Professional Documents
Culture Documents
***1AC***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 7
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 8
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
The military budget is strained to the brink – Growing support and logistics funding
crowds out crucial technology investment necessary for sustained military power
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 11
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 12
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 13
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 14
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 15
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 19
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 20
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 21
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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 .
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.
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 27
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL faces no technical problems and expanded federal R&D is critical to commercial
deployment and carbon capture
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 30
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
***Topicality***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 31
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
2. Counterinterp: Alternative energy is non-petroleum fuel and any non-fossil fuel for
electricity production
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
Alternative clearly includes coal – Congress uses the more restrictive term biofuels to
exclude coal
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).
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
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 37
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 38
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
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).
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 40
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 41
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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”.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 42
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 45
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 47
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 48
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 49
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 50
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 51
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
More ev…
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?"
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 55
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 56
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 61
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.”
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 64
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 66
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
High oil prices fund regimes that undermine US foreign policy and allow countries to evade
US diplomatic efforts
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 67
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 68
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 71
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 72
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 73
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Air Power =/= Key – Jet Fuel K to All
Jet fuel is critical to more than just planes
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 16)
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.
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 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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 77
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 78
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
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.
Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 80
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 83
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 86
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (1/2)
CTL use is inevitable – The DOD will purchase it abroad in the SQ
More ev…
Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 92
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 93
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (1/6)
CTL solves oil dependence
More ev…
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (2/6)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 95
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (3/6)
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 96
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (4/6)
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 Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (5/6)
Coal to liquid tech will give the US oil-independence
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 98
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (6/6)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 99
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 21)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 101
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
More ev…
More ev..
More ev…
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.
BioFuel cant be produced as jet fuel yet, FT fuels are the alternative
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 107
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
***Iran Adv***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 110
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
The CIA and other OPS groups are in Iran now, stirring up trouble
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)
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 125
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Too Many Places
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 127
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [2/3]
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
game of nuclear chicken”, 31 January, http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/a-high%11risk-game-of-nuclear-chicken-
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."
CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [3/3]
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 136
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
***China Adv***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 138
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
***Iraq Adv***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 152
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 158
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 159
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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."
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 160
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 161
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 162
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 163
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 165
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More evidence…
More ev…
More ev…
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.
More ev…
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 170
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 172
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 173
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 174
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 175
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 176
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 177
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 181
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 182
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 183
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 186
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
***Solvency***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 187
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 188
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
More ev…
Dreazan 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
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. "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."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 189
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
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)
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.”
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 190
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 191
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 193
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 194
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 195
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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…
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 197
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
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…”
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).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 198
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 199
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 201
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 203
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Incentives solve
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.
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.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 205
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
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.
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."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 207
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Chandler 7 (Jerome Greer Chandler, Air Transport World, “Fueling the Future” May 2007)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 208
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
More ev…
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.
Test projects will rapidly induce a learning curve for later plants
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.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 212
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 213
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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).
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.
Schaefer 6 [Mike, The World's Biggest Investors Moving into CTL, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/ctl-coal-energy/262#,
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 215
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Schaefer 6 [Mike, The World's Biggest Investors Moving into CTL, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/ctl-coal-energy/262#,
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 217
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
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 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.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 221
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 223
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Long term loan guarantees increase investment which subsequently allows the Air Force to
stimulate commercial use of synthetics
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 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 224
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 225
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 226
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 227
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 228
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 231
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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...
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%.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 232
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 239
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 242
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 243
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More evidence…
More ev…
Coal gasification has two advantages over current power plants: Syngas and high pressure.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (2/2)
Increased efficiency from gasification plants solve for carbon emissions.
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (1/2)
Best studies prove CTL reduces CO2 using existing technologies
CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (2/2)
The plan reduces net CO2 emissions
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.
More ev…
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 16)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 252
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 253
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Geiselman 6 (Bruce, Waste News Correspondent, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; Pg. 26, October 23, 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. 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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 254
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Coal gasification plants consume 30-60% less water than competing technologies.
Gasification plants are more water efficient than coal combustion plants.
Excess water is cleaned and recycled back to the plant to minimize water consumption.
Through recycling and less use of steam, gasification plants consume less water than
current coal plants.
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.
Coal gasification has significantly less amounts of waste than current power plants.
2. Coal is not the problem: Uranium is the significant cause of radon emissions.
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)
2. Link Turn: Coal gasification is more efficient than current processes and saves coal.
This coal boom will last due to increased demand and output problems in other countries.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 268
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Coal gasification is more efficient than current plants with less CO2 emissions.
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 10)
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…
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 98)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 277
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Despite the variety of results, gasification plants have a significant advantage in controlling
mercury emissions.
Gasification plants have low levels of trace organic emissions: Data proves.
Nitrogen emissions are low due to gasification and will continue to decrease with better
technology.
Gasification solves the problems of sulfur waste by making it more pure and usable.
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 117)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 293
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 117)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 294
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 118)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 295
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 296
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 297
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 12)
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…
Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 18)
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 301
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Coal prices
More ev…
More ev…
More ev…
Denton 7 (David, 5-24, Biz Devt – Eastman Gasification Service, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 305
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 309
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Denton 7 (David, 5-24, Biz Devt – Eastman Gasification Service, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
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.
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
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 311
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
***A2: CP’s***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 312
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 313
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 314
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 315
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 316
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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…
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 317
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 322
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
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..
Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 323
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Hybrid costs are too high relative to alternative fuels for marketability
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 326
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Chandler 7 (Jerome Greer Chandler, Air Transport World, “Fueling the Future” May 2007)
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."
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 327
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
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
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’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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 328
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
More ev…
( ) 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 330
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Hornitschek, Lt Col, USAFA Research WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE
TRANSFORMATION, February 17, 2006
http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)
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.
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 331
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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 .
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 332
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Lack of coordination means they can’t ensure overall reductions and dependency
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, 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 334
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
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.
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
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 337
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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]
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 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]
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…
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 338
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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]
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 340
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 343
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 344
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 345
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 349
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
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]
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
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]
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 350
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 351
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Wind turbines only affect ATC radars and not SSR systems.
No reason why past strategies for wind turbine development would not solve now.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 353
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 355
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 356
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 361
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 362
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 363
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 365
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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…
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 366
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 367
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
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 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 368
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 370
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
As can be seen, from a theoretical perspective the surety microgrid offers a number of energy surety
improvements over the conventional approaches.
Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – Microgrids (2/4)
Military adoption of the microgrid is critical to ensuring readiness.
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 371
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
Meniucci 6 (July/August, David, Research Engineer with Sandia National Labs, http://www.onsitewater.com/de_0607_when.html)
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.
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 374
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 375
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 376
Scholars Lab Green Military Aff
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.