DA

The economy is on the brink of a recession – with an inverted yield curve and
reduced government and business spending, consumer confidence is the last
safeguard to percent economic collapse. Only continued job growth will
prevent the collapse. Cohen 12-6:

Patricia Cohen, 12-6-2019, "U.S. Added 266,000 Jobs in November; Unemployment at 3.5%," New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/business/economy/jobs-report.html?action=click&module=Top
%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage, accessed 12-6-2019, [JP]

The Numbers ■ 266,000 jobs were added in November. Analysts had expected a gain of about 180,000, according to MarketWatch. ■ The
unemployment rate was 3.5 percent, down from the previous month. ■ Average hourly
earnings rose 0.2 percent, with a year-over-year gain of 3.1 percent. The Takeaway The return of tens of thousands
of striking workers to their jobs at General Motors helped supercharge hiring totals last month. The reassuring jobs report, released

Friday morning by the Labor Department, offered a counterpoint to renewed anxieties

about an escalating trade war and a weakening global economy. President Trump stoked
trade tensions this week by imposing new tariffs on steel and aluminum from Brazil and
Argentina; suggesting that the feud with China could continue for another year; and
threatening European allies with import taxes. The White House’s unpredictable trade policy has unsettled businesses and cramped
investment. They have also helped heighten concerns about a faltering manufacturing sector. The perfect gift for everyone on your list. Gift subscriptions to The Times. Starting at

$25. Still, the American economy has a firm footing as consumers spend and employers hire.
“We still see pretty healthy underlying labor market conditions,” said Robert Rosener, an economist at Morgan
Stanley. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits remains at historically low

levels, and Americans continue to show a willingness to quit their jobs. “That tells you that
consumers are still pretty confident of labor market conditions,” he said Among businesses,
worries about the economy seemed to peak this summer. Since then, there have been signs
that the slowdown was slowing, said Joe Galvin, chief research officer of Vistage, an
association of small-business owners and executives. Roughly 60 percent of the 654
employers surveyed in November by Vistage said they planned to expand head count next
year. Just 4 percent are planning cuts. Since employment gains can bounce unpredictably
from month to month, what matters is the underlying trend. So far this year, average monthly payroll gains have buzzed
around 170,000. That is less than the average for last year, when tax cuts and government spending helped juice the economy, but it is still hefty considering that the expansion is
in its 11th year. The Labor Market as a Toothpaste Tube In a newsletter this week, David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds, compared recent hiring to squeezing
one more glob of toothpaste out of a seemingly empty tube. “Over the last few years,” he said, “an apparently fully tapped-out labor market has yielded a surprising number of new
workers.” The buffet of available job postings has drawn many Americans back to work. Employers have widened their scope, recruiting people with disabilities or criminal
records. Older baby boomers are working past retirement age and stay-at-home parents are switching to paid employment. The labor force participation rate inched up through
most of the spring and fall, driven in part by an increase in women 25 to 34 getting jobs or starting to look for work. Over the last year, nearly 1.7 million people joined the ranks
of workers. Mr. Kelly does not expect the historically low unemployment rates to fall much more. “Gains in employment going forward will have to come from an increase in the
labor force,” he wrote. Economists are engaged in a vigorous debate about how tight the labor market is and how many more people are available to work. Mr. Trump’s more
restrictive immigration policies has significantly shrunk the supply of foreigners who could come to work in the United States. Employment agencies say they are often unable to
find candidates to fill the jobs that are open. “At every level of employment, it’s been super tight,” said Yvonne Rockwell, owner of an Express Employment Professionals agency
in Santa Clarita, Calif. “I truly believe that anybody who wants to work is working.” Southern California has a lot of aerospace companies, and Ms. Rockwell focuses on skilled

The competition for

trades and higher-level positions. “This is our best year ever,” said Ms. Rockwell, who opened her franchise five years ago.

workers has helped push up wages, particularly at the lower end of the scale. And
Amazon’s decision last year to raise its minimum wage to $15 across the country has turned
up the pressure in some places. “
And, the Aff kills the subsidies that support drilling. Cobb 18:

Kurt Cobb, 10-28-2018, "Shale oil becomes shale fail (and a nice subsidy for consumers)," Resilience,
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-10-28/shale-oil-becomes-shale-fail-and-a-nice-subsidy-for-consumers/, accessed 11-4-
2019, [JP]

Only nine of 33 shale oil exploration and production companies reviewed in the report cited above had positive free cash flow for the first half of 2018. This is even though prices
had risen all the way from a low of around $30 in 2016 to the mid-$70 range by the middle of this year. To get an idea of just how bad it has been even through periods when the
price of oil averaged above $100 in 2011, 2012, 2013 and most of 2014, here are the annual free cash flows in dollars of those 33 companies combined since 2010 and they are all
negative: -14 billion (2010), -21.9 billion (2011), -37.8 billion (2012), -16.8 billion (2013), -33 billion (2014), -34.4 billion (2015), -18.3 billion (2016), -15.5 billion (2017).

Capital expenditures are what companies invest in future production—in this case, the
acquisition of new oil deposits and the drilling and completion of new wells and associated
infrastructure. Because operating cash flow has not been sufficient to cover the drilling of
new wells, companies must either issue new debt or new shares to raise money to do so. The
former makes companies more likely to go bankrupt if oil prices turn down and the latter dilutes the value of the company for existing shareholders. Either way, it’s not good news

The answer lies in

for investors. So, maybe you are asking: “Why don’t the companies save up enough money to drill new wells before they go prospecting?”

understanding the decline rates of existing wells. After three years most shale wells are
producing 70 to 90 percent less oil than when they began. (Compare this to the worldwide decline rate for oil production of
between 4 and 5 percent per year which over three years comes to between 11 to 14 percent.) The situation has been likened to trying to

run up a down escalator. The faster the escalator is going down (well decline rates), the
harder it is to make any progress going up (that is, increase production). In order to keep a
company’s overall production growing, the company must drill continuously or risk
declining production which would lead to a vicious cycle of declining cash flows needed to
drill new wells. To avoid this scenario, such companies seek extra money every year in the
form of debt and/or stock issuance in order to fund new drilling. Now here’s why this is unworkable in the long run.
An example outside the industry will help illustrate the problem: A company engaged in manufacturing might be able to justify negative free cash flow for years as it builds out its
manufacturing facilities to make more products in more markets. After a few years if the strategy works, the company could be well-positioned to dominate its markets and make a
handsome profit for investors. Things, of course, don’t always work out the way companies want them to. But there is a logic to continuous investment in such a company in the
face of negative free cash flow. This is because investors have reason to believe they are building long-term profitability. Factories stick around; they suffer wear and tear but they
don’t deplete as oil does. And, those who run them tend to get better over time at making their factories more productive, not less. The same cannot be said for companies which
extract shale oil because of its high decline rate. If operating cash flows are not sufficient to fund capital expenditures relatively soon after the company begins its drilling program,
then the company must drill furiously simply to avoid a production decline let alone achieve the production increases which are good for stock prices.

And, that kills job growth in the gas and manufacturing industries. Anderson
14:

Richard Anderson, 4-1-2014, "How American energy independence could change the world," BBC News,
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-23151813, accessed 10-29-2019, [JP]

Several companies, including Dow Chemical, General Electric, Ford and Caterpillar, have announced hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, either in new plants or in re-
opening shutdown facilities. Even Apple has announced a new factory in Arizona more than a decade after closing its last US plant. In fact, between 2010 and the end of March

Indeed a study by
2013, almost 100 chemical industry projects valued at around $72bn were announced, according to the American Chemistry Council.

accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that one million manufacturing jobs

could be created by 2025 thanks to low energy prices and demand from the shale gas
industry. Further analysis by the Boston Consulting Group points to a surge in US exports
of manufactured goods. Any boost in production to US manufacturing would obviously lift
overall economic growth even further. In fact, the benefits are already being felt - many
economists point to cheaper energy as one reason why the US has outperformed in recent
years. European manufacturing Only four years ago, Europe's gas prices were roughly the same as those in the US. Now they are three times
higher, and the IEA forecasts they will still be twice as high by 2035. Next year, Boston Consulting expects the US to have an export cost advantage of between 5% and 25% over
Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Japan in a range of industries, including plastics and rubber, machinery, computers and electronics. In fact, a number of European
companies are already looking to invest heavily in the US. Royal Dutch Shell has announced a new chemical plant in gas-rich Appalachia, French industrial giant Vallourec
recently invested more than $1bn in a new plant in Ohio, while Austrian steel group Voestalpine is investing $750m in a new factory in Texas. The danger is not lost on European
politicians. Last year, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy announced that: "All leaders are aware that sustainable and affordable energy is key to keeping factories
and jobs in Europe. Industry finds it hard to compete with foreign firms who pay half the price for electricity, like in the United States." The European Commission has even talked
about the "de-industrialisation of Europe" due to higher energy prices.

And, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mann 14:

Mann ’14 (Eric Mann is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant domestic and international
counterintelligence and counter-terrorism experience. Worked as a special assistant for a U.S. Senator and served as a
presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress. He is currently responsible for an internal security and vulnerability assessment
program. Bachelors @ University of South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @ Georgetown. “AUSTERITY,
ECONOMIC DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May
2014, https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf)

The conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economic considerations within states can figure prominently
into the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that security issues with economic or financial underpinnings will transcend
classical determinants of war and conflict, and change the manner by which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one another. The research shows that security

concerns emanating from economic uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within
global financial markets will present new challenges for national security, and provide
developing states new asymmetric options for balancing against stronger states.¶ The
security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature into global
security threats in the immediate future. As the case study on South Korea suggest, the overlapping security issues associated with economic
decline and reduced military spending by the United States will affect allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. The study shows that this outcome could cause regional

Rival states and non-state

instability or realignments of strategic partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications for U.S. national security.

groups may also become emboldened to challenge America’s status in the unipolar
international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD, resulting
from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. The case study on Pakistan, Syria and North
Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons vulnerable to theft, and how financial factors can influence

WMD proliferation by contributing to the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s decision to sell weapons technology. The inherent
vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide terrorists’ organizations and other non-state
groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of power, with opportunities to disrupt global finance and

perhaps weaken America’s status. A more ominous threat originates from states intent on increasing diversification of foreign currency holdings,
establishing alternatives to the dollar for

And, war turns warming. Prefer this ev – theirs’s is speculative and goes
against the best research. Degroot 18:

Degroot ‘18 — Dagomar Degroot; PhD, Associate professor of environmental history at Georgetown University. (“Climate
Change and Conflict;” Published in The Palgrave Handbook of Climate History; pg. 379-380; //GrRv)

Some of the most innovative research into past climates explores not
29.5 War and the Causes of Climate Change

how climate change affected warfare, but rather how those wars altered regional
environments and possibly global climate. Recently, geographers Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin have argued that the “Anthropocene”—
the proposed new geological epoch dominated by humans—began in 1610, and that it reflected a relationship between conflict and cooling. After Columbus permanently joined
the Old and New Worlds in 1492, epidemic disease and colonization indirectly killed more than 50 million Amerindians. Trees spread across a depopulated landscape, pulling
carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. According to Lewis and Maslin, the globe cooled as concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide declined, and the subsequent worsening
of the LIA was the first clear sign of a human-dominated world.40 Lewis and Maslin have built upon the 2003 theories of climatologist William Ruddiman, who connected
prehistoric burnings, the advent of agriculture, the Columbian Exchange, and even waves of plague in Europe to changes in global forest cover and subsequent shifts in the world’s

climate. Some of these transformations in land use were linked to the conduct of war. The links established by
Ruddiman have proven controversial, and some have been undermined by new studies that suggest, for example, that soil absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it cools.

, the so-called “great acceleration” in humanity’s power over the Earth has at
In any case, since the 1950s

the very least resulted in the intensification, or perhaps indeed the emergence, of climate-
altering means of fighting war. Despite programmes aimed at curbing its greenhouse gas
emissions, the US Department of Defense annually consumes more oil than 160 countries.41

And, economic growth is key to solve warming – it’s key to spur green tech in
the agriculture and manufacturing industries. Anderson 4:

Anderson 4 (Terry L. Anderson Terry Lee Anderson is the William A. Dunn Distinguished Senior Fellow and former
Executive Director and President of the Property and Environment Research Center, 7/1/2004, Why Economic Growth is
Good for the Environment, https://www.perc.org/2004/07/01/why-economic-growth-is-good-for-the-environment/)

In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, National Aeronautics and Space Administration global-warming expert James Hansen notes that greenhouse gas emissions and

projections do not take into account the lower

global-warming projections are “consistently pessimistic.” Hansen suggests that

carbon dioxide and methane emissions that have resulted from technological advancements.
He explains that the lower carbon dioxide emissions result from increased energy efficiency following the energy crisis in the 1970s and the lower methane emissions, from
technological changes in agriculture. Hansen’s essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying “the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into
being with remarkable rapidity.” This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the “ultimate resource” to be the human mind and believed it to be best

motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we
are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices
increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological
innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new
technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which
in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to
sacrifice clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as
their incomes rise above subsistence, “economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years ,” says
economist Bruce Yandle. “If economic growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment.” The link between greenhouse gas
emissions and economic prosperity is no different. Using data from the United States, Professor Robert McCormick finds that “higher GDP reduces total net [greenhouse gas]
emissions.” He goes a step further by performing the complex task of estimating net U.S. carbon emissions. This requires subtracting carbon sequestration (long-term storage of
carbon in soil and water) from carbon emissions. Think of it this way: When you build a house, the wood in it stores carbon. In a poor country that wood would have been burned

economic growth in the United States

to cook supper or to provide heat, thus releasing carbon into the atmosphere. McCormick shows that

has increased carbon sequestration in many ways, including improved methods of storing
waste, increased forest coverage, and greater agricultural productivity that reduces the
acreage of cultivated land. Because rich economies sequester more carbon than poor ones, stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine
an economy’s net addition to greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick’s data show that “rich countries take more carbon out of the air

than poorer ones” and that “the growth rate of net carbon emission per person will soon be
negative in the United States.” Put differently—richer may well be cooler. Global-warming
policy analysts agree that greenhouse gas regulations such as those proposed at Kyoto
would have negative impacts on the economy. Therefore, as McCormick warns, we should
take great care that regulations in the name of global warming “not kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs.”
 DA

The US will be energy independent in the next year, but that requires LNG.
Lack 19:

Simon Lack, 1-28-2019, "American Energy Independence Is Imminent," Forbes,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonlack/2019/01/28/american-energy-independence-is-imminent/#2958d9c92870, accessed 10-
29-2019, [JP]

American Energy Independence Is Imminent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration

(EIA) recently published their 2019 Annual Energy Outlook. Whenever your optimism on
the prospects for U.S. energy infrastructure waivers, this will restore your confidence. The
outlook for domestic energy production is bullish, and in many cases more so than a year
ago. For example, in their 2018 report, the EIA’s Reference Case projected that the U.S.
would eventually become a net energy exporter. Now, thanks to stronger crude and liquids
production, they expect that milestone to be reached next year. The expected improvement in America’s balance of
trade in liquids is dramatic, especially compared with last year’s report. It’s equivalent to an additional 2.5-3.0 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D) of output. Liquified

Natural Gas (LNG) exports are also set to jump sharply, and overall natural gas exports are
projected to more than double over the next decade. This is driven by growing Permian
crude output, which comes with natural gas as an associated product from oil wells. It’s why flaring
is common today, because the needed takeaway infrastructure for natural gas remains insufficient. Mexico’s own infrastructure to import natural gas for electricity generation is
still being developed, and new LNG export facilities will provide further demand. The middle chart in the panel below highlights the correlation of natural gas output with the price

Although
of crude oil. This is because the EIA assumes that higher crude prices will stimulate more Permian oil production, producing more associated natural gas.

use of renewables to generate electricity will grow, they are still expected to provide less
than one third of all electricity even in 30 years. Almost all the growth will be in solar,
which works best in southern states that receive more sun. Although my state, New Jersey,
is subsidizing residential solar roof panels, they’re not much use in winter. This is especially so because
electricity demand generally peaks twice a day, around breakfast and dinner, when people are leaving for work/school or returning home. At this time of year in the northeast, it’s

Moreover, the bucolic,

dark during both peak periods. Only half the days are even partly sunny, with cloud cover rendering solar ineffective on the rest.

leafy suburbs enjoy plenty of summer shade which can also block the sun from reaching
solar panels. Widespread deployment of solar will require cutting down some big old trees
that impede southern exposure. Large-scale battery technology doesn’t exist to store
midday solar power for use at peak times Therefore, intermittent sources of power (also
including wind) require substantial excess capacity, as well as baseload power that’s always
available. Environmental activists haven’t all accepted this yet, but natural gas remains the
big enabler for increased solar power. Some extremists desire a carbon-free world, but that Utopian objective ignores the symbiotic
relationship natural gas and solar/wind share. They’re complimentary energy sources. Opposing all fossil fuels impedes the growth of intermittent energy sources and forces more

Natural
excess, redundant capacity. The Sierra Club and those who share their views seek impractical, purist solutions that will struggle both economically and politically.

gas is in many ways a bigger U.S. success story than crude oil. Its abundance ensures
continued low prices, supporting both exports as well as cheaper domestic electricity than
most OECD nations. Because the U.S. has some of the lowest-priced natural gas, different
scenarios nonetheless offer fairly uniform growth in output. Natural gas prices are less
susceptible to the cycles of crude oil, which combined with America’s advantages noted
above makes investing in its infrastructure more attractive. There’s plenty in the EIA’s 2019 Outlook to support a bullish
view for midstream energy infrastructure. Financing growth projects has weighed on stock prices for several years, leaving investors frustrated and complaining about insufficient
cash returns. But if the peak in growth capex peak is behind us, as looks likely, free cash flow and payouts should start increasing again. Cash flow yields on the sector average
12% before growth capex. This is analogous to the funds from operations metric used in real estate, but double the yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (VNQ), for example.
REIT investors should take note.
And, the Aff kills LNG exports. The current rise in subsidies is key for LNG’s
success. Aman 5-29:

Hasibul Aman, 5-29-2019, "Govt to increase LNG subsidy," Daily Sun, https://www.daily-
sun.com/printversion/details/395898/2019/05/29/Govt-to-increase-LNG-subsidy, accessed 11-4-2019, [JP]

Government subsidies are set to increase in the ensuing budget as a hefty amount of money
will be set aside to keep imported LNG (Liquefied natural gas) within people’s reach. In the
budget for 2019-20 fiscal year, allocation for subsidy, incentives and loan sector is going to be increased by Tk 6,500 crore or 16.88 percent to Tk 45,000 crore, official sources

Subsidy allocation is being increased in the

said. During the current fiscal year, budgetary allocation in this sector was Tk 38,500 crore. “

budget as the government will have to supply liquefied natural gas at a price lower than its
import cost,” said officials in finance ministry. About Tk 8,500 crore is being set aside for providing subsidy on LNG price which is
main reason behind the rise in the government’s subsidy burden next fiscal year. The decision came in response to repeated demands from the businessmen and industrialists,
finance division officials informed. The government also calculated that if the LNG is supplied to industries or businesses at imported prices, the cost of finished products will
shoot up beyond the reach of mass people. Quoting Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission, he said that the present gap between the sales price and the import price was
about Tk 1 per cubic metre. However, the highest subsidy allocation is going to the power sector. Its allocation is likely to be Tk 9,500 crore, up from current fiscal’s Tk 9,200
crore. According to finance ministry officials, there has not been too much increase or decrease in government subsidies in the last five years because of stable global energy price.
In 2014-15 fiscal year, total subsidy allocation was Tk 27,416 crore. In FY15 it came down to Tk 25,573 crore while it rose to Tk 27,500 crore in FY18. But the amount of
subsidies went up to Tk 38,500 crore in the current 2018-19 fiscal year after inclusion of LNG subsidy for the first time. Earlier, the government put subsidy mainly on power,
agriculture, exports, food, jute and jute goods. Now LNG has been included to the basket as a new item. As of May 24, the country’s LNG import stood at 596.5mmcf (million
cubic feet), up from 350.5mmcf one month ago, according to the Petrobangla. Food subsidy is going to be Tk 4,500 crore, which is Tk 104 crore down from current fiscal’s
allocation. Subsidy allocation for other sectors will be Tk 9,600 crore. The amount of incentives in the budget will remain unchanged at Tk 13,500 crore like the current fiscal year,
including Tk 9,000 crore for agriculture, Tk 4,000 crore for cash incentives on exports, and Tk 500 crore for jute. Tk 1,500 crore is being allocated for recapitalizing the struggling

There has been criticism against subsidies from International Monetary

state-owned commercial banks

Fund (IMF). Local economic analysts also voice concern over subsidies, especially that to
recapitalize state banks. However, finance ministry officials think that there are some
positive aspects of subsidies or incentives. If subsidies are not given, price of power and agro
products will soar, while exports will also fall as other competitive countries are providing
incentives, they said.

And, oil independence is key to political freedom from Iran. The AFF
prompts an oil war where Iran controls US policy. Mohammed 10-29:

Hamad L Mohammed, 10-29-2019, "How Iran Can Hold the World Oil Market Hostage," Council on Foreign Relations,
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-iran-can-hold-world-oil-market-hostage, accessed 11-4-2019, [JP]

How are markets pricing these risks? Oil is a global commodity, so its pricing is determined by global supply and demand. If the oil market loses Saudi or Iranian oil, prices rise
for users worldwide, not just users of Saudi or Iranian oil. International oil prices jumped by 20 percent in one day following the attacks on Saudi Arabia, but they have since
receded with the expectation that the facilities will be repaired, and that, because the global economy is slowing, the world’s oil use will fall. With oil currently trading at under
$60 per barrel, it seems the market is not yet accounting for these real risks. With regard to Iran, traders appear hopeful that diplomatic efforts will prevent Iran from launching a
second, more painful attack. They believe that Iran’s attacks on Saudi facilities thus far have been a warning to gain leverage for negotiations toward sanctions relief or removal.

Rightly or wrongly, traders seem to be downplaying the risk that Iran will conduct more
heavily disruptive strikes to get sanctions lifted, or that, somewhere down the road, Iran
could launch major attacks on oil infrastructure to obtain some other foreign policy
objectives. However, given the region’s past unrest and ongoing tensions, it’s not
unreasonable to think that future attacks by Iran or its proxies could trigger a wider
conflict in which oil facilities suffer extensive damage. During the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war, both countries saw their oil
industries decimated, removing their production capability from markets for many years. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 resulted in the immediate loss of millions of barrels per
day of oil. A prolonged regional war with Iran could potentially see damage of more than ten million barrels per day, which could take years to repair. With oil currently trading at

under $60 per barrel, it seems the market is not yet accounting for these real risks. Is the United States dependent on foreign oil? The United States
remains a net crude oil importer—gross crude imports totaled seven million barrels per day
in July 2019—and it is only slightly less exposed to an oil shock today compared with 1973,
when Arab members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
imposed an embargo in retaliation for U.S. military support for Israel. The rebound in U.S.
crude oil production over the last decade or so, while helpful, has not rendered the country
immune to oil blackmail. Net imports of oil are about 20 percent of U.S. consumption, compared to 32 percent in 1973. If prices were to spike significantly
in the wake of another major attack in the Middle East, U.S. domestic production would likely ramp up, but bottlenecks in hiring additional workers and commissioning drilling
equipment, among other logistical obstacles, could cause delays. The time lag could unsettle markets if the disruption lasts longer than a month or two. In the case of a major crisis
—one that removes millions of barrels per day in production for an extended period—it would likely take the United States several years to increase its production to replace fully
the lost oil. In the meantime, high gasoline prices would likely dampen consumer spending and slow U.S. manufacturing and other exports, particularly to countries that are hit

The good
harder by higher oil prices, such as China and India. The good news is that the United States is more resilient to an oil price shock than it was in 1973.

news is that the United States is more resilient to an oil price shock than it was in 1973. The
oil intensity of the U.S. economy—the amount of oil per unit of gross domestic product—is
much lower now than in 1973, when more oil was used in manufacturing, power generation,
and home heating. Many industries have shifted to natural gas or renewable energies, and
virtually no oil is used in U.S. power generation. Additionally, U.S. domestic oil production
is distributed more widely across the country now than in 1973. The U.S. shale boom has
created jobs and wealth not only in traditional oil states, such as Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, but in
others too, such as Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Many states benefit from high oil prices. What about other countries’ dependence on oil?
Oil represents about one-third of all energy used globally. It is the dominant fuel for transportation, used almost exclusively for aviation and for most of the world’s automobiles.
Oil demand in Europe peaked in 2005, but its economies remain highly dependent on oil imports, which make up more than 85 percent of the region’s oil use. Europe gets about
one-third of its oil supply from Russia. Japan has no domestic source of oil, and is highly dependent on crude oil imports from the Middle East. China’s crude oil imports have
been rising in recent years, reaching 10.6 million barrels per day in 2019, making up between 80 and 85 percent of its oil use. How much of a cushion would the U.S. Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) provide in the case of a major shortage of oil? The SPR was created in the aftermath of the 1973 oil embargo, which highlighted how a major energy
disruption could undermine the economy and threaten national security. SPR oil is intended to provide a backup supply to U.S. refineries, helping the United States weather an
unexpected energy crisis, and free it from possible blackmail by petrostates. Presidents have authorized major emergency releases from the SPR three times: during the Gulf War
(1991), after Hurricane Katrina (2005), and when Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi fell from power (2011). The SPR currently holds more than 600 million barrels of crude
oil, and it can release at the rate of 4.4 million barrels per day for a period of time. The United States is also part of the International Energy Agency’s emergency stockpiling
system, which covers Western industrialized economies. China and India also hold strategic stocks. The SPR and IEA stockpiling system have limitations in that it is designed to
tide markets over for ninety days. At the time the IEA system was created, it was assumed that an embargo could easily be resolved diplomatically in that amount of time but if a
war were to destroy production capacity at complex oil facilities throughout the Middle East, oil availability could be affected for a much longer period. In this case, oil-consuming
nations would need to invoke conservation measures, such as increased energy efficiency and fuel rationing. How much leverage does this give Iran? Iran’s ability to destroy
critical energy infrastructure in the Middle East gives it some leverage to blackmail the United States, its allies, and other major economies such as China and India. The attack on

Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities makes this a credible threat. Right now, Iran may only be demanding relief from U.S.
sanctions, but it could use the oil bargaining chip in pursuit of other national objectives in
the future. Presumably, Iran would only try to use this form of blackmail to achieve concessions it believes to be realistic and in proportion to the threat it actually poses
to oil supplies. It wouldn’t be possible, for instance, to try to compel the United States to remove its nuclear weapons from Turkey. But Tehran could, in

theory, try to coax Washington to withdraw troops from a certain area or cut military aid
to a particular country, as Saudi Arabia attempted to do in 1973.

And, war turns warming. Degroot 18:

Degroot ‘18 — Dagomar Degroot; PhD, Associate professor of environmental history at Georgetown University. (“Climate
Change and Conflict;” Published in The Palgrave Handbook of Climate History; pg. 379-380; //GrRv)

Some of the most innovative research into past climates explores not
29.5 War and the Causes of Climate Change

how climate change affected warfare, but rather how those wars altered regional
environments and possibly global climate. Recently, geographers Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin have argued that the “Anthropocene”—
the proposed new geological epoch dominated by humans—began in 1610, and that it reflected a relationship between conflict and cooling. After Columbus permanently joined
the Old and New Worlds in 1492, epidemic disease and colonization indirectly killed more than 50 million Amerindians. Trees spread across a depopulated landscape, pulling
carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. According to Lewis and Maslin, the globe cooled as concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide declined, and the subsequent worsening
of the LIA was the first clear sign of a human-dominated world.40 Lewis and Maslin have built upon the 2003 theories of climatologist William Ruddiman, who connected
prehistoric burnings, the advent of agriculture, the Columbian Exchange, and even waves of plague in Europe to changes in global forest cover and subsequent shifts in the world’s

climate. Some of these transformations in land use were linked to the conduct of war. The links established by
Ruddiman have proven controversial, and some have been undermined by new studies that suggest, for example, that soil absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it cools.
 , the so-called “great acceleration” in humanity’s power over the Earth has at
In any case, since the 1950s

the very least resulted in the intensification, or perhaps indeed the emergence, of climate-
altering means of fighting war. Despite programmes aimed at curbing its greenhouse gas
emissions, the US Department of Defense annually consumes more oil than 160 countries.41

And, US influence is key to stabilize the region. Schenker 10-8:

David Schenker, 10-8-2019, "China and Russia: The New Threats to Middle East Security and Stability," United States
Department of State, https://www.state.gov/china-and-russia-the-new-threats-to-middle-east-security-and-stability/, accessed
11-4-2019, [JP]

Both the United States and Italy share a deep interest in sustained engagement in the Middle East. Italy remains one of our closest partners, and events like this demonstrate our
shared commitment to the future of the region. Secretary Pompeo just returned from a very productive visit to Italy, reinforcing our strong partnership. I spent a lot of time with my
Italian counterparts a few weeks ago at UNGA, discussing Libya. The future of the Middle East is at a crossroad. From the liberation of Kuwait to the campaign to defeat of ISIS,
the United States has played the leading role in mobilizing the international community to confront security threats in the region. Much of the media’s attention focuses on the
Iranian threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. But I’m here today to talk to you about a challenge that’s most subtle and possibly just as worrying: the incursion of
autocratic regimes likes China and Russia into the region. While we seek partnership to further the security and stability of the region, we are keeping a watchful eye on actions
that undermine this goal. A Positive Vision of Regional Engagement I’d like to begin with our vision for the region, because I think it stands in sharp contrast to the transactional

The United States has a long track-record of working to bring peace,

relationships offered by Russia and China.

stability, and prosperity to the Middle East and North Africa. We defend our allies, we are
committed to economic growth that provides jobs and prosperity in the United States and
around the world, and we value individual freedom and democracy. As Secretary Pompeo says, the United States
is a “Force for good” in the region. Most significantly, we seek to tackle the region’s problems by working together with our partners – advancing their interests as we advance our

For example, we’ve organized and led the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, developed the
own.

Warsaw Process on Peace and Security in the Middle East and we’re working to launch the
Middle East Strategic Alliance with our partners in the Gulf. Together with other like-minded nations we are the
cornerstone of the International Maritime Security Construct to ensure freedom of navigation in the Gulf. All of these cooperative mechanisms help build regional security and
stability. The Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS is a testament to what we can accomplish when we work together toward a common goal with local partners. The 76 nations and five
international organizations in the Global Coalition are – and should be – enormously proud that the territory ISIS once held is now liberated. Beyond the military campaign, the
real triumph of the Coalition’s effort has been the diplomacy – organizing a worldwide network to stop ISIS’s illicit financing, ending the flow of foreign terrorist fighters into
Syria, and discrediting ISIS’s bankrupt ideology and hateful message. Our contributions also include significant humanitarian assistance. Since 2014 for Iraq alone, the United
States has contributed almost $2.5 billion in humanitarian aid to conflict-affected and displaced Iraqis in the region, and $363 million to stabilize areas liberated from ISIS. This

Neither Russia nor China has shown a

has enabled the voluntary return of nearly four million internally displaced people.

willingness, let alone a capability, to organize a collective effort to defeat a global threat, not
to mention help the people harmed by ISIS. And on the assistance front, according to the UN’s Financial Tracking Service, which tracks
aid flows, China has provided less than $1 million to Iraq since 2013, and Russia has provided nothing. Instead of helping, Russia and China have sought to exploit openings to

The United States remains the indispensable partner for the

increase their own influence at the expense of their partners.

majority of countries in the region. While China and Russia play both sides in a range of
regional disputes, the United States offers a more hands-on approach in resolving the
region’s most intractable problems. Taking a firm and principled position is not always the most popular thing to do – and public opinion
sometimes reflects that – but it is a hallmark of responsible global leadership. Let me be clear – we have no desire to make any country choose between the United States and
China or Russia. Countries can have positive relations with the United States, Russia, and China. We simply want to ensure that Russia and China’s influence and activities in the
Middle East do not come at the expense of the region’s prosperity, stability, fiscal viability, and long-standing relationship with the United States. Areas of competing interests

The fact of the matter is that we have a fundamentally different approach from both Russia
and China to the region’s most pressing problems. Let’s start with Iran. Iran represents the dominant challenge facing the region
today. We see this in its nuclear escalations, its ballistic missile programs, and its malign regional behavior. Iran is stoking conflict in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and beyond, and
bankrolling terrorist groups like Hezbollah. And earlier this month, Iran staged a brazen attack on Saudi oil facilities. This attack showed Iran’s aggressiveness and fundamental
lack of respect for the sovereignty and security of its neighbors. It also threatened international energy markets, temporarily taking five percent of global oil supply off the market.
A sizable percentage of this oil is destined for China. China is Saudi Arabia’s number one customer, and Saudi Arabia is China’s leading oil supplier. Yet where was China, when

China was playing both sides, facilitating Iran’s destabilizing

its primary energy source was threatened?

activities by propping up the Iranian regime through continued oil purchases. These violations of our
sanctions give the Iranian regime crucial cash it needs to further its regional efforts to sow discord and terrorism. China has also sold weapons technology to Iran – technology that
can be used to threaten others in the region. And as Iran has interfered with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, we have led an effort to assemble the International Maritime Security
Construct to protect freedom of navigation in this critical sea lane. We’ve had countries from around the world join us to monitor Iran’s behavior and prevent them from seizing

Russia is trying to reincarnate its failed 20-year old security construct which
more ships. Where is Russia?

they dusted off to divert attention from more effective solution oriented efforts. It didn’t work 20 years
ago, and it won’t help the situation today. Our presence in the Gulf remains the bedrock of regional security and guarantees freedom of navigation for critical energy resources and
 This benefits us all, in the region and around the world. Russia
other shipping through the strategic straits of Hormuz.

and China are opportunistically seeking to increase their own returns rather than
contribute to the broader goal of regional security and stability. This behavior is not limited to Iran. In Iraq, Iran has
repeatedly undermined the central government by providing assistance to armed groups that owe more allegiance to Tehran than to Baghdad. While China and Russia pursue profit
through a heavily mercantilist policy in Iraq, U.S. assistance is providing clean drinking water to citizens in Basrah, jumpstarting Anbar’s economy with $100 million in new
projects, and clearing mines so that displaced religious minorities can return to their ancestral homes. The region’s three ongoing conflicts – in Syria, Yemen, and Libya – continue

The United States will

to claim lives and radiate instability. It is clear that these conflicts require political solutions and cannot be resolved by military force.

continue to support UN-led peace efforts throughout the region. We are deeply engaged in
efforts bring relevant parties into a political process. Russia, on the other hand, is playing
spoiler to advance its own narrow interests as the people of the region suffer. In Syria,
Russia’s behavior has been particularly egregious. Russia intervened to prop up the
murderous Asad regime. It did so under the guise of counterterrorism. Yet Russia, along with the Asad regime, has not demonstrated the ability or
willingness to even fight ISIS in Syria. Rather, the regime has shown a willingness to tolerate ISIS and other extremists in a bid to undermine the legitimate aspirations of the
Syrian people. Russia’s support for Asad has facilitated brutal attacks on civilians. Syria and Russia have used the UN’s Do Not Strike list as a targeting list, attacking civilian sites
and creating refugees and displaced persons. While the Asad regime plays by “Hama rules,” Moscow adheres to “Grozny rules,” razing entire cities filled with innocents to kill a
handful of terrorists. The United States, in contrast, is scrupulous in honoring its obligation to distinguish civilians from terrorists. And Russia did nothing as Asad deployed
chemical weapons on his own people. We have called out the regime for its reprehensible behavior and we have sought evidence to demonstrate its crimes. Russia has sowed doubt
and misinformation, doing everything it can to protect the Asad regime from accountability and frustrate the UN led processes trying to bring the conflict to an end. Instead, Russia
has used Syria as a forum to showcase its weapons, its mercenaries, and to build a platform to meddle in other regional issues. In Libya, Russia has fueled the conflict, and its use
of so-called “private” military forces is plain to see. It’s also violating the arms embargo. And where is China? Playing an unhelpful role in Syria – most recently joining Russia in
vetoing a call for an Idlib ceasefire. Areas of Concern Ultimately, we want a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China that prioritizes concrete outcomes over hopeful
aspirations. While we work with China on areas of mutual interest, such as humanitarian assistance, counter narcotics, and halting the spread of infectious diseases, we will push
back forcefully when Beijing undermines our interests and those of our allies and partners. Instead of taking a leadership role on these conflicts, China is focused on increasing its
economic and geopolitical position the region. Unfortunately, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has fallen flat – both for China and for its recipients. Its funding, which rarely has
been efficient or market-driven, has begun to dry up. China’s projects often come with opaque terms coupled with questionable labor practices and high interest rates that do not
promote the shared economic prosperity touted by the Chinese government. China’s track record using the local labor force is poor. China does not sufficiently engage local
contractors, provide enough local jobs, or train many local workers. These Chinese practices run counter to national policies in places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman,
designed to build the capacity of the local labor force and create jobs. U.S. and Middle Eastern governments both want infrastructure development that benefits local communities.
But the promise of “high-quality development” with low, short-term costs such as the promises China made at the recent Belt and Road Forum ring hollow when China’s track
record is so poor. From Burma to Malaysia to Tanzania, governments are renegotiating the terms of their debt and investments from China, and eschewing BRI projects entirely in
places like India. Not every Chinese investment project is malign, but projects that don’t meet the high standards set by inclusive organizations like the G20 will not produce
desired results. The most notable among these examples have been the disastrous outcomes of Chinese investment projects in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Ecuador. In each case, the
false promise of development has led to the harsh reality of debt, project failure, corruption, and in some cases, Chinese control. In contrast, the United States has enabled Egypt,
Israel, Jordan, and Tunisia to access over $21 billion is bonds from international markets at preferential rates through the issuance of sovereign loan guarantees. These transparent
financial mechanisms have helped support key partners’ fiscal stability, while supporting economic reforms that encourage sustainable growth and foreign investment.

Unlike China and Russia, the United States offers development assistance designed to help
people build better lives. To give just one example, in 2016, USAID helped eliminate polio in
Egypt. Today, the United States supports immunization campaigns to keep Egypt polio free.
S. programs have brought clean water and sanitation to over 25.5 million people in Egypt,
and at least 1.5 million Egyptian girls can read and write better thanks to U.S. support for
early grade reading. There are many more examples of U.S. assistance programs in the
region – from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant and Iraq – that are building
capacities in country institutions to enhance security and stability, providing essential
services and responsive governance, and driving economic reform and growth. Our total foreign
assistance to the region exceeds $7 billion per year. As we look ahead toward an increasingly digital and interconnected world economy, we need to pay more attention to the risks
that compromised telecommunication suppliers like Huawei pose to national security. Chinese laws, most notably the National Intelligence Law, compel its citizens, businesses,
and other organizations to cooperate with Chinese intelligence and security services and to keep such cooperation secret. That means government agencies’ confidential data, and
companies’ trade secrets could be fully available to the Chinese government if transmitted or processed on Huawei or other Chinese-supplied equipment. There are now media
reports that Huawei representatives have participated in spying operations on political opponents, even without the government’s knowledge. And on the human rights front, we
want to focus attention on China’s highly repressive campaign against Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Muslims in Xinjiang. Since April 2017, the Chinese
government has, by our estimates, detained more than one million individuals in internment camps where they are forced to renounce their ethnic identities, religious beliefs, or
cultural and religious practices. China’s highly repressive campaign in Xinjiang extends far beyond the camps. Officials have instituted high-tech surveillance measures, dramatic
increases in the number of security personnel, the embedding of security personnel in people’s homes, and the collection of DNA and other biodata. Outside of its borders, China
coerces members of Muslim minority groups to return to China from abroad, and pressures third countries to forcibly return asylum seekers. We were disappointed by the large
number of Arab countries that signed a letter to the Human Rights Council praising China’s actions in Xinjiang. We have welcomed the fact that Turkey has raised concerns about
the situation and we especially welcomed Qatar’s decision to withdraw its signature from the letter. We hope others will follow this example. We have yet to see China or Russia
take a principled stand on human rights in the region. And we’re not holding our breath. They remain unconcerned about human suffering and completely reject the rights of
conscience that we – and we believe the people of the Middle East and North Africa region – value so dearly.
 DA

The Aff gets rid of subsidies for fossil fuel research and development. That
means no federal funding for DAC. Coleman and Dietz 7-29:

Clayton Coleman and Emma Dietz, 7-29-2019, "Fact Sheet: Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal
Costs," Environmental And Energy Study Institute, https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-
look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs, accessed 10-21-2019, [JP]

The fossil fuel industry receives substantial government funding for research and
development. Federal funding for fossil fuels is largely administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) through three initiatives: the Office of Advanced Fossil
Energy R&D, the Loan Guarantee Program, and the National Energy Technology Lab. Annual appropriations and grants directed

toward the fossil fuel industry can also be considered direct subsidies, as they are directly
related to maintaining the competitiveness of the industry. Efforts to make coal more
economical and cleaner—despite declining natural gas and renewable energy prices—have
been a particular focus of the federal government’s funding, as has Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS). CCS technologies capture carbon dioxide from power and industrial sectors and store it deep underground in geological formations, or turn it into
useable products, such as fuels or chemicals. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Inactive). The

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was an economic stimulus package of
$787 billion. As part of this package, the Office of Fossil Energy received $3.4 billion toward
fossil fuel research and development between 2009 and 2011. The funds primarily
supported R&D of carbon capture and storage technologies. DOE Advanced Fossil Loan Programs Office (Active). The
Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (DOE LPO) was created in 2005 to provide loans to innovative energy, tribal energy, and advanced auto manufacturing projects.
While the DOE LPO is primarily focused on financing first-of-kind renewable and efficiency technologies, it has also designated $8 billion for loans to advanced fossil fuel
projects that aim to avoid or sequester greenhouse gases. Originally, the program was aimed solely at coal technologies and was later expanded to include any fossil fuel. The first
two loan solicitations did not result in any loan guarantees, largely because falling natural gas prices have made new coal projects uneconomical. In December 2016, the LPO made
its first fossil award to the Lake Charles Methanol Project, which received an initial commitment of $2 billion. The project would have produced methanol from the gasification of
petcoke, a product of petroleum refining. However, projected costs increased following tariffs on Chinese imports, and the project has stalled. As of September 2018, construction

had not begun. DOE Fossil Energy Research & Development Office (Active). Historically, DOE’s advanced fossil energy R&D
focused on reducing harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants, such as those
responsible for acid rain. Today, the office is focused on advanced power generation, power
plant efficiency, water management, and carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS), as
well as the development of unconventional oil and gas resources. In examining DOE’s fossil energy portfolio, the
dollars directed towards preserving coal as a viable power source warrant closer examination. Between 2010 and 2017, the Department of

Energy provided $2.66 billion to support 794 advanced fossil energy research and
development projects: 785 of these were R&D projects, and the remaining nine were
demonstration projects to evaluate the commercial readiness of carbon capture and storage
technologies, mostly for coal. These projects received between $13 million and $284 million.
Of the 785 remaining projects, 89 percent focused on coal research and development,
including for coal gasification, where coal is converted to synthesis gas (“syngas”) that may
be used for generating electricity and other purposes. During this same seven-year period,
91 percent of total fossil R&D money ($1.4 billion) was spent on coal-related research. For
fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $740 million for Fossil Energy Research and
Development, with continued emphasis on the continued use of coal-fired power. There is a
scientific consensus that carbon dioxide removal technologies, such as Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC), will be required to stabilize atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 over the coming decades. The majority of 1.5°C and even 2°C warming scenarios, as reported by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rely heavily on such carbon dioxide utilization and storage (CCUS) strategies to manage atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
However, CCS technologies are still not widely commercialized. In the United States, there are only 10 carbon capture facilities, and only one of these is at a coal plant. Given
both the current negative economics of coal for power generation, and the energy intensity of carbon capture and storage, CCS is very unlikely to sustain the domestic use of coal
power. Instead, the most promising avenues for CCS applications include energy-intensive industrial sectors, direct air capture of CO2, carbon utilization, and carbon capture in
natural gas power plants. To reach ambitious climate targets as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, phasing out coal’s use as a source of energy will remain necessary.

And, DAC is about to expand. It will be the most versatile negative carbon
tech, and it lets us meet the energy demand with clean fuels. Diamandis 8-23:

Peter H. Diamandis, 8-23-2019, "The Promise of Direct Air Capture: Making Stuff Out of Thin Air," Singularity Hub,
https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/23/the-promise-of-direct-air-capture-making-stuff-out-of-thin-air/, accessed 10-24-2019,
[JP]

Imagine making fuel, plastics, and concrete out of “thin air.” That’s the promise of direct air capture (DAC), a technology that fundamentally disrupts our contemporary oil

DAC essentially involves industrial photosynthesis, harnessing

economy. Mimicking what already occurs in nature,

the power of the sun to draw carbon directly out of the atmosphere. This captured carbon
can then be turned into numerous consumer goods, spanning fuels, plastics, aggregates, and
concrete (as I write this blog, I’m even wearing shoes 3D printed from carbon). A vital component of every life form on Earth,
carbon stands at the core of our manufacturing, energy, and transportation , among the
world’s highest-valued industries. And in the coming 10 years, sourcing carbon out of the
air will become more cost-effective than carbon sourced from the ground (oil). By 2030, the
carbon capture and utilization (CCU) industry is expected to reach $800 billion. But let’s start with the
basics. Direct Air Capture: The What and the How Carbon capture might seem like old news, usually written off as prohibitively expensive and unrealistic. But DAC is fast

First-generation CCS
changing the rules of the game, capable of sucking massive quantities of carbon dioxide out of the air, anywhere, at any time.

(Carbon Capture and Storage) used a technology called Point Source Capture to take CO2
directly from smoke stacks and pump it into the ground for permanent sequestration. Yet
this process required massive industrial plants tethered to CO2 emission points, allowing
far less flexibility. DAC, by contrast, can be deployed anywhere, completely independent of
emission patterns. This is because CO2 gets distributed evenly within the atmosphere. There is as
much CO2 above Los Angeles, California as rests above the Patagonian Desert. And for the purposes of DAC, this equal distribution means decimated transportation costs. So how
does it work? While a few different techniques have been developed, the most common involves industrial-scale fans that transmit ambient air through a filter. This latter

But
component then uses a chemical adsorbent (which holds molecules in the form of a thin film on its surface) to produce a pure, storable stream of carbon dioxide.

beyond the value of carbon itself, DAC could serve as a negative carbon technology, helping
us lock away atmospheric CO2 while birthing an abundance of material products. Today’s Biggest
Players Companies like Global Thermostat, Carbon Engineering, and Climeworks are now on the cutting edge of DAC technologies, capturing record quantities of CO2 from the

Just last October (2018), a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report even stated
atmosphere.

that DAC could be feasible enough to reach worldwide adoption in just the next three years .
As estimated by NAS, once the price of CO2 extraction dips below $100-150 per ton of
carbon, the air-captured commodity will be economically competitive with traditionally-
sourced oil. Since the report’s release, DAC has gained tremendous traction. Bill Gates-backed Carbon
Engineering recently closed a $68 million series C financing round and now claims it can achieve CO2 extraction at as little as $94 per ton, at scale. Or take Swiss startup
Climeworks, which has recently deployed its third DAC plant after receiving north of $35 million in funding from the Zürcher Kantonal Bank. Yet another contender, Global
Thermostat, has already demonstrated that its technology can remove CO2 for a mere $120 per ton at its facility in Huntsville, Alabama. And at scale, the startup predicts it could
achieve DAC for as little as $50 a ton. Demonstrating the sheer range of use cases, Global Thermostat has now closed deals with industrial giants from Coca-Cola—which aims to
use DAC to source CO2 for its carbonated beverages—to Exxon Mobile. In just the next few years, this latter oil and gas giant intends to pioneer a DAC-to-fuel business on the
back of Global Thermostat’s techniques. Iterating upon the basic method of DAC explained above, Carbon Engineering’s approach involves a potassium hydroxide solution. This
reacts with CO2 to form potassium carbonate, which—in the process—removes a certain amount of carbon dioxide from the air passing over it. While air remnants containing less

Once carbon capture is complete, processes

CO2 are released, the final solution is then treated to separate out captured carbon dioxide.

like DAC-derived fuels can begin. Direct Air Capture Fuels The know-how for converting
air into fuel has been around for a hundred years or more. After all, it’s the way all plant
life grows. But until now, there was no cheap and abundant source of CO2. For millions of
years, plant species have captured CO2, converting it to sugar via photosynthesis. In
succession, plants have then either burned the sugar directly or converted sugars to
hydrocarbon fuels via high pressure within the Earth’s surface over long periods of time.
Theoretically, this is not hard to do. The process requires two steps: first, electrolysis separates hydrogen from H2O. Secondly, the Sabatier reaction (1897) and Fischer-Tropsch
process (1925) together result in bonding of the carbon molecule in CO2 to hydrogen molecules to thereby create hydrocarbon fuels—just like the ones we purchase at gas stations

DAC uses solar (or other renewable energy sources) to capture carbon
or use in our stoves. Essentially,

dioxide from the air, bond it with hydrogen molecules, and create burnable fuels
molecularly identical to natural gas and diesel. In other words, the process mimics a battery
in its method of energy storage. It takes energy from the sun and stores it in a permanently
exploitable fuel source. Very soon, we will indeed be able to make fuel out of thin air.
Imagine a world powered by carbon-neutral fuels. The advantage here, in part, is that DAC
fuels use the same infrastructural elements—pipes, gas stations, and the like—that already
support our modern fossil fuel economy. Yet even using legacy distribution systems, DAC
eliminates the environmental toll. Perhaps most exciting, DAC could equalize fuel costs across the globe, democratizing immediate access. Remote
or oil-distant regions, which currently suffer high fuel prices given long-distance transit, will be able to source their own fuel, regardless of geography. And not only will DAC
fundamentally redefine geopolitics, but it will be an economic boon to nations like Australia, no longer in need of international oil shipments. But captured CO2-to-fuel is just one
of many exciting examples of DAC’s extraordinary potential. Commercial Use Cases Are Limitless In just the next few decades, we are about to manufacture a significant
percentage of the world’s plastics and building materials out of the air. Take concrete, for instance. One of the most widely used materials on Earth, second only to water, concrete
now accounts for a whopping seven percent of global CO2 emissions. Yet as it turns out, injecting CO2 into cement as it’s being manufactured strengthens the mixture and
produces a far sturdier end-product. This process also permanently sequesters CO2 into cement, largely offsetting the material’s high footprint. Up until now, however, we had no
cheap and abundant source of CO2 to achieve this. Yet with current DAC technologies and soon-to-come iterations, suppliers can now produce far more robust cement at lower
costs. NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE finalist CarbonCure is one such enterprise. Having raised more than $9 million, the team is now developing its latest application of DAC to
create carbon-neutral concrete. Yet another XPRIZE finalist, Carbon Upcycling UCLA, utilizes CO₂ to create a product dubbed CO₂NCRETE. A low-carbon concrete-equivalent
material, CO₂NCRETE™ has achieved a CO₂ footprint approximately 50 percent lower than that of traditional concrete. And the product is just as viable. In success, these
conversion products are carbon-negative, high-value feedstocks in great demand across countless legacy industries. PCCs, for instance, are currently used in paper-making,
plastics, paints, and adhesives, while future applications in cement and concrete are now under development. Cement PMC, on the other hand, is an entirely new product that can
be cast into final shapes and thermally cured at low temperature. As a consequence, the solid undergoes spontaneous reaction bonding to form rigid solids (blocks, panels, tiles,
etc.). But beyond Earth-bound utility, DAC could hold countless vital applications in extra-planetary ventures. With a 98 percent CO2 atmosphere, Mars could be an ideal target
for DAC, not to mention an optimal source of needed commodities. To successfully colonize and establish a society on Mars, DAC could help us produce everything from fuel and
food to 3D printed replacement parts and construction tools. Even today, SpaceX’s intended Mars strategy largely relies on the conversion of CO2 into methane for rocket fuel.
Meanwhile, NASA is hosting a $1 million CO2 Conversion Centennial Challenge, inviting teams to devise carbon utilization technologies that turn CO2 into sugar molecules on

Direct air capture will soon allow us to sequester gigatons of CO2 from the
Mars. Final Thoughts

atmosphere, yielding material abundance for countless everyday products. By making CO2
a vital part of our economy, we can begin to derive incredible value from one of our
principal climate change agents, currently emitted as a “waste” product. And applications
of captured carbon are near-limitless. Whether for fuel on Mars, smart city infrastructural equipment, or everyday plastic commodities, our
atmosphere’s carbon reserves are free for the taking and will fundamentally transform our global energy and materials economy. Welcome to the age of carbon-derived abundance.

And, DAC is key to zero emissions, but commercialization requires federal

subsidies. Jacobson 5-28:

Rory Jacobson, 5-28-2019, "The case for investing in direct air capture just got clearer,"
GreenBiz, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/case-investing-direct-air-capture-just-got-clearer, accessed 10-24-2019, [JP]

The idea of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a method of combating climate change is nothing new. For the past 20 years, climate experts have included this
strategy in their models showing theoretical pathways for avoiding catastrophic climate change — all of that data has been calculated based on the ability of plants to capture and

This set
store carbon in their biomass. Now, an entirely engineered solution is gaining ground among climate scientists, engineers, venture capitalists and oil majors alike.

of technologies, called direct air capture, or DAC, refers to machines that remove carbon
dioxide from the ambient atmosphere. Whereas plants use photosynthesis to convert
sunlight and CO2 into sugar, DAC systems use low-carbon energy to remove carbon from
the atmosphere with fans and filters. Although the concept is relatively simple, actually
removing and purifying a gas that only makes up 0.04 percent of our atmosphere has been a
challenge. Engineering challenge aside, the economic and political pieces required for this
technology to take off are beginning to fall into place. Carbon Engineering, a leading DAC
company, published a report (PDF) a little less than a year ago suggesting they could
remove and store CO2 for under $100 per ton. Thanks to some recent U.S. policy
developments, companies such as theirs can receive a $35-$50 tax credit for each ton of the
CO2 they remove. At the same time, private investments in the technology are nearing $200
million. For a technology very much still in its infancy, this kind of momentum is key. Plants have
spent billions of years mastering photosynthesis, while we have only a few decades to develop and deploy hundreds of our own carbon-removing plants. But do we actually need
direct air capture to meet our climate goals, and if so, what will it take to get this technology to commercialization? A recently published report by Rhodium Group makes the first
projection of the need for DAC alongside other carbon removal and mitigation strategies at the domestic level. This alone is monumental, as carbon removal is no longer being
treated as a unified approach to climate mitigation, but as a set of distinct approaches with their own costs and advantages. Moreover, the report helps to inform whether DAC

The report
options are considered a crucial part of our climate solution or a distraction from more effective technologies. Do we actually need DAC?

demonstrates that despite the "break-neck" progress we’ve seen in electrification, energy
efficiency, decarbonized electricity and other carbon removal approaches, the United States
won’t easily meet — let alone exceed — the targets outlined by the Paris Agreement without
direct air capture. According to the report, to get there the United States will need to suck
between 185 and 1850 million metric tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere with DAC
by 2050. For context, this is roughly 4 percent to 37 percent of 2017 U.S. CO2 emissions.
That’s no small feat. Currently, even the largest DAC facilities in operation remove only thousands of tons of CO2 per year, and the maximum capacity for the
facilities described in the report is 1 million metric tons per year. While these figures may seem daunting (and they are), these results offer confirmation that significantly greater
federal and private research and development will be required to install the number and scale of facilities recommended in the report. Catalyzing climatic carbon capture
On AC
A2 Warming
 Turn – Shift

Lowing US demand increases usage abroad and causes shift to dirtier coal.
Schwanitt 14
Valeria Schwanitt, Franziska Piontek, Christoph Bertram, and Gunnar Luderer (Pots- dam Institute for Climate Impact
Research). “Long-term climate policy implications of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.” Energy Policy. 2014. JDN.
https://www.pik- potsdam.de/members/luderer/publications/SchwanittVJPiontekFBertramCLuderer
G2014Longtermclimatepolicy.pdf [JP]
Phasing out subsidies for the consumption of fossil fuels can potentially support a sustainable transition of the domestic energy system via two basic causal chains. Both are
connected with higher end-user prices induced by the reduction of subsidies. Firstly, this may lower total (domestic) consumption of final energy (efficiency increase). Secondly,

domestic effects, however, can

higher end-user prices may also trigger a substitution of fossil fuels by cleaner alternatives (cleaner production). These

be offset by the rest of the world as energy markets are globally connected: price
differentials between alternative fuels do not only change domestically but also at world
markets (as already discussed in Section 3.1). Therefore, it is not a priori clear whether a removal of fossil fuel
subsidies supports a sustainable transition. Notably, a large reduction in demand for a
particular fuel can also lower international prices to an extent that the demand for energy
carriers in regions abroad increases – the second manifestation of the rebound effect. It depends on
a region’s responsiveness to price changes. In addition, there is also a potential backlash connected with

substituting fuels. The key factor for a net ben- efit w.r.t. a sustainable transition is to
trigger a shift towards cleaner technologies and not, e.g. a substitution of oil by coal causing
an expansion of carbon active pollutants (Krewi􏰀, 2002 and GEA, 2012). In the following, we discuss the results obtained with REMIND
regarding the two causal chains.
 Turn – Green Paradox

The Aff encourages firms to drill more in the short run to keep prices low.
Asche Des Guten 9-21:

Achse Des Guten, 9-21-2019, "The Green Paradox: Why Europe's Climate Policies Increase Global CO2 Emissions," The
Global Warming Policy Forum (Gwpf), https://www.thegwpf.com/the-green-paradox-why-europes-unilateral-climate-policies-
increase-global-co2-emissions/, accessed 11-12-2019, [JP]

Yesterday, 20 September, the so-called “Climate Cabinet” of Germany’s federal government met to set the course of German climate policy for the coming years. Christoph
Kramer spoke with Johannes Bachmann about the so-called Green Paradox and the economic concepts that fuel it. Dr Bachmann is an economist and a member of the Hayek
Society. Two years ago he received his doctorate from Michael Bräuninger, a Hamburg economist and former research director of the Hamburg Institute of International
Economics (HWWI). In his dissertation Bachmann dealt with the effect of climate policy measures on CO2 emissions. Christoph Kramer: Mr. Bachmann, if one looks into your
dissertation as a layman it’s all Greek to me. Could you please briefly explain exactly what the thesis is about and what methodology you used? Johannes Bachmann: I can well
understand that. On the one hand, there are quite a few technical terms in the work, and on the other, there are many formulas. It is a typical dissertation: a work by an academic for
academics. The aim of the thesis was to examine the effects of climate policy measures on the supply side of fossil fuels. To this end, I calculated how owners of raw materials
adjust their production quotas as a result of CO2 taxes or subsidies for renewable energies in order to continue generating as much revenue as possible. Why did I focus on the

The term “green paradox” is

supply side of all things? The answer is: the quantity of fossil fuels that is extracted from the earth is also consumed.

used in your work when climate policy accelerates the worldwide extraction of fossil fuels
and global warming. How can this happen? First of all, I have to say that the concept of the Green Paradox goes back to Hans-Werner
Sinn. The scientific discussion about this, which was initiated about 10 years ago, finally led me to do my doctorate. Sinn’s credo is that climate policy should not only achieve half
solutions, i.e. without taking into account the reactions of raw material suppliers. How can we imagine the emergence of a Green Paradox? Well, here is what we need to be aware

In contrast to a producer of goods, a raw material owner is basically faced with the
of:

question as to whether it is better to extract and offer some of his resources now or rather in
the future. He will take into account that an increasing shortage or increased demand in the
future will lead to an increase in the value of his property. If he assumes a high increase in
value, his current production rate will be comparatively low. However, if he expects that
climate policy measures will greatly reduce the increase in value of his reserves in the
future, he will increase his production and invest the proceeds in securities. This
automatically leads to an acceleration of both fossil fuel extraction and CO2 emissions. Hans-
Werner Sinn comes to the conclusion that the successive promotion of climate policy measures can cause precisely this problem. Climate policy can

therefore provide incentives that achieve exactly the opposite of what it actually intends.
Hence the term “green paradox”.
 No Solvency

Ending subsidies doesn’t end emissions. Harvey 18:

Chelsea Harvey, 2-8-2018, "New Study Finds Cutting Oil Subsidies Will Not Stop Climate Change," Scientific American,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-study-finds-cutting-oil-subsidies-will-not-stop-climate-change/, accessed 10-
29-2019, [JP]

Ending financial assistance for fossil fuel companies has long been discussed as a tactic to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in renewables. Oil, natural gas and coal
companies worldwide receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year in tax breaks or other subsidies—and some experts argue that cutting them off would drive prices up and

It's a simple idea, but one that's been sparsely investigated by scientists. Now,
consumption down.

new research suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies might not have the global effect
that some climate advocates were hoping for. The study, published yesterday in the journal
Nature, used an ensemble of five models to investigate the impact of ending fossil fuel
subsidies worldwide by the year 2030, assuming both high and low oil prices in the future.
Doing so would have a modest impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, the research
finds, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a half-billion to 2 billion metric tons annually.
Currently, global carbon dioxide emissions come to about 40 billion tons each year. In the
meantime, the national pledges submitted under the Paris climate agreement would add up
to an annual decrease of about 4 billion to 8 billion tons. In other words, the effect of
removing fossil fuel subsidies would fall far short of the reductions promised in the Paris
Agreement—which many experts calculate are still not enough to stay within the desired
1.5- or 2-degree-Celsius temperature target. "I think this will be surprising news to some people, because folks had just imagined that if
you did subsidy reform, that would be beneficial to climate," said David Victor, co-director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California,
San Diego, who was not a part of the new study. "But nobody had actually worked out the analysis, and that's the contribution of this paper."
 No Solvency – Too Small

Stopping subsidies doesn’t do enough to stop domestic warming and has no

affect global emissions. Gerasimchuk 17:

Ivetta Gerasimchuk, Andrea M. Bassi, Carlos Dominguez, Ordonez Alexander, Doukas Laura, Merrill Shelagh Whitley,
February 2017, “Zombie Energy: Climate benefits of ending subsidies to fossil fuel production,” 2017 International Institute
for Sustainable Development, https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/zombie-energy-climate-benefits-ending-
subsidies-fossil-fuel-production.pdf [JP]

Study and its main findings Country-level assessments (continued) Conflicting results for the proposed repealing of intangible drilling credit in the United
States Deductions against Intangible Drilling and Development costs are an important tax incentive for independent oil companies in the United States,
introduced in 1913. In 2009 there was a proposal to curb this support measure. One study commissioned by the oil industry concluded that the subsidy
removal would cut USA oil and gas production by 15%, or 3.8 million barrels of oil equivalent daily—thus leaving these fuels in the ground
(WoodMackenzie, 2013). In
contrast, independent research has concluded that the removal of the
subsidy would affect industry profits, but have little impact on production (Aldy, 2013).
Insignificant impact on emissions of removing 3 oil and gas production subsidies in the
United States through 2030 A study models firm behaviour in response to the potential loss
of each of the three major tax preferences for oil and gas producers in the United States,
including the intangible drilling credit (see the preceding example). It finds that removing these three
tax preferences in the United States would increase the global price of oil by 1% by 2030.
U.S. oil production could drop 5% and global consumption could fall by less than 1% in
that timeframe. Meanwhile, domestic natural gas prices could rise between 7% and 10%, and both domestic gas production and consumption
could fall between 3% and 4%, with insignificant impacts on emissions (Metcalf, 2016). 8 Gt of CO2 abated through the removal of subsidies to oil
production in the United States Erickson et al. (2017) show that billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies could enable large amounts of oil and gas
production in the U.S. that would not otherwise be economic. At USD 50 per barrel, roughly the January 2017 oil price, 45% of discovered (but not yet
producing) U.S. oil would depend on subsidies to reach minimum returns acceptable to investors. The additional oil produced due to subsidies would
emit 8 billion tonnes of CO2 abated once combusted.