02-08_MilTransNtlSec.pdf)
Another critical tool for preventing conflict is advanced resource productivity—getting lots more work
out of each unit of energy materials, water, topsoil, and so on. As Paul Hawken, Hunter Lovins, and I
describe in our book Natural Capitalism (see Access, page XX), advanced resource productivity can
actually prevent conflict in four ways. First, it can make aspirations to a decent life realistic and
attainable, for all, for ever. It takes a while, but it’s definitely going in the right direction. It removes
apparent conflicts between economic advancement and environmental sustainability. You can
implement it by any mixture of market and administrative practices you want. It scales fractally from the
household to the world. It’s adaptable to very diverse conditions and cultures. Second, resource
productivity avoids resource conflicts over things like oil and water. As a result, military professionals
can have negamissions. Military intervention in the Gulf becomes Mission Unnecessary because the oil will
become irrelevant. Just moving to Hypercars® will ultimately save as much oil in the world as OPEC now
sells.2 Third, resource productivity can make infrastructure invulnerable by design. That’s the argument
set out in our Pentagon study from twenty years ago, Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security
(now reposted at www.rmi.org). And finally, an argument that’s a little more complex: resource
productivity can unmask and penalize proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. With the late Lenny
Ross, we made that argument in detail with respect to nuclear proliferation in Foreign Affairs in Summer
1980, in an article entitled “Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs.” It’s enlarged in a book, now out of print,
called Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link.
The basic argument is that if we use energy in a way that saves money, that is enormously cheaper than
building or even just running nuclear plants, so any country that takes economics seriously won’t want
or have nuclear plants. They’re simply a way to waste money (see Access, page XX). In such a world, the
ingredients—the technologies, materials, skills, and equipment—needed to make bombs by any of the
twenty or so known methods would no longer be an item of commerce. They wouldn’t be impossible to
get, but they’d be a lot harder to get, more conspicuous to try to get, and more politically costly for both the
recipient and the supplier to be caught trying to get, because for the first time, the reason for wanting them
would be unambiguously military. You could no longer claim a peaceful electricity-making venture. It would
be clear that you were really out to make bombs. The burden would be on you to show that that’s not
what you had in mind—to do something so economically irrational.
Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Heat Signatures

( ) The military needs renewable energy. The hot “thermal signature” of a diesel generator
can cause enemy attention to outposts, destroying military readiness.
Clayton 6 (Mark, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, September 7, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.html)
Calling for more energy in the middle of oil-rich Iraq might sound odd to some. But not to Marine Corps Maj.
Gen. Richard Zilmer, whose deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for "a self-sustainable
energy solution" including "solar panels and wind turbines." The memo may be the first time a frontline
commander has called for renewable-energy backup in battle. Indeed, it underscores the urgency: Without
renewable power, US forces "will remain unnecessarily exposed" and will "continue to accrue preventable ...
serious and grave casualties," the memo says. Apparently, the brass is heeding that call. The US Army's Rapid
Equipping Force (REF), which speeds frontline requests, is "expected soon" to begin welcoming proposals from
companies to build and ship to Iraq 183 frontline renewable-energy power stations, an REF spokesman confirms.
The stations would use a mix of solar and wind power to augment diesel generators at US outposts, the
spokesman says. Despite desert temperatures, the hot "thermal signature" of a diesel generator can call enemy
attention to US outposts, experts say. With convoys still vulnerable to ambush, the fewer missions needed to
resupply outposts with JP-8 fuel to run power generators - among the Army's biggest fuel guzzlers - the
better, the memo says. "By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the
frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors,"
reads the unclassified memo posted on the website InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month.
Use of renewable energy, such as solar power, is not new to the US military, one of the largest consumers of renewable energy, especially at off-
grid outposts in North America. Four 275-foot-tall wind turbines were unveiled last year at the Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba,
meeting about a quarter of the base's electrical needs and saving hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel. Still, Major General Zilmer's request
highlights what appears to be a small but growing focus on adding renewable sources of energy to the fuel mix for combat operations as part of
Department of Defense planning. Special operations forces concluded that using foldout solar panels to recharge
batteries was better than carrying more disposable batteries into combat, a 2004 study for the Army found. Last
year, Konarka Technologies Inc. in Lowell, Mass., received a $1.6 million Army contract to supply flexible printed
solar panels to reduce the number of batteries soldiers carry.
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – AE Solves

Oil constraints undermine US effectiveness in Iraq – Alternative energy solves
Army Times 9/6 (http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-2057410.php)

Maybe it was concern over global warming. Or maybe it simply makes good sense. Either way, a proposal
from Iraq for wind- and solar-powered energy units would turn a U.S. military command in Iraq a deep shade
of green. U.S. commanders with Multi-National Force-West have made the unusual request to help
power forward operating bases and other outposts. MNF-W, which covers restive Anbar province, has
given the request for nearly 200 renewable energy systems priority one status. The system fits in the back of
a small pickup and can be tailored to provide energy for a variety of specific needs, according to the
request, dated July 25. The volatile security situation on the ground in Iraq underscores the need for
renewable power sources such as solar-powered outposts, which reduce the number of convoys that
must carry diesel or other fuel to run generators. And in a nation whose citizens get an average of 11
hours of power per day, leveraging the free energy of the earth makes sense. More than ever, our operating
forces rely on electrical power to support critical command and control functions; intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance assets, according to the request, which said that renewable and self-sustainable energy to
support forward operating bases, combat outposts and observation posts would improve the security posture
throughout [the] battle space. And anyone who has been to Iraq knows there is plenty of sun and,
occasionally, wind. By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the
frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to troops, the request said. The
solar units cost about $100,000 each, much more than an $8,000 diesel generator, but officials contend that
the extra cost is recouped after three or four years of use. The units would go to regimental and brigade
combat teams and to border transition areas if the proposal is approved, according to the document. Pentagon
and U.S. Central Command officials both said they were unfamiliar with the request. But a defense official
confirmed the request had reached Multi-National Corps-Iraq headquarters in Baghdad. No one there was
available to research the request Aug. 23. The document cites an Arlington, Va.-based company as an
example of the kind of units it would like to have in Iraq. A spokesman for the company, SkyBuilt Power,
declined to comment because any such proposal from the military is proprietary information. But Dave
Muchow, CEO and president of SkyBuilt, said his units are a perfect fit for a place like Iraq. Solar panels can
be snapped on the top and the sides of the 10- to 40-foot-long units, and a small wind turbine attaches at one
end. Batteries are kept inside the units, which also offer a modicum of storage space. SkyBuilts director
of strategic business relations is retired Air Force Lt. Gen. John Fairfield, who served as deputy chief of
staff for command, control, communications and computers in the mid-1990s, followed by two years as
deputy chief of staff for communications and public relations. He retired in 1997. Trimming the tail In sparse
environments such as Iraq, the military must spend time and money to refuel diesel-based systems,
including generators, which means sending trucks, drivers and guards into harms way, where roadside
bombs and other dangers lurk. All of that creates a long logistics tail which runs counter to the recent
push toward toward lean, expeditionary forces. Its a very long tail, Muchow said Aug. 23. One of the
things we offer is a way to eliminate much of the tail. At the same time, there is no reason not to be kind to
Mother Earth as well, he said. When you look at some of the big problems a couple of years ago, it was, how
do we have a green planet and sensible, reliable energy? he said. Using renewable energy as a growing
part of the solution, that makes a lot of sense. This solution may not be what tactically motivated MNF-
W commanders had in mind when they made the request. But from the urgency of their tone, they are
probably open to anything that will reduce the risk to U.S. troops from a lively insurgency. If this need
is not met, operating forces will remain unnecessarily exposed to IEDs [improvised explosive devices],
rocket-propelled grenades and SAF [security assistance forces] threats that will continue to accrue
preventable injuries, the request stated. Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to
continue at their current rate.
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Links (1/2)

Fuel support prevents victory in Iraq – Convoy attacks, inefficiency, and long supply
chains cause casualties that prevent success
USA Today 6 (9-7)

Calling for more energy in the middle of oil-rich Iraq might sound odd to some. But not to Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, whose
deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for "a self-sustainable energy solution" including "solar panels and wind turbines."
The memo may be the first time a frontline commander has called for renewable-energy backup in battle. Indeed, it underscores the urgency:
Without renewable power, U.S. forces "will remain unnecessarily exposed" and will "continue to accrue
preventable ... serious and grave casualties," the memo says. Apparently, the brass is heeding that call. The U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force
(REF), which speeds frontline requests, is "expected soon" to begin welcoming proposals from companies to build and ship to Iraq 183 frontline renewable-energy
power stations, an REF spokesman confirms. The stations would use a mix of solar and wind power to augment diesel generators at U.S. outposts, the spokesman
says. Despite desert temperatures, the
hot "thermal signature" of a diesel generator can call enemy attention to U.S.
outposts, experts say. With convoys still vulnerable to ambush, the fewer missions needed to resupply outposts with JP-8
fuel to run power generators — among the Army's biggest fuel guzzlers — the better, the memo says. "By
reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on
the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors," reads the unclassified memo posted on the website
InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month. Use of renewable energy, such as solar power, is not new to the U.S.
military, one of the largest consumers of renewable energy, especially at off-grid outposts in North America. Four 275-foot-tall wind turbines were unveiled last year
at the Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, meeting about a quarter of the base's electrical needs and saving hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel. Still,
Major General Zilmer's request highlights what appears to be a small but growing focus on adding renewable sources of energy to the fuel mix for combat operations
as part of Department of Defense planning. Special
operations forces concluded that using foldout solar panels to recharge
batteries was better than carrying more disposable batteries into combat, a 2004 study for the Army found. Last year, Konarka
Technologies Inc. in Lowell, Mass., received a $1.6 million Army contract to supply flexible printed solar panels to reduce the number of batteries soldiers carry. A
bigger picture of the need for renewables was sketched out in a key 2004 Pentagon study titled "Winning the Oil Endgame," by the Rocky Mountain Institute, an
energy think tank in Snowmass, Colo. It found a number of areas where efficiency would boost combat effectiveness, including: • More than 50% of fuel used by the
Army on the battlefield is consumed by combat support units, not frontline troops. • Until recently, the Army spent about $200 million a
year annually on fuel, but paid $3.2 billion each year on 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve personnel to
transport it. That was before $70-per-barrel oil. This spring, the Defense Energy Support Center reported the U.S. military used about 128 million barrels of
fuel last year, costing about $8 billion, compared with about 145 million barrels in 2004 that cost $7 billion. "At the tip of the spear is where the
need to avoid the cost of fuel logistics is most acute," says Amory Lovins, cofounder of the Rocky Mountain
Institute, who led the 2004 study. "If you don't need divisions of people hauling fuel, you can realign your force
structure to be more effective as well as less vulnerable." Zilmer's call for renewable power is also buttressed by
Pentagon studies from June 2005 dating back to the 1990s that show the costs and advantages of solar-panel
systems in place of or as supplements to diesel generators burning JP-8, the standard battlefield fuel.
Still, such lessons are learned slowly, says Hugh Jones, a former analyst with the Center for Army Analysis, now a consultant on energy issues to the U.S. Army.
Analyzing feedback from the frontlines after Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait 1990, he produced a raft of studies on uses for solar power in combat. But during the
1990s when fuel was cheap, he found little interest in the idea. "There aren't a lot of people who have expertise in this area of renewable power in combat operations,"
Mr. Jones says. "There are a lot of people in the service who smell like diesel fuel, but not many who have been in the field using solar power and hybrid-optimized
solutions." Even so, he's noticed "there's much more interest today." The high cost of fuel, and troop casualties in the Iraq war, may be changing that traditional
outlook. One guy who thinks he can solve the general's problem is Dave Muchow, president of SkyBuilt Power in Arlington, Va. Aided by funding from In-Q-Tel, a
venture-capital firm for the Central Intelligence Agency — SkyBuilt makes a hybrid solar-panel and wind-generator power system that fits in a standard shipping
container. It can be dropped onto a mountaintop or into the desert. Its solar panels and wind turbine deploy in minutes. And where there's
water, a "micro-hydro" unit can be dropped into a stream for an added boost. Such 007-style systems are not cheap. Today, SkyBuilt's "mobile power system" can cost
up to $100,000, compared with just $10,000 for a 10-kilowatt diesel generator. But costs of such hybrid packages begin to look more reasonable when the cost is
considered of delivering a gallon of fuel to a generator gulping it 24/7. The true cost of fuel delivered to the battlefield — well prior to the recent oil price hike — was
$13 to $300 a gallon, depending on its delivery location, a Defense Science Board report in May 2001 estimated. An analysis in Zilmer's memo puts the "true cost" for
fuel for a 10-kilowatt diesel generator at $36,000 a year — about four times the amount needed to purchase the fuel itself initially. The rest of the cost is due mainly to
transportation. On that basis, a SkyBuilt system could cut costs by 75% and pay for itself for three to five years, the memo estimates. But another cost is time. Even
though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to be made public, the REF spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo,
however, warns that without
renewable power to replace fuel, victory could be forfeited. "Without this solution,
personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate," the memo says. "Continued casualty
accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Links (2/2)

Oil dependence creates vulnerabilities that undermine effectiveness in Iraq – RE solves
Bishnoi 6 (Rati, reporter, Aug 11, http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,109512,00.html)

The top U.S. military commander in western Iraq is requesting shipments of renewable energy systems
in an attempt to reduce the time fuel convoys spend on roads where they are susceptible to attack from
insurgents using roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. “To improve the security posture of
the al-Anbar province of Iraq, [Multi-National Force-West] requires a renewable and self-sustainable
energy solution to support forward operating bases, combat outposts and observation posts throughout
MNF-W's battlespace,” a Joint Staff Rapid Validation and Resourcing Request certified by MNF-W leaders
states. Inside the Pentagon obtained a copy of the document. Command officials certified the request on July
25 on behalf of Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the MNF-W chief. The request is categorized as a
“priority 1” need. In the document, the region's U.S. military leaders call on the Pentagon to send more
renewable energy systems to the country because they could leverage resources like sunlight or wind to
produce power for bases and outposts. Commanders assert that tapping renewable energy sources would
lessen dependence on fossil fuels -- a move that could save lives. “A proposed alternate solution -- one that
reduces the number of convoys while providing an additional capability to outlying bases -- is to augment our
use of fossil fuels with renewable energy, such as photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines, at our outlying
bases,” the request states. “By reducing the need for [petroleum-based fuels] at our outlying bases, we
can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our
Marines, soldiers, and sailors.” Forwarding the document is a first step of the "joint urgent operational
needs" process, a system designed to vet warfighting requirements that “must be quickly addressed in order
to prevent combat-related loss of life and/or mission failure,” according to a July 2005 Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff instruction. The MNF-W request has not yet reached the Joint Staff, a spokesman for the latter
group said Aug. 8. The logistics convoys moving in and out of the western region of Iraq primarily carry
“subsistence” supplies, ammunition, and a “preponderance” of petroleum, the document states. “Current
solutions -- such as providing additional security to our logistics convoys and conducting convoy
operations during the hours of darkness -- are inadequate, as they do not reduce the number of
convoys on the road,” the request adds. The need to deliver fuel to help generate electrical power at U.S.
bases and installations in Iraq is unnecessarily putting troops in “harm's way each time we send out a
convoy,” the document states. “If this need is not met, operating forces will remain unnecessarily exposed to
IED, RPG, and [small arms fire] threats and will continue to accrue preventable Level III and IV serious and
grave casualties resulting from motor vehicle accidents and . . . attacks,” the request states. “Continued
casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success.” IED is shorthand for improvised
explosive device. Further, the time and effort spent on moving fuel diverts "our focus of effort from
developing the Iraqi Security Force," the request states. “As we transfer control to the Iraqis, the
addition of renewable and self-sustainable energy at the outlying bases will enable the Iraqis to operate
independently, lessening the need for coalition forces to provide future logistics support,” it states.
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Impacts (1/3)

Iraqi collapse would cause international terrorism, humanitarian crises, civil wars, and
regional/political instability
Byman and Pollack 7 (Daniel L. Byman, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research,
Saban Center for Middle East Policy “Keeping the Lid On Iraq's Civil War” http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2007/05iraq_byman.aspx)
The collapse of Iraq into all-out civil war would mean more than just a humanitarian tragedy that could
easily claim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and produce millions of refugees. Such a conflict is unlikely
to contain itself. In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism, created
refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood, radicalized the populations of surrounding states
and even sparked civil wars in other, neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war.
Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war, as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. However, civil wars just
as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Salafist Group for
Preaching and Combat of Algeria, and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. Many such groups start by
focusing on local targets but then shift to international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding
their enemies in the civil war. This process is already underway in Iraq; the 2005 hotel bombings in Amman,
Jordan were organized from Iraqi territory. Iraq-based groups are also inspiring others to emulate their targets
and tactics. As they regularly do in Iraq, jihadist terrorists have tried to strike Saudi Arabia's oil
infrastructure, a switch from the jihadists' past avoidance of oil targets. Moreover, their Improvised
Explosive Device technologies are showing up in Afghanistan.1 Suicide bombing, heretofore largely unknown in
Afghanistan, is also now a regular occurrence, with the Iraq struggle providing a model to jihadists in Al-
Qaeda's former home. In turn, an ongoing civil war can contribute to the radicalization of populations in
neighboring countries. Already, the war has heightened Shi'a-Sunni tension throughout the Middle East. In
March 2006, after Sunni jihadists bombed the Shi'i Askariya Shrine in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra, over
100,000 Bahraini Shi'a took to the streets in anger. Bahraini Shi'a are simultaneously horrified at the suffering of
their co-religionists in Iraq and emboldened by their political successes. As one Bahraini Shi'a politician noted,
"Whenever things in Iraq go haywire, it reflects here."2 And as Iraq descends into further violence, the
numbers of refugees will likely increase exponentially. Iraq has already generated roughly two million refugees
with another one million internally displaced. These represent large groupings of embittered people who can
serve as a ready recruiting pool for armed groups still waging the civil war. And as the wars in Africa's Great
Lakes region show, foreign countries where refugees find shelter can become caught up in the civil war. At
times, the refugees simply bring the war with them: The fighters mingle with non-combatant refugees and
launch attacks back in their home countries, while those who drove them out continue the fight against the
refugees in their new bases. Neighboring governments may try to defend refugees on their soil from attacks
by their enemies or at times exploit the refugees as a proxy for the governments' own ambitions. Moreover,
large refugee flows can overstrain the economies and even change the demographic balances of small or weak
neighboring states, upsetting what is often a delicate political balance. Then there is the "demonstration
effect" caused when a civil war involves one group seeking separation or independence as the solution to its
problems. Sometimes, other groups in similar circumstances (either in the state in civil war or in neighboring
countries) follow suit if the first group appears to have achieved some degree of success. Thus Slovenia's
secession from Yugoslavia started the first of those civil wars, but it also provoked Croatia to declare its
independence, which forced Bosnia to follow suit-and in both of the latter cases Serb enclaves within both countries
sought to secede from the seceding state and join with Serbia.

Failure in Iraq causes quick genocide
Gerecht 7 (Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at AEI. An expert in Middle East affairs, he has focused since 9/11 on Iran,
Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as on terrorism and intelligence, The Consequences of Failure in Iraq, They Would Be Awful. But
Failure Can Still Be Averted., January 8, 2007)
Certainly the most damning consequence of failure in Iraq is the likelihood that an American
withdrawal would provoke a take-no-prisoners civil war between the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, which
could easily reach genocidal intensity. The historical parallel to have in mind is the battle between
subcontinent Hindus and Muslims that came with the independence of India. Although of differing
faiths, the pre-1947 Hindus and Muslims were often indistinguishable culturally, linguistically, and
physically. Yet they "ethnically cleansed" their respective new nations, India and Pakistan, with
exuberance. Somewhere between 500,000 and one million Muslims and Hindus perished, tens of thousands
of women were raped, and more than ten million people were forced to flee their homes. This level of
barbarism, scaled down to Iraq's population, could quickly happen in Mesopotamia, long before American
forces could withdraw from the country. (And it's worth recalling that few British officials anticipated the
communal ferocity that came with the end of the Raj.)

Iraq withdrawal sets off tons of scenarios of Middle Eastern instability
If we leave Iraq any time soon, the battle for Baghdad will probably lead to a conflagration that
consumes all of Arab Iraq, and quite possibly Kurdistan, too. Once the Shia become both badly bloodied
and victorious, raw nationalist and religious passions will grow. A horrific fight with the Sunni Arabs
will inevitably draw in support from the ferociously anti-Shiite Sunni religious establishments in
Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and on the Shiite side from Iran. It will probably destroy most of central Iraq
and whet the appetite of Shiite Arab warlords, who will by then dominate their community, for a conflict with
the Kurds. If the Americans stabilize Arab Iraq, which means occupying the Sunni triangle, this won't
happen. A strong, aggressive American military presence in Iraq can probably halt the radicalization of the
Shiite community. Imagine an Iraq modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard
Corps. The worst elements in the Iranian regime are heavily concentrated in the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence, the two organizations most active inside Iraq. The Lebanese
Hezbollah is also present giving tutorials. These forces need increasing strife to prosper. Imagine Iraqi
Shiites, battle-hardened in a vicious war with Iraq's Arab Sunnis, spiritually and operationally linking
up with a revitalized and aggressive clerical dictatorship in Iran. Imagine the Iraqi Sunni Islamic
militants, driven from Iraq, joining up with groups like al Qaeda, living to die killing Americans.
Imagine the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunni
Arab refugees. The Hashemites have been lucky and clever since World War II. They've escaped extinction
several times. Does anyone want to take bets that the monarchy can survive the implantation of an army of
militant, angry Iraqi Sunni Arabs? For those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the
epicenter of the Middle East, the mass migration of Iraq's Sunni Arabs into Jordan will bury what small
chances remain that the Israelis and Palestinians will find an accommodation. With Jordan in trouble,
overflowing with viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli Iraqis, peaceful Palestinian evolution on the
West Bank of the Jordan river is about as likely as the discovery of the Holy Grail. The repercussions
throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to
digest. Sunni Arabs in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite
triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own
nukes. What little chance remains for the Americans and the Europeans to corral peacefully the
clerical regime's nuclear-weapons aspirations will end with a Shiite-Sunni death struggle in
Mesopotamia, which the Shia will inevitably win. The Israelis, who are increasingly likely to strike
preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency, will feel even more
threatened, especially when the Iranian regime underscores its struggle against the Zionist enemy as a
means of compensating for its support to the bloody Shiite conquest in Iraq. With America in full retreat
from Iraq, the clerical regime, which has often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft, could well revert to
the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. If the Americans are
retreating, hit them. That would not be just a radical Shiite view; it was the learned estimation of Osama
bin Laden and his kind before 9/11. It's questionable to argue that the war in Iraq has advanced the radical
Sunni holy war against the United States. There should be no question, however, that an American defeat in
Mesopotamia would be the greatest psychological triumph ever for anti-American jihadists. Al Qaeda
and its militant Iraqi allies could dominate western Iraq for years--it could take awhile for the Shiites to
drive them out. How in the world could the United States destroy these devils when it no longer had forces
on the ground in Anbar? Air power? Would we helicopter Special Forces from aircraft carriers in the Persian
Gulf into a distant war zone when our intelligence information on this desert region was--as it would surely
be--somewhere between poor and nonexistent? Images of Desert One in 1980 come to mind. Neither Jordan
nor Kuwait may be eager to lend its airfields for American operations that intend to kill Sunnis who are
killing Shiites.
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – A2: Occupation Bad

Empirically untrue – Levels of violence have decreased since the occupation
Certain Western observers of Iraq, and many Arab commentators, have suggested that it is the American
presence in Mesopotamia that aggravates the differences between Shiite and Sunni. If the Americans were to
leave, then a modus vivendi would be reached before massive slaughter ensued. Shared Arabism and the
Prophet's faith would helpfully reassert themselves. Yet, this seems unlikely. Iraq since 2003 strongly
suggests a different outcome. Violence in both the Shiite and Sunni zones has gone up, not down, whenever
American and British forces have decreased their physical presence in the streets and their intrusion in
government affairs. Sunnis and Shiites who see no Americans are killing each other in greater numbers than
Sunnis and Shiites who do see Yanks patrolling their neighborhoods. Although it would be very difficult for
either Sunni or Shiite Baghdadis to say so, they probably both look back nostalgically to those days in 2004
when anxious, trigger-happy American military convoys posed the greatest risk to life and property on the
roads.
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Surge Working [1/2]

Surge working now
Montopoli`8 (Brian, CBS News, Independent Group Bankrolls Spot Pushing Success Of Iraq Surge, July 7, 2008,
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/07/politics/horserace/entry4237110.shtml)
"We're winning" the war in Iraq, according to a new ad from an independent group called Vets For
Freedom. The group is spending $1.5 million to run the spot, which closely echoes the rhetoric of
presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, largely in swing states. "Casualties are at an all-time low," says
one of the eight veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who appears in the spot. "Al Qaeda in Iraq is
decimated," he adds, as the words "essentially defeated" appear on the screen. "These are the facts – they
can't be ignored," those appearing in the ad continue. "We changed strategy in Iraq, and the surge
worked. Now that's change we can believe in." "We need to finish the job, no matter who is President,"
they conclude.
The surge has led to increased security and stability in Iraq

Ibbitson`8 (John, Ironically, success of the surge in Iraq is helping Obama, July 11, 2008,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20080711.IBBITSON11/TPStory/TPComment)
It is the strangest of political ironies. Every report out of Iraq suggests that John McCain's campaign to
rescue that plagued country through a surge in troop strength has worked. But it is Barack Obama who
may stand to reap the benefits. The situation in Iraq appears to have improved beyond anyone's hopes or
expectations. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has achieved effective control over
much of the country, thanks to a much-improved Iraqi security force bolstered by increased oil
revenues. The U.S. general in charge of training the Iraqi military said this week its army would be
self-sustaining and able to exert authority in all parts of Iraq "by the middle of next year." Security
gains "are dramatic," Lieutenant-General James Dubik told the House armed services committee, though
he stressed those gains could still be reversed. The size of the Iraqi security forces has increased over the
past year to 566,000 from 444,000, the quality of the officer corps has considerably improved and the
Iraqi army is increasingly able to act on the ground without American reinforcements, though it still
requires U.S. logistical and air support. As a result, the al-Maliki government is now demanding that a
timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops be part of an agreement that Iraq and the United States are trying
to reach concerning future American troop deployments in Iraq.
The surge is working now

Khaleej Times`8 (Khaleej Times, Petraeus' magic, July 13, 2008,
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/editorial/2008/July/editorial_July26.xml&section=editorial&col
=)
THE US Senate's approval of General David Petraeus as head of US Central Command means the
establishment has begun trusting his model employed in post-surge Iraq enough to implement similar
approaches in Afghanistan. Of course, a man they consider capable of turning around the war-on-
terror mess must also be the one to handle constant factors like Iran and Pakistan. It bears noting that of
late the pro-surge group has significantly raised its lobbying in Washington. Interestingly, as Obama's
candidature has taken the withdrawal chorus to an unprecedented level, the pro-occupation groups have
started focusing on the relative calm that Petraeus has restored in the aftermath of the much-criticised
Bush troop surge. It is also important to note that whatever manoeuvring is frantically debated in
Washington incorporates the pathetic showing of the war-against-terrorism. Just like in Moscow in the last
years of the Soviet occupation, the realisation has hit the American establishment very hard that more of the
same on the Afghan and Iraq front mean collapse of the superpower state as a whole, such is the colossal
amount of input the terror war fronts have eaten up. Charged with reducing the force of the Iraqi insurgency,
Petraeus leveraged the surge-granted excess of personnel to man more troubled outposts than the
insurgency had encountered. Despite the success, there is weight in arguments of concerned quarters and
analysts that the lull is not likely to extend beyond a brief period. For now, Washington has apparently found
few alternatives more credible to bank on, meaning its best bet is purely presence till the opposition tires
itself out.
Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Surge Working [1/2]

The surge is working-The media just doesn’t want to admit it
Evansville Courier`8 (Evansville Courier, News Paper, Iraq News Snooze the Issue: Networks Scale Back Iraq
Coverage. Their View: is Good News No News?, July 11, 2008,
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2390125&title=Iraq_News_Snooze_the.html)
Is this a "If it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead" story? Or is it a "Good news is no news" story? Or is it just
continued implosion of the news business, with fewer and fewer foreign correspondents and so on? Violence
is down considerably in Iraq since the U.S. troop surge last year. Under the old "if it bleeds it leads"
principle of journalistic priorities, a cutback in coverage is to be expected. On the other hand, doesn't
Iraq's rescue from quagmire warrant coverage? No news may be good news, but success should be as
newsworthy as failure. When Iraq was diving into civil war, it was news every evening. Now that the
decline in violence has opened space for progress, albeit halting, toward national reconciliation, that is
newsworthy, especially since the war has been a major issue in the presidential campaign. Cynics might
argue that good news in Iraq would tend to help Sen. John McCain, since he supported the surge, and that
good news may be bad news for Sen. Barack Obama, now the frontrunner. He opposed the surge and
continues to call for a speedy withdrawal of troops. But since evidence suggests that he may be rethinking his
Iraq policy, can this really explain the networks' reduced coverage of the war?
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – A2: Back-Up Power Solves

Back-up generators used now – They are bad for 3 reasons
Menicucci et al 6 [David, Roch Ducey, and Paul Volkman; manager of the Energy Surety Program Office at Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., senior researcher in the Energy Systems Branch at ERDC-CERL in Champaign, Ill., Engineering Branch at the
IMA Public Works Directorate in Washington, D.C., Energy Surety for Mission Readiness,
http://www.cecer.army.mil/td/tips/docs/EnergySurety.pdf, June 16, 2006]
The traditional approach to protecting buildings from grid interruptions is based on back-up
generators and Uninterruptible Power Supplies. That approach addresses only a subset of the surety
elements. For example: they typically cannot be run full time; they depend on a supply of fossil fuel, a
diminishing and increasingly costly resource located in unstable regions of the world; and they are typically
only about 80% reliable in coming on line when needed unless they are meticulously maintained. They
are, however, generally proven technologies.
More ev…
Hardening the grid is one approach to ensuring reliable power. However, the grid is a highly complex
system. Because of its construction, it may be difficult to harden to the extent required by many bases.
A recent study suggests that grid complexity is high enough that further improvement in reliability may not
be possible (Fairley, P. “The unruly power grid: Advanced mathematical modeling suggests that big
blackouts are inevitable,” IEEE Spectrum, August, 2004). The report’s assertions are based on the
fundamental premise that complex systems cannot be made more reliable by incurring more complexity.
Planned activities to harden the grid would result in additional grid complexity.
What is more, even if grid-related operational accidents could be avoided, the very fact that much of the
grid is above ground and accessible to the public makes it a likely target for vandals and terrorists that
would be difficult to defend against (Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism,
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2002).
The traditional method for dealing with grid interruptions involves the use of uninterruptible power
supplies (UPS) and diesel backup generators. While these devices have been successful in many
applications over the past 50 years, they do have limitations and their reliability depends on the quality
of maintenance support provided at each site. Moreover, the manner in which they are typically deployed
—a hardwire connection to a building—limits the flexibility in which the energy they generate can be
intelligently redirected to various applications as needed in real time.
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – SQ Bad (1/2)

Current systems of electricity generation are unsustainable with accidents and terrorism.
The traditional approach to protecting buildings from grid interruptions is based on diesel backup generators
and UPS. That approach addresses only a few of the surety elements.
For example, diesel generators, which are idle a great deal of the time, are often granted very limited
operational permits because of the pollutant content of their effluent streams.
They also depend on fossil fuel, which is currently a relatively abundant but diminishing low-cost fuel and
whose source is located largely in politically volatile areas of the globe. And even a diesel’s reliability can be
compromised if it is not meticulously maintained.
Willis and Scott have suggested that typical backup generators may have in the neighborhood of 80%
probability of coming online and remaining there for a reasonable period (Willis, L. and Scott, W. Distributed
Power Generation, Planning and Evaluation, Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY, 2000).
Finally, fossil fuels are generally acknowledged as a non-sustainable source of energy. The only positive
energy surety feature of these systems is that they are generally proven technologies.
Each building that houses mission critical operations usually has a backup generator serving as
backup power while the grid is the primary source. In the event of a grid power failure, the backup
generator isolates itself from the grid, starts up and begins to supply energy to that building. Often these
systems are coupled with a UPS that uses batteries and inverters to supply the load with energy while the
backup generators come online.
Although this method of critical power production has been successfully used for well over half a century,
there are a number of shortcomings from a surety perspective, especially in light of a worldwide
increase in domestic and foreign terrorist activity.
The first problem relates to the duration of the planned outage. In most applications, the backup
generators are anticipated to be operational only for a limited period. Until recently, grid failures were most
often the result of natural causes—tornados, hurricanes, lightning, and wind.
Other natural failures include human error, such as an accidental overload of a feeder causing a breaker
to open. These events have been well characterized over the years.
Most failures fall into a short-term category ranging from extremely brief to a few hours. Although longer
outages are possible, they are relatively rare.
The advent of terrorism, however, has ushered in a new realm of consideration for power loss. Instead
of natural events and human error (both random occurrences with varying degrees of severity),
terrorists are intelligent beings capable of planning and executing well-orchestrated strikes against the
energy infrastructure with the potential of very long-term outages and related infrastructure impacts. The
relationship between power loss and duration in this new realm is much less well defined and uncertain.
In terms of a terrorist attack, power loss of much greater duration is expected on a more frequent basis.
Moreover, since a terrorist strike is expected to be well planned, its impact is likely to affect much
larger regions, perhaps as large as one or two of the grid interconnection regions in the US. (There are
three major grid interconnection regions in the United States, including the Eastern, Western, and Texas
regions.)
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – SQ Bad (2/2)

Current systems of electricity generation cannot adapt to current problems.
Traditional mission-critical protection schemes are usually not designed for these longer and more
widespread power disruptions. A number of problems ensue in trying to adapt the traditional systems to this
new environment in which high levels of surety are desired.
First, extended operational permits would need to be secured, a difficult prospect in some jurisdictions
because of environmental regulations.
Second, additional fuel would have to be stored onsite, posing additional safety and environmental
impacts.
Third, the systems would be solely dependent on a nondomestic and gradually diminishing fossil fuel
source that is imported largely from politically unstable regions of the world.
Fourth, because of the volatility of the fuel source, its cost effectiveness would constantly vary or—
depending on world events—suddenly plunge.
Finally, this approach lacks sophistication and intelligence, thus limiting its flexibility and adaptability
in the face of changing needs and conditions during an outage. For example, in this protection scheme, if one
backup generator fails, the building it supports is without power.
The current power grid fails because of vulnerability and general incompetence.
As stated above, one of the energy surety failings of the grid is that it often provides an attacker with
many vulnerable single points that can cause grid failure. A single point of failure can be a substation
transformer, a high-tension power line, or the generation facility. The grid has many single points of failure
that are vulnerable to attack because so much of the grid is configured on exposed overhead lines, and
generation equipment is often in remote areas to minimize its impact on civil populations.
Another problem with the grid is the large amount of transmission and distribution infrastructure
required for delivering the energy from the power plant to the load.
Grid disruptions are inevitable due to diesel powered back up generators
The final under-recognized defense petroleum dependency is in installation requirements. While
most permanent U.S. military
installations rely upon commercially purchased coal- or natural gas-fueled electricity or heat, expeditionary
bases rely upon petroleum-fueled organic power production because of their temporary nature and high
security requirements. Today’s increasingly electrified forces demand large quantities of uninterruptible
power to support critical garrison, command and control, and expeditionary functions. Even where reliably
safe commercial electrical power is available in the U.S., mission critical functions utilize diesel back-up
generators to guarantee uninterrupted power. The implication then is that any DoD future energy strategy
must also address how to provide installation power in a petroleum constrained environment, regardless of
whether it is in an austere forward deployed location, or in the U.S. after a natural gas “Hubbert’s Peak” that
occurs within only a few years of petroleum’s peak (EIA expects U.S. domestic natural gas production to peak in 2015).48 As
will be discussed later in this paper, the similarities between permanent base energy requirements and their civilian institutional counterparts
provides the DoD with a double opportunity to immediately leverage commercial advances against installation energy vulnerabilities and then
again by applying this same progress toward solving more demanding expeditionary base energy vulnerabilities.
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – RE

Renewable energy fuels are critical to ensure a new power grid.
For example, in an area of high solar resource, high conventional energy prices, and vulnerable energy
supply lines, solar electric generators might be highly appropriate. Solar generators have the advantage
of converting an energy source (the sun) that is free. On the other hand, a microturbine that burns diesel fuel
may be applicable in a situation where the fuel supply is inexpensive, commonly available, and well-
protected.
The point is that a combination of generators and fuel sources are probably required to meet the surety
requirements involving a secure fuel supply in any given application.
Assuming that generators are installed near the load, a safe and secure fuel supply is needed. There are many
considerations for fuel sources. However, as noted above, the selection of the fuel supply is dictated by local
conditions and surety needs. For example, in an application where fuel supply interruption is of concern, a
solar generator may be chosen to supply a majority of the energy needs because the fuel source, the
sun, cannot be interrupted by human beings.
Fuel and energy storage is one of the most important considerations for a generation system that operates
near the load. Some generators, such as many renewable ones, operate intermittently. Intermittent operation
is often not a favorable feature of generators that are expected to provide power when and where it is needed.
In short, they do not mesh well with key surety requirements.
Energy storage technologies, such as batteries and super capacitors, can mitigate this shortfall by
storing energy when the generator is operating and supplying this stored energy product at other
times.
In addition, fuel stored near the generator can be used to ensure that the generator continues to
operate when the normal supply is interrupted. For example, a diesel generator with an ample supply of
nearby fuel is likely to continuously operate in a time of crisis, whereas the normal supply of fuel is cut off.
Renewable energies are better electricity providers than diesel

Economic analysis supports on-installation power generation from renewables. Detailed analyses show that
power generated from geothermal, wind, or a combination of wind and solar resources is frequently
less expensive on a simple payback basis than additional (equivalent) supplementary diesel generation.
This is largely because renewable sources also provide no-cost energy when there is no emergency and
backup generators lie dormant. Over time, these renewable investments provide a pay-back whereas
conventional diesel generation just continues to accumulate cost.
The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy and the distance they are removed from the critical load currently prohibit direct
replacement of diesel generators. However, renewable generation equipment can be coordinated with diesel
generators in two ways. First, output can be used to relieve the continuous demand on backup diesel,
lengthening the time diesel generators can operate without refueling or maintenance. Second,
renewable generation can increase the total power available on the installation, expanding the facilities
and operations that can be served simultaneously during a grid outage.
The specific role of any renewable power generation will depend upon its nature (e.g., continuous geothermal versus more variable wind
and solar generation), the renewable resource diversity provided by the installation’s geography, and the unique installation demand
characteristics. Simulations of various combinations of renewable and backup diesel generation demonstrate that the intermittency
of both wind and solar resources presents complications but does not prevent them from serving as
important energy security components. A cost-effective mass energy storage medium—possible in the near future given the
amount of research and development currently being invested by DoE and industry—may make the intermittency of renewable energy
irrelevant and allow renewable energy sources to become direct substitutes for diesel generators. Given the lack of emissions, renewable
emergency power sources are also environmentally preferable. However, there is no blanket recipe for renewables to support energy
security—the role of available renewable resources must be specifically designed for each installation.
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – Microgrids (1/4)

A microgrid is critical to solving the problems of current energy grids.
A microgrid is a concept that has recently been developed in the power engineering field and refers to a
subset of the grid in which distributed generators supply power. It is possible that the microgrid may
interact with the larger grid and isolate itself from the grid and operate as an island. This islanded operation
may be triggered by a general grid failure, which would leave the microgrid to fend for itself in serving its
loads (or it could isolate itself from an active grid for some other reason).
The surety microgrid is designed to meet the essential factors noted previously.
In this configuration, buildings that are in close proximity can be electrically interconnected and a set of
generators can be designed to supply energy to them on a full-time basis. The area that encompasses the
protected buildings and the generators is called an energy surety microgrid and can also be referred to as an
energy surety zone.
While the surety microgrid is interactive with the grid and its generators share power therewith, it can
island itself and produce power to the buildings if the grid fails.
In effect, the onsite generators are the primary sources of power for the buildings within the surety zone and
the grid becomes the backup energy source.
Storage, including both energy and fuel, is an important component of the surety microgrid. The
amount of storage is designed for the expected needs of the application. In a zone where there are
abundant renewable (i.e., intermittent) generators and the energy reliability needs are high, significant energy
storage devices are required. Likewise, where there are ample fuel-supplied generators in the zone, ample
supplies of fuel are needed.
An important consideration for the surety microgrid is to design the system for the optimal amount of
storage, but no more. Energy storage, especially when it involves batteries, is expensive and sometimes
hazardous. Fuel storage makes an attractive target for vandals and terrorists.
There are a number of advantages to this concept over the conventional approach:
 The level of energy reliability within the microgrid can be clearly specified by its mix of
generators and storage. While the grid typically offers a single energy product with set limits of
surety levels, the surety microgrid can be configured to whatever level of surety is desired, including
tailoring the system to enhance certain surety elements. For example, a surety zone could be
designed for extreme reliability and a high level of security by selecting a cadre of generators that
are well proven that can operate on a variety of local fuels. Another important design consideration
would be the inclusion of (and ample supply of) various storage (electric and fuel) technologies that
could be sized to meet the operation times and load profiles to match or exceed the desired level of
reliability.
 The generation is located near the load, thus reducing the number of single points of failure
and eliminating the uncertain security of the grid’s transmission and distribution infrastructure that
lies outside of the military base boundaries.
 Since the generators within the surety microgrid are operating full time, the startup uncertainty
typical with stand-by generators is eliminated.
 Fuel supplies for the generators can be tailored to the locality, thus insuring a more secure fuel
supply. For example, in an application in the southwest US, solar and natural gas generators might
be included because of fuel and resource availability.
 The loads and the generation can be managed intelligently. For example, a computerized surety
microgrid control system could be programmed to constantly assess the loads that are online, their
relative priority to one another, and the fuel and energy resources that are available—and then make
continual adjustments in the system to ensure that power is applied to the loads commensurate with
their priority. This would be especially important if one of the generators failed and the critical
electric loads had to be shared seamlessly with the remaining generators that are online.
Onsite storage provides stability of operation and insurance that power will be available even when
some generators are offline, which happens with intermittent (renewable energy) ones. In addition to
this function, storage also provides stability of operation within the surety zone by responding to sudden load
changes that occur faster than mechanical generators can respond.
As can be seen, from a theoretical perspective the surety microgrid offers a number of energy surety
improvements over the conventional approaches.
Military adoption of the microgrid is critical to ensuring readiness.
The military is interested in the surety microgrid concept because there is a growing awareness of the
dependence of the military mission upon the energy infrastructure and the realization of the
vulnerability of the infrastructure to attack by vandals, by terrorists, or by nature.
This concern was verified in May 2003 when a fire disabled two feeders that served Fort Huachuca, located
about 90 miles southeast of Tucson, AZ, just inside the US-Mexico border. The post was unprepared for the
16 hours of down-time that the interruption caused, and the military mission capability was threatened. This
incident was the galvanizing event that brought full awareness of the seriousness of the vulnerabilities many
bases face, for if Mother Nature could create such a problem by chance encounter, a well-planned terrorist
strike could produce much more devastating effects.
As a result of the Fort Huachuca incident and other considerations, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
begun to study the critical infrastructure on bases. Results of these studies, details of which are mostly
classified, indicate that generally the energy infrastructure is not only one of the most fundamentally
interrelated infrastructures among the most important ones, but is closely linked to a military facility’s
operations.
Given the critical linkage of mission accomplishment to infrastructure service availability, several DOD
agencies including the Defense Program Office—Mission Assurance (DPO-MA), Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA), and NORTHCOM have performed vulnerability and risk assessments of these
infrastructures at numerous military facilities.
These studies have identified specific vulnerabilities but have not been sufficiently robust to address how
these vulnerabilities directly affect mission accomplishment. Moreover, the studies have not identified
corrective or mitigation strategies and approaches. DOD agencies continue to struggle with this problem;
DPO-MA recently highlighted this critical issue to Sandia representatives (Personal conversations between
Nathan Annis [Defense Program Office for Mission Assurance] and Steve Rinaldi, Sandia National Labs,
February 2005).
To the military commander, mission readiness is of paramount importance. It is the reason for his or
her existence, and failing to meet that mission could result in loss of military resources and lives, put
military missions in jeopardy, and compromise the security of the United States.
Many military commanders now realize that operational critical infrastructure is essential to
successful mission execution and that energy is one of the key infrastructure areas.
As a consequence, the concept of the energy surety microgrid is one of high importance. Its
development is a vital consideration for retrofitting current bases and for inclusion in the design of
future ones.

Microgrids are critical to ensure readiness.
Energy security has been a concern to the United States for the past 30 years. However, the recent rise of
worldwide terrorism has given rise to a more broad-based concern that incorporates a variety of elements
relating to energy.
Sandia National Laboratories researchers have recently developed a model to describe these elements and
characterize them into a single descriptor called energy surety. From this, the energy surety microgrid
concept has evolved. Its first application is for military bases.
Military commanders have become aware of how energy infrastructure interruptions can affect their
mission readiness. Assessments have indicated that much of the infrastructure is vulnerable to attack
and difficult to protect. As a consequence, there is keen interest in developing strategies and technologies to
mitigate this risk.
The energy surety microgrid addresses the surety needs of military bases by using a combination of
distributed generators and storage to provide power near the load.
These surety microgrids go beyond energy savings. They address in a modular and flexible manner a
base’s requirements for energy safety, security, reliability, sustainability and cost effectiveness.
The first energy surety microgrid prototype design is expected to be developed by September, and the first
application is expected shortly thereafter. As this technology is being applied to military bases, civilian
applications will be developed.
It is widely anticipated that the application of the surety microgrid will produce a much more robust
energy system in military and civilian communities in the US and the world.
Microgrids can work to reduce the problems of electricity demand.
DOD 5 (February 16, “DOD Renewable Energy Assessment: Implementation Plan”,

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/irm/irm_library/final_renew_implmntn.pdf)
The nation’s electric grid was designed in the 1930s and has been reinforced to withstand or recover
quickly from most conventional power outages caused by single-point failures. The grid is not,
however, designed to withstand massive unconventional threats or simultaneous multiple-point
failures. One way DoD facilities are addressing increased reliability needs is through micro-grids. The
Marine Corps base at Twentynine Palms, California, is establishing a micro-grid based upon a co-generation plant and grid-connected
PV, with an option for adding wind turbines in the future. While micro-grids may not meet an installation’s total
demand, a microgrid can direct available power to the highest-priority loads when the grid is down.
Micro-grids need not rely upon on-installation generation; adjacent or nearby generation can also be
designed into the micro-grid.

Microgrids solve electricity problems
Primidi 6/6 (tech innovation newsletter) http://www.primidi.com/2006/07/13.html

An energy microgrid for the Army Researchers from Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) are working
with the U.S. Army on an energy surety model which soon will be tested by military bases. Instead on
relying on today's grid electricity system, this microgrid system will use small power generation units
close to where people live and work. And it will use renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind
power. The goal is to reach a 99.999% availability level for buildings without backup (5 minutes
out/year) at the lowest possible cost. Once this concept is operational at an undisclosed military base,
the researchers think the technology could be deployed for ordinary people. Here is an introduction from
the SNL news release. A Sandia National Laboratories research team headed by Dave Menicucci has taken a
Labs-developed energy surety model to a tangible level by applying it to military bases. "In today's grid
system, power generators [coal, nuclear, gas] are located far from the load -- the place where people live,
work, and use power," Menicucci says. "This requires much distributed wiring and has a potential for
power disruption." This makes sense, but what exactly means energy "surety?" Here is the answer provided
by a paper written by Menicucci and his colleagues, Energy Surety for Mission Readiness (PDF format, 3
pages, 88 KB). Energy "surety" is a term that has been derived from defense applications and is being
used here to characterize energy systems. It incorporates a variety of factors including security,
reliability, safety, sustainability and cost effectiveness. An energy system is said to have high levels of "surety" if it
delivers the energy product to the end user while meeting all of the surety elements. Here is how would like such a distributed network
for energy surety (Credit: Dave Menicucci, SNL). This illustration has been extracted from another Menicucci's presentation, New
Concepts for Improving New Concepts for Improving Energy Surety in Energy Surety in Military Facilities Military Facilities (PDF
format, 30 pages, 832 KB). And the diagram below describes how this concept would be applied to military bases: "The energy surety
microgrid for military bases would be an energy system that uses more small generation units and storage near where people live, work,
and use power and less reliance on big remote plants (Credit: Tom Salazar, for SNL). Now, let's return to the SNL news release
mentioned above to discover the differences between the current energy distribution system and the microgrid approach. Energy
systems with high levels of energy surety must be safe -- safely supplying energy to end users; secure --
using diversified energy sources; reliable -- maintaining power when and where needed; sustainable --
being able to be maintained indefinitely ("indefinite" is based on the American Indian definition of seven
generations or 200 years); and cost-effective -- producing energy at an acceptable (and preferably lowest)
cost. Obviously, the researchers think that the current grid system doesn't meet all these criteria, while
the microgrid concept meets them all. It is safe -- it's not introducing any new dangers. It's secure
because it uses a diverse mix of fuels -- solar, wind, and oil. It's reliable because it uses a variety of types of
generators. There is a redundancy of generation and storage. It's sustainable because it is using renewable
energies. And, it is cost-effective because it uses energy sources that are readily available and
appropriate for the site. (An example is that solar could be used in the Southwest and wind along the
nation's coastlines.) So that's the theory. Now, the concept needs to be tested. It should be done on an
unknown military base in the beginning of 2007. And if all goes well, some civilian communities might
benefit from this technology in a few years.
Microgrids prevent accidents and increase security.

Recent major grid failures and the vulnerability of the grid to terrorist actions have caused an increase
in interest in energy security for DoD installations. One way to reduce the effect on an installation is
the development of micro-grids. A micro-grid is the interconnection of modular generation sources to a
distribution system serving a specific set of loads. The micro-grid is part of the main power network that
can be operated autonomously when the main grid is down to continue to provide uninterrupted power
to critical interconnected loads.
One way DoD facilities can address increased reliability needs is through micro-grids that include both
on-installation and, in some cases, near-installation generation resources, including renewable resources.
If local utilities and the Services work together to develop resources across installation boundaries or adjacent to an installation, local
energy security and reliability may be significantly improved, benefiting utility providers, military customers, and the surrounding
community.
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Military Industry (1/2)

The plan creates R&D spinoffs and directly boosts jobs and commercial industry – Military
key to the economy
Pollin and Garrett-Peltier 7 (October, Robert and Heidi, Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute at
the University of Massachusetts, http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf)
Amid the debates on the political and strategic merits of the Iraq war, one aspect of the current level of
military spending by the U.S. government that has been largely neglected is its effects on the U.S.
economy. $600 billion is a vast sum of money—greater than the combined GDP of Sweden and Thailand, and eight times
the amount of U.S. federal spending on education. It is therefore reasonable to ask what the benefits might be to U.S. taxpayers if some
significant share of the $600 billion now going to the military were instead devoted to alternative domestic purposes, such as health care,
education, or the environment.
A view is often expressed that the military budget is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy. The Pentagon is
often said to be a major underwriter of, and stimulus to, important technical innovations. It is also
often cited as a major employer, providing good jobs—jobs that are stable and at least decently paid—
to millions of Americans.
At one level, these claims cannot help but be true. If the U.S. government is spending upwards of $600 billion on maintaining and
strengthening the military, how could the necessary expenditures on building technologically sophisticated weapons, along with
transportation and communications systems, fail to encourage technical innovations that are somehow connected to these instruments of
warfare?
It is true that investments in military technology have produced important spin-offs for civilian
purposes, the Internet being the most spectacular such example. At the same time, channeling $600 billon
into areas such as renewable energy, mass transportation and health care would also create a hothouse environment
supporting new technologies.
Parallel considerations arise in assessing the impact of the military budget on employment in the U.S. The
$600 billion military budget creates approximately five million jobs, both within the military itself and
in all the civilian industries connected to the military. And precisely because of the high demands for technologically
advanced equipment in the military, a good proportion of the jobs created by the military budget will be well-paying and professionally
challenging. But again, this will also be true when funds are spent in other areas that entail using and developing new technologies, such
as for health care, energy conservation, or renewable energy.
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Military Industry (2/2)

The plan massively boosts the U.S. economy
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Col, USAF, masters in aerospace engineering from Stanford “WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE
TRANSFORMATION” http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)
The final required element in the DoD’s quest for foreign oil independence is the recreation of R&D
accomplishments on the scale that allowed America’s aerospace engineers to send Neil Armstrong to the
moon. After decades of successful innovation since Apollo, President Bush and others have stated that today
America’s global innovation leadership position is under attack by the effects of globalization. On the
positive side, U.S. companies can significantly reduce costs by outsourcing both menial and intellectual work
for pennies on the dollar in a globalized world. On the negative side, the growing lack of interest (and ability)
on the part of American students to pursue engineering and science degrees, coupled with a reverse brain-
drain of R&D talent back to new renaissance countries like India and China, has left the U.S. with a quickly
aging science and engineering community and the prospect of losing its position of science and technology
leadership in the world. To illustrate, last year in Germany 36 percent of undergraduate students earned
degrees in math and science, in China 59 percent, and in Japan 66 percent–in the US the figure was only 32
percent124. In 2004, China graduated over 600,000 engineers, India 350,000, and America only about
70,000.125 Underscoring the President’s acknowledgement of this problem in his 31 January 2006 State of
the Union Address126, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Prospering in the Global
Economy of the 21st Century best articulates the alarm in their 2005 report, Rising Above the Gathering
Storm, in which they state: It is easy to be complacent about the US competitiveness and pre-eminence in
S&T. We have led the world for decades, and we continue to do so in many research fields today. But the
world is changing rapidly, and our advantages are no longer unique. Without a renewed effort to bolster the
foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position. For the first time in
generations, the nation’s children could face poorer prospects than their parents and grandparents did.” The
report continues, “The US faces enormous challenges because of the disadvantage it faces in labor costs.
S&T provides the opportunity to overcome this disadvantage by creating scientists and engineers with the
ability to create entirely new industries (emphasis added)—much as has been done in the past In response to
their alarm, the committee identified two challenges tightly coupled to scientific and engineering prowess:
creating high quality jobs for Americans and responding to the nation’s need for clean, affordable, and
reliable energy.128 The NAS identifies a nexus of opportunity that simultaneously strengthens the economy
and national security while simultaneously solving America’s looming energy crisis—the intense application
of an R&D commitment that promises intellectual and financial reward for those Americans already inspired,
and those yet to be inspired in the sciences. With a DoD commitment to lead its own energy revolution, the
U.S could create an entirely new, leading-edge, commercial sector for the global market; a sector that could
propel the U.S. economy for decades and turn this nation into a new energy or energy technology exporter,
much like the U.S. achieved in the 1940’s and 50’s when it dominated the export of petroleum development
technology.
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Subsidies

Subsidies improve world growth
Davidson and Segerstrom 98 [Carl and Paul, Michigan State University, R&D subsidies and economic growth, RAND Journal
of Economics Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 548-577, Autumn 1998]
Although we do not provide a model with a world divided into separate countries, it should be clear that our
results have implications for the global economy. For the average country in the world, general R&D subsidies
are likely to contribute to world growth. This holds even if R&D effort is mainly imitative in nature for the
average country. For a developed country like the United States, where the innovative/imitative R&D ratio is
presumably above average, general R&D subsidies are also likely to contribute to world growth. But for
developing countries that have specialized in imitative R&D, general R&D subsidies are, in effect, imitative R&D
subsidies. Our analysis indicates that higher general R&D subsidies in such countries are likely to retard world
economic growth. Higher imitation rates in these countries discourage innovative effort by firms in the rest of the
world, and it is the level of innovative R&D that determines the growth rate of the global economy.
Gen Mil Aff – A2: Militarism/Enviro K

The plan solves the military/enviro nexus
Reisch and Kretzmann 8 [Nikki and Steve, A Climate of War The war in Iraq and global warming,
http://newsbusters.org/node/9481, March 2008]
As the world wakes up to the urgency of the climate crisis, the US is busy fighting a gas-guzzling war, largely
over control of oil – one the very substances that is fueling the crisis.39 Our intent in exposing the climate
footprint of the US military in Iraq is not to suggest that the Iraq War would be justified if executed by an
energy-efficient army. A leaner, greener military is still a military, and an unjust war fought with hybrid ‘humvees’,
eco-friendly tanks and hydrogen-powered fighter jets would still be unjust. But so long as we have a military, it is
essential that we find ways to reduce its environmental footprint and to regulate defenserelated emissions, as
we do emissions from other sectors. Moreover, the military climate nexus runs deeper than fuel efficiency
standards. It is about the very motivations for militarization and the justifications for war.
The plan fundamentally alters the way that the military approaches energy
Boston Globe 7 (“Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military Urges development of alternative fuels”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/)
The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all
four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform"
their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable
fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address
alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the
report, which was provided to the Globe. Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task -- especially because the bulk of the US
arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several
decades. Moving to alternative energy sources on a large scale would "challenge some of the department's most
deeply held assumptions, interests, and processes," the report acknowledges. But Pentagon advisers believe the
military's growing consumption of fossil fuels -- an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity -- leaves
Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible. Compared with World War II, according to
the report, the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is using 16 times more fuel per soldier. "We have to wake up," said Milton R. Copulos , National
Defense Council Foundation president and an authority on the military's energy needs. "We are at the edge of a precipice and
we have one foot over the edge. The only way to avoid going over is to move forward and move forward
aggressively with initiatives to develop alternative fuels. Just cutting back won't work." The Pentagon's Office of Force
Transformation and Resources, which is responsible for addressing future security challenges, commissioned LMI, a government - consulting firm, to produce the
report. Called "Transforming the Way DoD Looks at Energy," the study is intended as a potential blueprint for a new military energy strategy and includes a detailed
survey of potential alternatives to oil -- including synthetic fuels, renewable biofuels, ethanol, and biodiesel fuel as well as solar and wind power, among many others.
The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence
broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus warning that, as
oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security. "The Pentagon's
efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the
country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind. Of all the cargo the military
transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel.

CTL Aff - Scholars

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTL Aff - Scholars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Scholars Lab Green Military Aff

CTL Aff Index

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Inh/Plan

Letourneau April 29 (2008, Matthew, Senate Press Release,

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (1/8)

Spring 8 (Feb 13, Baker, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2110.cfm)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (2/8)

Miles 7 (Donna, American Forces Press Service, DoD, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_1_36/ai_n27158522)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (3/8)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (4/8)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (5/8)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (6/8)

Wall Street Journal 4 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005244)

Effective military power precludes nuclear war

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (7/8)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (8/8)

Liquid coal solves oil dependence

Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 9)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 1: China

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (1/3)

BBC 8 (Brittish Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Monitoring International Reports

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (2/3)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (3/3)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 3: Terrorism

Terrorism risks extinction

Alexander 3 (Yonah, Professor for Inter-University for Terrorism Studies http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/aug/27/20030827-084256-8999r/)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (1/4)

Aircraft are the major source of air pollution.

Air pollution devastates crops killing 50 million

BBC 5 ( News, Horizon Documentary on Global Dimming, January 15,

Air pollution kills lichen.

Kourik 8 (Robert, Author of Roots Demystified, March 29, http://robertkouriksgardenroots.blogspot.com/2008/03/tattletale-lichens.html)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (2/4)

Biodiversity collapse threatens human extinction

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (3/4)

CTL solves air pollution from aircraft

Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (4/4)

Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (1/4)

Long-term contracts jumpstart the industry by ensuring financial stability – A

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (2/4)

Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)

Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (3/4)

Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (4/4)

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (1/2)

A. Alternative fuel is alternative energy – This category includes non-renewable, traditional

B. Alternative means untraditional – Coal is not traditionally used as fuel

NEPD 7 (Natl Energy Policy Directorate, executive branch advisory, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Chapter6.pdf)

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (2/2)

Andrews 7 (Edmund L., New York Times reporter, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/business/coal.1-

4. Their limits arg is bad

5. Their ground arg is bad:

6. Counterinterp: The plan must say alternative energy.

7. Our interp is superior:

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (1/6)

Philadelphia Inquirer 7 (6-4)

CTL is alternative energy – It’s an oil-substitute

Rauber 7 (Paul, Sierra, Sep/Oct)

Most predictable govt definitions of “alternative” include CTL

Congress Daily 7 (2-8)

Inherency & UQ

Readiness Adv Links