You are on page 1of 32

Download the original attachment

Coal Counterplan and Disads -- Aff and Neg—Index 1/2

The U.S. economy is heavily dependent on coal.
NCC, 1993, The Role Of U.S. Coal In Energy, Economy
And The Environment – Special Report,
The economic well-being of the United States depends substantially on coal, primarily in
the form of electricity. Coal has been the nation’s largest domestic source of energy for
nearly a decade. Electric power, the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy,
is the primary market for coal. Accounting for 56% of total generation, low-cost coal
contributed to the electrification of the economy over the past twenty years. If coal had
not been available to meet the growth in electric demand, consumers would have incurred
over $190 billion in additional fuel costs since 1971. Coal contributes over $80 billion
annually to the economy and stimulates over one million jobs. Coal also contributes to
the economy in terms of tax revenue, exports, and infrastructure and technology
development. Further development of coal production, combustion,
and emissions technologies can ensure that coal continues to contribute to energy
security, economic growth, and environmental protection.
Limiting coal would destroy the American economy.
Marc Morano, Communications Director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2008, The American Spectator: Cap and
Restricting the use of fossil fuels for energy would drive the price of everything -- not
just gasoline or power to light homes, everything -- up dramatically. We've already seen
increases in the price of food thanks to our insane policy of trying to grow our fuel
through ethanol and other bio-fuels. If we're daft enough to cap our use of fossil fuels, as
environmentalists and their political enablers want us to, we'll first see increased prices,
then severe shortages, and finally unavailability of everything else as well. Choking off
the use of carbon-based fuels could and would make an utter dog's breakfast of the
American economy, which has been the most powerful engine of wealth the world has
ever seen.
Limiting coal use will hurt the economy.
William W. Beach, Director of the center for Data Analysis, 2008, The Economic Costs
of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation, The Heritage Foundation,
Our analysis makes clear that S. 2191 promises extraordinary perils for the American
economy. Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple, untested, and undeveloped
technologies will lead to severe restrictions on energy use and large increases in energy
costs. In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets, these higher energy costs
will spread through the economy and inject unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every
stage of production and consumption--all of which will add yet more financial burdens
that must be borne by American taxpayers.
S. 2191 extracts trillions of dollars from the millions of American energy consumers and
delivers this wealth to permanently identified classes of recipients, such as tribal groups
and preferred technology sectors, while largely circumventing the normal congressional
appropriations process. Unbound by the periodic review of the normal budgetary process,
this de facto tax-and-spend program threatens to become permanent--independent of the
goals of the legislation.
The loss of coal will cripple the economy.
William W. Beach, Director of the center for Data Analysis, 2008, The Economic Costs
of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation, The Heritage Foundation,
Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach
$4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). Single-year GDP losses hit at
least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006
dollars). Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020
and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).[3] The
average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in
inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an
additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.


The coal industry is key to the railroad industry.
Ed Quillen, 1996, Disappearing railroad blues, High Country News,
From a railroad point of view, a route from the Powder River to a distant coal customer is
like owning a license to print money because the route doesn’t go over mountain passes
or gorges, and because the stripmined coal is very cheap, leaving lots of "room" for high
transport costs. Coal that costs $3.50 a ton at the mine near Gillette, Wyo., will go for $30
a ton at a power plant in Illinois, Georgia or Texas. The difference is the cost of transport
- railroad income. Powder River coal accounted for 30 percent of the BN’s income in
1994, and in 1995, the UP hauled nearly 100 million tons out of the Powder River Basin.


growing now, but the plan hurts railroad profitability by cutting coal hauling
Meyer, Production Assistant, Gannett Healthcare Group, Hoffman Estates, IL, 2008
Randy,, June 30
Railroads don't stop the production of coal, RAILROADS LOVE COAL (railroads
make a lot of money hauling coal). Railroads HATE COAL SLURRY PIPELINES, as
it by-passes the railroad, and the railroad makes no money. Thus the railroads do all they
can to stop it. The right of way/public domain laws vary somewhat state to state. If a
mine is not right along a railroad track, a truck will carry it to an area that is set up to load
up coal trains. A train is much cheaper, unless the power plant is nearby to the mine.
Recently, the price of oil has gone up higher then diesel produced from coal. You are
right that the oil companies are going to try to stop it. Estimate I saw was they can make
clean diesel from coal for about 3 dollars a gallon. Not cheap, but better then 5 dollars a
gallon it costs now.
More Ev.
Goode, Norfolk Southern Railroad Chairman and CEO, 2005
David R., Railway Age, April,;c
Financing additional capacity to handle continuing growth will require megabucks
in investment capital. Nothing will frighten investors faster than legislation or
regulation calling into question the industry's ability to improve its margins and
cash flow. Even with the best backing from Wall Street, we are gong to require the most
innovative public/private partnerships and help from federal, state, and local governments
to make any progress toward improving capacity.
Lest we get discouraged, however, take a look back to the '70s. Railroads were on the
brink of ruin.... With their rate of return on net investment well below what a child could
earn on a passbook savings account, railroads lacked the capital to properly maintain their
tracks. Not surprisingly, rail's share of intercity freight plummeted. That's what we've
been building back from--and the really good news is this tough, resilient group of
railroads has done just that. We have begun a strong upward trend. After the Staggers
Act, the quintessential regulated industry turned into an aggressively managed growth
industry. It's been a long, difficult track.
The freight system in the United States is a treasure. Without strong railroads, where
would we be, given highway conditions? Railroads have been enormous forces for
improving the transportation business--and we can do even more now, because our
time really has come.


Peterson, director of government affairs for Union Pacific Railroad, 2007
May 1
Most products essential to economic growth - lumber, steel and other construction
materials, and consumer goods such as electronics, clothing and toys - move by
freight, and no one movesmore raw materials and finished products than Union Pacific.
No industry moves freight in a more environmentally friendly manner than
railroads. Trains are three times more fuel efficient than over-the-road trucks. For
example, one train moving intermodal containers can remove up to 280 trucks from
our roads. Trains carrying other types of freight can take up to 500 trucks off our
highways. Investment in new technology is making railroads environmentally “cleaner
and greener” than ever. Union Pacific has invested billions to purchase environmentally
friendly locomotives, and we operate the cleanest locomotive fleet in North America. In
recent years, unprecedented shipping – driven by increasing consumer demand for
products from Asia and Mexico and domestic production - has had a ripple effect across
the nation’s transportation infrastructure, especially in fast-growing areas such as the
Southwest. What the nation, particularly the Southwest, is experiencing for the first time
is a demand for transportation that is approaching - and in some cases is exceeding -


Turn: Environmental restrictions cause industries to move to China, where they
produce more CO2
*,2007, Steelmakers call for global sector-specific climate regime,
Cap-and-trade regional policies such as those currently used in the EU are not effective in
reducing carbon dioxide emissions", said Philippe Varin, CEO of Corus and Executive
Committee Member of the International Iron and Steel Insitute (IISI).
Such policies, he added, "merely result in a switch of production" to China and India and
are "likely to increase, rather than reduce, global greenhouse gas concentrations."
Turn: Industries move to China to avoid environmental standards.
Repps Hudson, 2008, Arch Coal chief keeps his focus on carbon,
The energy efficiency of the U.S. and Europe is actually pretty high. China has about 80
percent of the energy efficiency that we have. If we do something draconian here (to
combat carbon dioxide emissions), steel mills will move to China and elsewhere in Asia
where standards will not be as high. We have to be very careful how we approach this.


Turn: Economic growth increases fossil fuel consumption and it makes global
warming inevitable.
Dr. Glen Barry et al, 2008, President and Founder of Ecological Internet , Economic
And Global Ecology,
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate
policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this growth
is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The
growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and
unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life.
With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it
becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological
sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric
viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it
would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later.
Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent
strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by
using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered
by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection.
Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to


The U.S. is increasing safety in coal mines.
CBS, 2008, Government Steps Up Coal Mine Safety Plan,
MSHA chief Richard Stickler said Monday the agency has 750 inspectors with the 322
new hires. But, because of resignations and retirements, the new hires represent a net
increase of 163 inspectors. Stickler said he also has embarked on a plan to ensure
inspectors complete required visits to every coal mine in the nation, aided by $10 million
earmarked for overtime pay this year.
"We're doing everything we can to see that we make all the mandated inspections," he
Mine safety advocate Tony Oppegard, a Lexington lawyer, said that without additional
inspectors, MSHA had been unable to meet a federal requirement to visit each mine four
times annually.
Coal mining has made large improvements in safety.
Blackwell Thomas, April 14, 2008, State marks five years of safe coal mines, The
Today officially marks five years coal miners in the state of Illinois have gone without a
fatality on the job, officials said. Gov. Rod Blagojevich has declared today "Mine Safety
Day" to commemorate the state's fifth consecutive year without a mining fatality, a feat
officials said is a first since the state began mining. In a release, Blagojevich praised the
work of Illinois miners. "Today is a great day for the Illinois coal industry and the men
and women who take on tremendous risk each day when they go to work," he said. "To
go five consecutive years without losing a life in an industry worldwide that has seen its
share of recent tragedies is an accomplishment that should not be overlooked." The
governor's release touts safety measures such as frequent mine inspections, which include
checks for "proper ventilation, hazardous conditions and ensuring roof and rib control
procedures are being followed" with helping the state to achieve the five-year feat.


A. Steel Industry growing now.
Dipankar Bose, 2008, Whither the steel industry?, Business Line,
The second question pertains to demand. Our steel consumption has been rising over the
last six years. From 29.19 mt in 2001-02 it rose to 36.37 mt in 2004-05. Afterwards it rose faster and reached
41.43 mt in 2005-06 and 43.74 mt in 2006-07. In fact, between 2000-01 and 2006-07 the total quantum of steel sold in
India was 213.5 mt, some 68.8 mt more than what was sold in the previous six years. This huge induction of new steel
goods in the economy has sharply raised the size of the total steel stock and also the proportion of new products to the
total stock, thereby significantly increasing the productive capacity in the economy. To utilise this vast stock and the
net yearly additions to it at a given level, the domestic steel demand has to rise sufficiently high every year.

B. Lack of coal destroys the steel supply.

Time, 1974,
A Costly Coal Showdown,,9171,911498-2,00.html
Crucial Test. Soft coal now provides 20% of U.S. energy; a U.M.W. strike would slash
production of it by 75%. Coal is used to generate 50% of the nation's electric power, and
utilities would have to begin cutting power generation anywhere from two to twelve
weeks after a coal strike began, depending on the size of their stockpiles. Yet long before
most utilities began running short of coal, the nation's steel mills would be crippled. The
mills have about a 30-day stockpile of coking coal on hand, but in the event of a strike
they would have to cut production immediately in order to stretch out these stocks. After
two weeks, output would be down 50%. With steel already in short supply, the effects
would show up rapidly in layoffs by companies that turn out autos, machinery, appliances
and ships. After four to six weeks, havoc in production and employment would begin to
snowball throughout the economy.
C. Turns case -- Steel is key to energy infrastructure.
American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, -
A typical refinery contains miles of specialty pipe, large sophisticated boilers and
process pressure vessels, thousands of custom made valves and fittings -- all made from
steel designed expressly for critical applications. Pipelines, the vehicles by which
petroleum and natural gas are delivered to refineries and then on to consumers, are made
from technically demanding plate steel in wide and very heavy gauges. Prompt and
effective maintenance and restoration of pipelines are vital to our national energy security
infrastructure and to our national economy Electric power generation is an engine for our
economy. Steel is not only present in the
structures, but in the huge generators, which use large quantities of sophisticated
electrical lamination steel sheet, and in the boilers, pressure vessels and pipe that is
needed to produce and deliver the steam or water to the generators. Transmission towers,
made entirely of steel, carry high voltage electric wires and provide support for our
nation’s microwave, cellular and other communications equipment. Steel utility
distribution poles provide the structures by which electricity is routed to commercial and
domestic customers.


Steel is key to Transportation.
American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, -
An efficient national highway system is crucial to the defense and security of our
country. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was created and implemented
with this important objective. Maintaining and improving this vital transportation link
is a top national priority, and steel plays a vital role though reinforcing steels (rebar),
guardrails, signage, light poles and other supporting structures. In addition, building
our transportation security infrastructure with steel saves energy. Continuously
reinforced concrete roadways have been shown to improve fuel efficiency in heavy
vehicles by as much as 20 percent, and steel-intensive transportation infrastructure
improvements are also helping to reduce commuter delays – a tangible way to decrease
the billion of dollars wasted in burning excessive fuel.
Steel is key to health and public safety.
American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, -
Public health and safety dictate reliable and efficient sewage, wastewater treatment and
management facilities. Steel components, such as tubular goods, tanks, culverts, storm
water management and storm sewers are integral to the construction and operation of
these facilities.
Safe, potable water is essential for all Americans. Steel is unsurpassed as a conduit for
water. Relatively thick plate steel for pipe dominates, but thinner steel plate is also in
great demand. Steel tanks meet zero tolerance leakage standards, and they are safer
than other materials in tornadoes, earthquakes, mudslides and extreme temperatures.
Whether for flood control, irrigation, recreation, industrial or drinking water reservoir
use, dams must be protected and maintained. Steel plays a vital role in certain types of
dam structures.


Steel is key to military power and national security.
American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, -
The U.S. carbon/alloy and specialty steel industries are vital partners to American
contractors and to the DOD. Domestic and specialty metals are found in virtually every
military platform. Whether it is missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, helicopters, Humvees®
or munitions, American-made steels and specialty metals are crucial components of U.S.
military strength. A few examples follow:
1. The Joint Strike fighter F135 engine, the gears, bearings, and the body itself, will use
high performance specialty steels and superalloys produced by U.S. specialty steel
2. Land based vehicles such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank, and the
of Light Armored Vehicles use significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle.
3. Steel plate is used in the bodies and propulsion systems of the naval fleet.
4. The control cables on virtually all military aircraft, including fighter jets and military
transport planes, are produced from steel wire rope.
Numerous additional examples illustrating how steel and specialty metals directly support
the U.S. defense industrial base are provided in Appendices 1 and 2. These materials are
an integral part of many diversified military applications and, as such, are in a continuing
state of technological development. Steel’s importance to the military must also be
looked at in a broader context to include both direct and indirect steel shipments to the
military infrastructure that are needed to support our defense efforts, both at home and
overseas -- e.g., all of the steel that goes into the rails, rail cars, ground vehicles, tanks,
ships, military barracks, fences and bases, which are not classified as shipments to
ordinance, aircraft, shipbuilding or other military uses.

***COAL BAD***
Inspection rates have hit their lowest in a decade, coal mining is unsafe.
New York Times Editorial , 2007, Unsafe Mining,
Crandall Canyon is unlikely to be the only coal mine with questionable safety standards.
Congress should investigate the broader question of whether safety standards in the
nation’s mines, and their enforcement by federal regulators, are slipping as energy
companies embark on a massive hunt for coal in their rush to secure new energy sources.
In the past three years, energy companies have opened nearly 50 new coal mines a year.
The number of coal miners has grown by almost a fifth since 2003. Yet last year
M.S.H.A.’s inspection hours per mine and the inspection completion rate both hit their
lowest point in at least a decade. And deadly accidents soared. Last year, 47 coal miners
died, more than twice as many as in 2005 and the most since 1995. The fatality rate,
which measures deaths as a percentage of all workers, was at its highest since 2001.


U.S. Hegemony cannot prevent wars.
Nancy Lapp, 2006, Hegemonic Irrelevance? Peru and Ecuador at War,
U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere has been a “fact of life”; for close to two
centuries the U.S. has heavily influenced the politics and economies of Latin American
countries. According to some variants of hegemonic stability theory, one would expect a
Pax Americana as a result. Yet interstate conflicts have persisted in a region one expects
the U.S. to wield its greatest influence.
U.S. Hegemony doesn’t prevent wars, it increases their likelihood.
Nancy Lapp, 2006, Hegemonic Irrelevance? Peru and Ecuador at War,
This paper presents the possibility that U.S. hegemony not only did not prevent the
conflict, but inadvertently allowed more risky behavior, particularly by Ecuador. Ecuador
wanted to change the border status quo while Peru wanted to maintain it. Ecuador was
clearly the weaker party to the conflict. Antagonizing Peru could be dangerous; Ecuador
had already been invaded by Peru and could expect this to happen again. Ecuador could
count on international intervention to prevent extreme consequences of attempting to win
concessions from Peru. The four guarantors would likely intervene to prevent a large-
scale war, a long-term invasion of Ecuador by Peru, or further territorial loss for Ecuador


The coal industry has reached an all time low.
Seth Dunn, 1999, King Coal’s Weakening
Grip on Power, Worldwatch Institute,
Indeed, the sun may be setting on the empire of coal. Its share of world energy, which
peaked at 62 percent in 1910, is now 23 percent and dropping. Although coal’s market
price has fallen 64 percent in the past 20 years to a historical low of $32 per ton, global
use is at its lowest in a decade, having fallen 2.1 percent in 1998. One reason for this
decline is that the price of dealing with coal’s health and environmental toll—the “hidden
cost”—is rising. And now King Coal’s remaining colonies find themselves confronted
with a concern of the sort that bedeviled
Jevons. This time, however, it is coal dependence—not depletion—that is the potential
threat to progress.


The U.S. will inevitably regulate CO2.
Kelly Sims Gallagher, Director, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, And Jennie
Stephens, Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, 2005, Untie
Utilities' Hands on Coal, The Albuquerque Journal,
Around the world, political pressure from the 144 countries that have signed on to the
Kyoto Protocol will build as their economies start to make more sacrifices to reduce
emissions. The already strong scientific consensus that CO2 and other greenhouse gases
are changing the Earth's climate is growing ever stronger, and public awareness has
become correspondingly stronger as well. A recent report by the bipartisan National
Commission on Energy Policy recommended the establishment of a mandatory, economy
wide system of tradable permits to limit CO2 and other greenhouse gases, with a cap on
permit costs to keep potential costs constrained. Although political support for CO2
regulation may still be insufficient to pass legislation, the notion that the United States
needs to take action on CO2 is gaining momentum in Congress, as demonstrated by the
current holdup of the administration's Clear Skies legislation due to its failure to include
CO2 limits. And key political players in both the public and private sectors now
acknowledge that it is inevitable that the United States will regulate CO2 emissions


Text: The United States federal government should fund the development of clean
coal and offer incentives to promote its use


Government promises Clan Coal support, but no funding.
Wald, 08
Matthew L., Writer for The New York Times, May 30th 2008
Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal,
For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They
want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it
back into the ground.
President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.”
All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of
Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives
are practically begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique
is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase
project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the
power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Clean Coal has no Funding
Ashley, 08
Steven, Writer for Scientific American, February 4th, 2008
(U.S. Cancels Clean Coal Plant,
So much for clean coal—at least for now. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
announced that it has canceled plans to build a prototype 275-megawatt power plant, its
first so-called FutureGen facility, in Mattoon, Ill., which was designed to burn coal to
produce electricity, and then sock away 90 percent of the resulting climate change–
causing carbon dioxide safely underground.
Amid spiraling costs due to rising prices for concrete and steel, among other factors, the
DOE said it was pulling the plug to save money and to restructure the agency's clean coal
effort to be less centralized and more effective.


Coal Gasification Stops Greenhouse Gases, and makes Carbon Sequestration
DOE, April 08
U.S. Department of Energy, April 2008
Gasification Technology R&D,
Coal gasification may offer a further environmental advantage in addressing concerns
over the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. If oxygen is
used in a coal gasifier instead of air, carbon dioxide is emitted as a concentrated gas
stream in syngas at high pressure. In this form, it can be captured and sequestered more
easily and at lower costs. By contrast, when coal burns or is reacted in air, 80 percent of
which is nitrogen, the resulting carbon dioxide is diluted and more costly to separate.
Coal Gasification Triples Coal Resources, has little environmental impacts, and
leads to Carbon sequestration
Friedmann, 07
Dr. S. Julio, Director, Carbon Management Program, Lawrence Livermore National Lab,
November 14
Underground Coal Gasification in the USA and Abroad,

UCG can be applied to coal deposits that are not amenable to conventional mining
methods. It is estimated that UCG can nearly triple coal resources available to
conventional mining. It has been demonstrated that UCG can be performed with
extremely limited environmental impacts, much less than conventional mining and
combustion. The main environmental concern is the possibility of contaminating ground
water; however, it has been shown in a field program in Australia that groundwater can
be effectively protected. Importantly, UCG has technical advantages that allow for low
cost carbon sequestration and decarbonization of emissions, permitting substantial
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.


Carbon Sequestration can reduce CO2 and be Competitive
Doyle, 07
Alister, Writer for International Business Times, November 2007
(Clean coal test traps 95 percent carbon: Norway firm,
Tests of a new technology for capturing greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants
have achieved 95 percent cuts in a step towards new ways to fight climate change, a
Norwegian company said on Friday.
"It's a breakthrough for us," Henrik Fleischer, chief executive of Sargas technology
group, said of tests held since October of a prototype at the Vartan power plant, run by
Finnish energy group Fortum (FUM1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research) in Stockholm.
"A competitive coal-fired power plant with carbon dioxide capture could be built today
with this technology," he told Reuters. "It could produce energy at competitive costs."
Carbon Sequestration helps stop Global Warming
Ashley, 08
Steven, Writer for Scientific American, February 4th, 2008
(U.S. Cancels Clean Coal Plant,
Many experts believe that truly clean coal-fired power plants, coupled with such carbon
capture and storage systems, offer one of the best hopes of keeping global greenhouse
warming at bay in coming decades. But green energy watchers always suspected that the
government was not ready to pony up the necessary billions it would take, including the
ballooning $1.8-billion estimated budget for FutureGen, which many environmentalists
charged was a mere payoff for the politically connected coal industry.


Coal Gasification Provides Energy Security
Friedmann, 07
Dr. S. Julio, Director, Carbon Management Program, Lawrence Livermore National Lab,
November 14
Underground Coal Gasification in the USA and Abroad,
Due to the ability to generate electricity, natural gas substitutes, liquid fuels, and
hydrogen from coal at low cost, UCG has clear benefits regarding secure domestic fuel
supplies. Naturally, UCG provides on technology pathway to secure production of
domestic liquid fuels for military supplies, similar to the goals of the TED and JBUFF
programs within the Dept. of Defense. In addition, the accelerated adoption of UCG in
developing countries could reduce future demands on liquid fuels and extend the current
international reserves of oil and natural gas. Both could substantially reduce the risks to
supply disruptions faced by the US while enhancing stability and economic growth in
rapidly growing nations of interest.


Coal Gasification Helps Developing Countries and Minimizes Mining Deaths, and
leads to Carbon Sequestration
Friedmann, 07
Dr. S. Julio, Director, Carbon Management Program, Lawrence Livermore National Lab,
November 14
Underground Coal Gasification in the USA and Abroad,

Due to the low cost and environmental benefits, UCG hold particular promise for
developing countries with large coal reserves, including China, India, and Indonesia. In
the case of India and China, UCG could provide substantial environmental benefit in the
form of reduced particulate, NOX, and sulfur emissions. It would allow both nations to
exploit their high-ash coals using advanced conversion technologies like IGCC
generation. Finally, it would minimize the risk of mining deaths, degradation of the
surface environment, and provide a low-cost option for CO2 sequestration.


Coal Gasification can power the chemical industry and the transportation system,
and has zero emissions.
BBC News, November 05
BBC News, November 28th, 2005
(Clean coal technology: How it works,
Coal gasification plants are favoured by some because they are flexible and have high
levels of efficiency. The gas can be used to power electricity generators, or it can be used
elsewhere, i.e. in transportation or the chemical industry.
In Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, coal is not combusted
directly but reacts with oxygen and steam to form a "syngas" (primarily hydrogen). After
being cleaned, it is burned in a gas turbine to generate electricity and to produce steam to
power a steam turbine.
Coal gasification plants are seen as a primary component of a zero-emissions system.
However, the technology remains unproven on a widespread commercial scale.
Coal Gasification Is Key to Producing Hydrogen
DOE, April 08
U.S. Department of Energy, April 2008
Gasification Technology R&D,
Gasification, in fact, may be one of the best ways to produce clean-burning hydrogen for
tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases
can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks"
for a wide range of commercial products.

***A2- CLEAN COAL***


Clean Coal is in Development

Andrews, June 08
Wyatt, CBS news correspondent, June 20th
(Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?,
Much has been made about the skyrocketing price of oil lately, with some saying that
drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is a possible solution.

But, as CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports, utilities are testing technology
to make one of America's most abundant fuel source - coal - a cleaner alternative.
Coal is, by far, the dirtiest way America makes its electric power, but a new ad campaign
funded by the industry promises a future where clean coal is a viable option.

And it's not just the industry. Both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John
McCain, are pushing clean coal.
Carbon Sequestration Doesn’t Work
Andrews, June 08
Wyatt, CBS news correspondent, June 20th
(Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?,
"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global
warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons of carbon
dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas.

"There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term
pollutant," says Hansen.

Coal Gasification has potential, but is untested

CRF, 06
Combustion Research Facility, Department of Energy Office of Science, 2006
(Coal Combustion and Gasification,
Coal gasification offers advantages over traditional coal combustion technology in the
areas of thermal efficiency (when coupled with a gas turbine combined-cycle power
plant), reduced emissions, and the ability to generate hydrogen or other high-value fuels
or chemicals. Although small-scale coal gasification has been used in the petrochemical
industry for decades, the proper design and operation of large-scale units for utility power
production is poorly understood. Sandia is using its expertise in laser and optical
diagnostics and chemical kinetic modeling to perform the first measurements of coal char
gasification kinetics at high-temperature, pressurized conditions. These measurements
will allow more accurate computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling to be performed
for the design and operation of high-temperature gasifiers.


Coal Gasification Plants are Expensive and Unreliable.

Conniff, 08
Richard, National Magazine Award-winning writer, 2008
The Myth of Clean Coal,
Actually making coal clean would be hugely expensive. In this country, most research
focuses on coal gasification, which aims to remove CO2 and other pollutants before
combustion. But only two power plants using the technology have actually been built in
the United States, in Indiana and Florida, and the purpose of both was to capture sulphur
and other pollutants. Neither takes the next step of capturing and storing the CO2. They
also manage to be online only 60 or 70 percent of the time, versus the 90-95 percent
uptime required by the power industry. In Europe, researchers prefer post-combustion
carbon capture. But the steam needed to recover CO2 from the smokestack kills the
efficiency of a power plant.
Coal Gasification will make Current Plants Obsolete
Carmichael, 07
Bobby, Staff writer for USA Today, December 27th, 2007
Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions,
Duke Energy (DUK), the Charlotte-based utility, is now awaiting an air permit from
Indiana for a $2 billion, 630-megawatt coal plant, large enough to power about 200,000
homes a year. Considered only average-size as traditional plants go, it would become the
world's largest coal-fired power plant to use a new, cleaner technology called integrated
gasification combined cycle, or IGCC.
"It's a technology that has the ability to take air pollution out of the debate over coal,"
says John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program at the Clean Air Task
Force, a Boston-based environmental group that supports the plant. "The day that plant
opens, the 500 or so coal plants in the U.S. are obsolete."

***CHINA DA***
CHINA DA 1NC shell 1/3
A. Uniqueness
No pressure is on China to curb emissions right now. The main reason is the United
States’ refusal to do so.
China will not be pressured over emissions as long as the US refuses to cap its
Planet Ark 2007 [“China Says Will Curb Emissions if Gets Tech Help,” Nov 30,]

would "definitely do more" to cut its contribution to climate change if rich
nations were willing to share clean energy technologies, its chief climate negotiator Yu Qingtai told Reuters
on Thursday. The stance may smooth talks to agree a global deal on climate change, which kick off in Bali next week
and are balanced on how far developing nations should join rich countries' efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"Particularly with regard to the more energy efficient technologies available in the hands of more developed countries,
if co-operation is forthcoming... we definitely will be able to do more," said Yu. China would also like to explore how
to take into account that a big chunk of its carbon dioxide emissions comes from making goods that are exported to rich
countries, which he called a "major concern". China would not be pressured [to cut emissions]
over its ballooning total output of carbon dioxide, poised this year to exceed top emitter the United
States. Washington refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it set no caps on developing

B. Links
Plan increases pressure on China to cut emissions.
Any US policy change increases pressure on China
International Water Power 2007 [“Beyond Three Gorges in China,” Jan 10,]

Beijing also hopes to use the expansion of the hydro sector to support its claim that it is starting to tackle its rising
greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming remains a fringe concern in China but the
government recognises that pressure for action on emissions from the European Union and other major trading partners
is set to increase markedly over the next few years. A change of policy on the issue in the US would
also increase
the pressure on China to cut emissions. During the 1990s, China’s
carbon emissions increased by 111%, making it the world’s second biggest emitter
after the US. Yet with Chinese per capita carbon emissions of 0.6 tonnes a year, against a global average of 1.1
tonnes, there is plenty of room for expansion, particularly in such a rapidly growing economy.

CHINA DA 1NC shell 2/3

C. Impact
Chinese economic interests lie in continued use of coal
Coal key to Chinese economy, but coal means huge emissions
National Public Radio 2007 [“China's Coal-Fueled Boom Has Costs,” May 2]
Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of all fuels to produce energy.
Coal is literally powering China's seemingly unstoppable rise to superpower status, but not
without costs to people and the environment. Coal miner Wu Gui, who has been working the mines for 34 years,
describes his role in China's economy as "a glorious job." "I am making a contribution to the country," he says. "If we
couldn't find coal, China couldn't get richer and more powerful, and we wouldn't be able to improve people's living
standards." Beijing is relying on men like Wu to power its future, says Yang Fuqiang of the global Energy Foundation.
He notes that China is the world's leading consumer of coal. China will build 500 coal-
fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week. This massive appetite
for coal means equally huge greenhouse gas emissions. Wu Gui has been a coal miner for 34
years. He says coal is a key to China's economic success.

International pressure to reduce emissions hurts these interests. China will not act
on Sudan if its interests are hurt.
China will resist pressure on Sudan if its interests are not respected
International Herald Tribune 2004 [“Darfur complications : Disaccord on Sudan could poison China-U.S. ties,” Nov

WASHINGTON: Whatever its outcome, the United Nations Security Council's extraordinary meeting on Sudan, to be
held in Nigeria on Thursday and Friday, could presage a potentially difficult period for U.S.-Chinese relations. Its
discussion of the north-south peace process in Sudan, and the possible motion to pass new sanctions
against Sudan over Darfur, may well see the interests of the [US and China] diverge.
After the re-election of George W. Bush and the enlargement of the Republican majority in both houses of the U.S.
Congress, many in China are concerned about Bush's self-perceived mandate and its implications for U.S. foreign
policy. They foresee an aggressive United States increasingly focused on ostensible security threats in Sudan, Iran,
Syria and North Korea. China maintains friendly relationships with each of these countries, a reflection of its historic
and evolving national interests. This does not necessarily represent part of a grand strategy to aid and support "rogue
nations," but rather China's rapidly growing demand for oil and the channeling of Chinese investment to markets with
little competition from multinational corporations. China's increasing dependence on imported oil and its efforts to
invest in production capabilities overseas has resulted in its importing 6 percent of its oil from Sudan, almost 60 percent
of Sudan's oil output. China is very concerned about U.S. efforts to impose sanctions on Sudan, potentially disrupting
this supply, which would drive the cost of oil higher, aggravate inflation in China and threaten its investments in
Sudan's energy sector. While China is not eager to seem "irresponsible power" by blocking international efforts to
prevent genocide in Darfur, a steady supply of oil is necessary to ensure its continued economic growth and domestic
stability. Because of this, China and the international community share a common interest in defusing the crisis in
Sudan, a fact that has prompted China to lift its initial silence and raise the matter with Khartoum, encouraging Sudan
to comply with the international community and two UN resolutions on the issue. The Darfur crisis represents an
opportunity for the Bush administration to exploit China's relationship with Sudan, assuming that it sees China as part
of the solution and not part of the problem. Cooperating with the United States to pressure Sudan, however, could be a
slippery slope for China, particularly with a newly energized U.S. president who might be eager to tackle unrepentant
rogue states. China has been instrumental in using its leverage to bring North Korea to the negotiating table and has
won U.S. praise for doing so. But China particularly wants no part of the U.S.-Iranian standoff, largely because 14
percent of its imported oil comes from Iran, making any U.S. effort to disrupt Iranian oil shipments disastrous for its
economy. U.S. pressure on Iran could potentially be perceived by China as an act of "containment," or worse, as an act
of war. The second Bush administration will increasingly realize that China's presence in the energy and infrastructure
sectors of Sudan, Iran and Syria is largely a result of longstanding sanctions that have largely marginalized
multinationals and the "supermajor" oil companies in these markets, providing a niche where Chinese companies can
compete more effectively to "lock up barrels" and win contracts. With less access to capital and little concern about
lawsuits at home, Chinese companies are naturally more likely to invest in projects and engage in trade with countries
where companies based in the United States and Europe are reluctant to do business. If approached carefully, China
could be a productive international partner in Sudan. But without assurances that its interests will be
respected, both there and elsewhere, China is likely to resist international pressure and
potentially be seen as a roadblock to global security and possibly come into conflict with the
United States. The vital question is whether the [US] and the international community will see
China as a partner in their effort to bring about behavior change not only in North Korea, but
in Sudan, Iran and Syria as well.

CHINA DA 1NC shell 3/3

Without Chinese action, the impact is that the Darfur genocide will only get worse.
Chinese action is crucial to stop the genocide in Darfur
Reeves, Sudan Research Analysis, 2007 [Eric, “Darfur Peace Talks in Libya Produce Only an Emboldened
Khartoum,” Nov 11,]

A fundamental truth governs the vast human catastrophe in Darfur and in many ways the growing crisis in Eastern
Chad. For China’s increasingly callous and unqualified support for Khartoum reproduces yet again a grim logic: so
long as the National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) regime feels that it will not be subject to serious pressure
for sustaining a terrible genocide by attrition, it will act as it has in recent days and weeks---and months. Absent any
threat of sanctions, or pressure from China, the chaotic status quo will settle more deeply
over Darfur. That this is, as Human Rights Watch has recently reported, “chaos by design”
( must remain the most salient feature in any account of
human suffering and destruction in Darfur. Khartoum’s strategy of inciting ethnic
violence, even among Arab tribal groups; of harassing and obstructing humanitarian relief; of
transferring lands from non-Arab or African tribal groups to Arab groups; of violating the
UN arms embargo and arming militia groups to fight civilians and one another; and of
undertaking a longer-term policy of forcing the collapse of camps for displaced persons---
these are the current tools of the National Islamic Front génocidaires. Any account of this
broader effort is inevitably inflected by the role of China, and the cynical calculation by Bejing that it has done enough
in its public relations effort to defend itself from the charge that it will be hosting the “Genocide Olympics” in August
2008. The signs of impunity on the part of Khartoum are everywhere, and this sense of impunity governs the regime’s
actions towards humanitarian operations, toward the badly belated UNAMID force, toward international mediation,
and---most consequentially---toward the people of Darfur. If China is not moved to engage much
more constructively on Darfur, “chaos by design” will continue to be Khartoum’s
larger genocidal strategy in the region.


Isolation of and pressure on China lead to war with Taiwan
Ballard, USMC, 1997 [Gregory, "A Search for Respect: An Examination of China's Actions after World War II,"]

To protect its interests, the United States must maintain its military forces in Japan and South Korea, which contributes
to the political and economic stability of the region. It should also encourage western nations to establish treaties and
other arrangements with Asian nations, in order to send a signal to China that many countries other than the United
States have interests in Asia. Further, the United States must continue to speak out against aggressive Chinese
policies, such as China's aggression in the Spratly Islands and against Taiwan, actions that threaten to
disrupt the security and stability of the region. The United States should understand the historical
and cultural sensitivities in China, and avoid policies and statements that hearken back to the hundred years of
embarrassment. Deng Xiaoping's economic and military reforms have made China such a power that China can
not be isolated by the US, no matter the US stance on human rights. China's influence, through its burgeoning
economy and much stronger military posture, accords it much more respect than a smaller nation who may, in the
United States' view, be guilty of similar human rights' abuses. Isolating China, with its continuously advancing
level of economic activity, would be a disastrous policy, and would only result in increased
world tensions. Patience, and a gradual, continued emphasis on United States' interests, along with respect for
China's international position, will lead to a much more effective foreign policy. Conversely, "a policy of
confrontation with China risks America's isolation in Asia,"[93] and could possibly lead to war
[with Taiwan], something clearly not in America's interests.
China-Taiwan war brings in United States
Rubin, Bitterlemons International, 2006 [Michael, "The US defends its allies, Jul 6,]

As costly as a war with China would be, US administrations have made clear that Washington
would consider military action to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. In 1979,
Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act that declared it necessary to provide arms to Taiwan and "to maintain the
capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security,
or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan." Early in his first term, against the backdrop of a crisis with
Beijing, George W. Bush declared that if the Peoples' Republic of China attacked Taiwan, the US
would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself".
US defense of Taiwan leads to nuclear war with China and Chinese cyberwar
against US allies
Los Angeles Times 2007 ["A U.S.-China war?", Oct 10,

China is the Evil Empire of the future. You don't have to be a prophet to see it. You only need to be a student of
history. It was just two years ago that a top Chinese military official said Beijing would use nuclear
weapons against the U.S. if Americans defended Taiwan against an invasion from
the mainland. "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the
target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu
Chenghu, a major [Chinese] general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official
briefing. Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of Defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him
China would respond with a nuclear strike on the U.S. in the event of a conflict with
Taiwan. "In the end, you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei," Freeman quoted this official as
saying. More recently, we [also] learned of China's plans for a cyberwar attack on the U.S.
to be launched in conjunction with a conventional assault on U.S. carriers in the Pacific. Code-named "Pearl Harbor II"
by the Pentagon, the plan was designed to leave America's key allies in the Pacific - Japan and Taiwan -
virtually defenseless.


China is highly suspicious of US motives, even a small action could provoke nuclear
Dyer, Lecturer on International Affairs, 2005 [Gwynne, “Containing China,” Oct,]

If there’s anyone left to write the history of how the Third World War happened, they might well focus on June 28,
2005, as the date when the slide into global disaster became irreversible. That was the day when India’s defence
minister, Pranab Mukherjee, and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a ten-year agreement in Washington
on military co-operation, joint weapons production, and missile defence—not quite a formal US-Indian military
alliance, but close enough to one that China finally realized it was the target of a deliberate
American strategy to encircle and “contain” it. It’s not clear yet what China plans to do about it,
but since June the rhetoric out of Beijing has been unprecedentedly harsh. In mid-July, for example, Major
General Zhu Chenghu warned in an official briefing that China is under pressure to drop its policy of “no first
use” of nuclear weapons in the event of a military conflict with the US over Taiwan. “We have no capability to fight a
conventional war against the United States,” he said. “We can’t win this kind of war.” And so China would
“We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction
deliberately escalate to nuclear weapons:
of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that
hundreds of [their] cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” General Zhu stressed that he was
offering his personal views and not stating official policy, but no senior Chinese officer talks like that
in public without official sanction. He’s also talking complete nonsense for the moment, because China
has no ability whatsoever to destroy “hundreds of cities” in the United States—it might manage one or two, with luck
—whereas the US, with more than 5,000 long-range warheads at its disposal, could easily destroy every Chinese city
east of Xian, and all the ones west of it, too. But no Chinese general has talked like this since Mao’s time, and it isn’t
happening now because the crazies have taken over in Beijing. It’s happening because the decision-makers in
Beijing think that the crazies have taken over in Washington, and are trying to
draw most of Asia into an anti-Chinese alliance. There is a good deal of evidence to
suggest that they are right. “It’s not yet an official kind of alliance like nato, it’s not mature yet,” explained
Dr. Francis Kan, a strategic expert at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan. “But we will see more informal co-
operation like weapons harmonization and assigning tasks [to various members].” Beijing fears the same
ring of US allies and bases surrounding China that encircled the Soviet Union at the
height of the Cold War.


China is becoming militarily aggressive towards Taiwan
Lam, China Analyst, 2004 [Willy, “Taiwan, China gear up for arms race,” Jun 19,]

It is significant that while PLA officers largely remained quiet ahead of the re-election of President Chen in March,
they have lately given a lot of angry interviews to the official media. For example, General Liu Yuan, the son of the
late state chairman Liu Shaoqi, responded to Taipei's alleged plans to hit the Three Gorges Dam by telling the China
Youth Daily that an air strike by Taiwan "will provoke a retaliation that will 'blot out the
sky and cover up the earth'." Other military hardliners have asked the leadership to
abandon the omnibus pledge made by Beijing that during military conflicts, China will
never be the country that uses nuclear weapons first. These hawks are saying China is
justified in using its nuclear arsenal against Taiwan if there is evidence to substantiate rumors
Taipei is secretly developing nuclear devices. Diplomatic analysts in Beijing said the party and army leadership was
most worried about so-called "collusion" between Taiwan and Washington.


The gravity of the consequences of failure to defend Taiwan compels the US to
intervene in a China-Taiwan war.
Failure to defend Taiwan leads to devastating consequences
Real Clear Politics 2007 [“U.S. Must Defend Taiwan Against China,” Jul 15]
The consequences of U.S. failure to defend Taiwan would be profound. Said an
experienced China watcher: "There is no upside to this." Acquiescing in China's takeover of Taiwan would:
Damage, and possibly destroy, the U.S. reputation as a reliable ally in the eyes of treaty partners in
South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. The same would be true of friends in Singapore, Indonesia
and India. Jeopardize U.S. naval supremacy in the western Pacific and give China control of the
northern entrance of the South China Sea, through which passes more shipping than through the Suez and Panama
canals combined. [and] Undercut the ability of any administration in Washington, Republican or
Democratic, to persuade other nations to become democratic.

Isolating China increases chances of Sino-US conflict

Carpenter and Dorn, CATO Institute, 2000 [Ted and James, "Free Trade Promotes Chinese Liberalism," May

Cutting off - or even limiting - trade with China in the hope of improving human rights would be
self-defeating. Isolating China would strengthen the party and the state while harming the nascent
market sector and reducing economic freedom. If free trade is restricted, the probability of
conflict between the China and the United States will also increase. That is why it is essential
for peace and prosperity that the U.S. Congress vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations with China and
support its accession to the WTO.

Beijing’s extreme suspicion of Washington leads to exacerbated tensions between

China and US
Lam, China Analyst, 2004 [Willy, “Taiwan, China gear up for arms race,” Jun 19,]

However, Beijing has insisted, in the words of a Xinhua commentary last week, that Washington has
"exaggerated China's military capacity so as to provide [itself] with a pretext for
selling weapons to Taiwan." Party cadres and academics have pointed to other signs of
Washington's improved ties with Taipei -- and of the Bush administration using Taiwan and other
U.S. allies in Asia to "contain and encircle" China. The official media has
condemned as "provocative" a recent series of naval and air force war games jointly held by the
U.S., Japan and other American allies not far from the Taiwan Strait. On the diplomatic front, U.S.
President George W. Bush last week won Taipei's praise by signing a bill authorizing Secretary of State Colin Powell
to help Taiwan earn observer status in the World Health Assembly. While the CCP leadership is still discussing with
the generals the next stage of military preparation, the party's Leading Group on Taiwan Affairs -- China's highest
decision-making organ on Taiwan -- has decided on tougher economic and diplomatic measures against the Chen
administration. On the commercial front, more pressure will be put on so-called "green businessmen," or supporters of
the pro-independence movement in Taiwan, to either change their political stance or leave the mainland's lucrative
market. Beijing is also mounting a series of aggressive steps to court the 26 countries that still recognize Taipei. For
example, Vice Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong is visiting a number of Taiwan allies in the Caribbean, including
Panama, with a view to boosting economic ties with these countries.


A nuclear war would hurt the environment much more than global warming
LighterFootstep 2007 [“Five Things that Are Worse than Global Warming,” Jul 6]
Out of sight, out of mind: we like to think the end of the Cold War stuffed the nuclear genie back into the bottle. But as
Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent threat to re-target European cities demonstrates, the idea that the
risk of a nuclear war has abated is largely an illusion. It's not really necessary to recount the
horrors of a potential nuclear exchange, other than to remind ourselves that a nuclear winter would be the
ultimate environmental disaster, and humanity's last insult to the planet. There remain
approximately 20,000 active nuclear weapons, slumbering away in the missile silos, bunkers, and submarines we hide
around the world. They're a miscalculation or a sharp political crisis away from being called to duty -- a sword that's
been hanging above us so long that we've come to mistake it for the sky. If
the political resolve being marshaled
to combat global warming could be channeled into achieving the complete destruction
of [nuclear] weapons, it would go a long way [further] toward the safeguarding of
our survival as a species.


China does not need to take action to cut emissions unless the US does
Heggelund, FNI Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [Gørild, "CHINA’S CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY: DOMESTIC

China’s relations with the United States also seem to influence its positions. The U.S. withdrawal from the
Kyoto Protocol was not taken lightly: The spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
branded it “irresponsible behavior.” The government official stated that Washington was using the argument about
developing countries not having taken on commitments as an excuse for withdrawing from the Protocol. Furthermore,
the U.S. withdrawal is regarded as an equity concern. As long as the USA is not
willing to take on commitments, and its energy use continues to increase, this is not
politically acceptable to China. Nevertheless, at COP-8 in New Delhi, the United States suddenly shifted
both rhetoric and alliances and supported the G-77 in its rejection of discussing future (post-2012) commitments. At the
time, this seemed an unexpected policy shift, but this trend has been strengthened since then. Moreover, the Asia-
Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, of which both the United States and China are members, may
be another sign of a new “alliance.”


Even with Kyoto, there is no pressure on China to clean emissions in the SQuo
Snafu 2008 [“Global Warming-Round Three,” Mar 10]
Take Kyoto, for example. It basically said that, while China had signed it, that they would be
“exempt” from having to abide by [regulations]. In other words, they could sign and keep right on
doing what they were doing. America, on the other hand, would. Which means more environmental laws here. Aside
from lower wages, another major draw for American companies to move out of the country is few to no environmental
laws. In other words, signing Kyoto would have meant basically giving more jobs to China. With things like NAFTA
in effect and no pressure on China to clean up its industry [emissions], signing Kyoto would not
only have been financially disastrous for the US, it would have failed in its primary purpose. The factories moving to
China would have ended up producing MORE pollution than they did here.

China sees no need to cut emissions as long as the US does not bear the burden
USAToday 2007 ["China rejects climate mandates, blames lavish U.S. for crisis," Dec 7,]

BALI, Indonesia (AP) — China

insisted Friday the U.S. and other wealthy nations should bear the
burden of curbing global warming, saying the problem was created by their lavish way of life. It
rejected mandatory emission cuts for its own developing industries. Environmental
activists, meanwhile, labeled the United States and Saudi Arabia the worst "climate sinners," accusing them of having
inadequate polices for climate problems while letting greenhouse gas emissions rise. But the activists also said no
country is doing enough. Su Wei, a top climate expert for China's government attending the U.N.
Climate Change Conference, said the job belongs to the wealthy. He said it was unfair to ask developing nations to
accept binding emissions cuts and other restrictions being pushed for already industrialized states. He said the
United States and its fellow industrial nations have long spewed greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere while newly emerging economies have done so for only a few decades. "China is in the process of
industrialization and there is a need for economic growth to meet the basic needs of the people and fight against
poverty," Su said. While many experts believe China has surpassed the United States as the world's top emitter of
carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, Su noted the Chinese population is far bigger and said America's
emissions per person are six times higher than in China. "I think there is much room for the United
States to think whether it's possible to change (its) lifestyle and consumption patterns in
order to contribute to the protection of the global climate," he said.


If the US shifts its stance on emissions, then China will be under increasing
international pressure to tackle climate change
Economist 2008 ["Melting Asia," Jun 5,]
Now that the American presidential race is down to two candidates who are both
committed to cutting emissions, China and India, the world's most populous nations, are seen
by many as the world's biggest climate-change problems. Russia's economy is more profligate
with energy, but China is widely believed to be the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, and India is rapidly
moving up. Their exploding emissions are America's main excuse for failing to take action itself; and their
intransigence exasperates those trying to negotiate a global agreement on climate-
change mitigation to replace the Kyoto protocol. Meanwhile, both countries are awakening to the
problems that climate change will cause them.

US carbon control legislation puts pressure on China to curb fossil fuel use
Podesta and Ogden, Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University & Chief of Staff specializing in energy
security, Center for American Progress, in 2008

John & Peter,, June 30

China, too, will increasingly find that climate change is accelerating and exacerbating many of its most urgent
environmental crises, from desertification to the deterioration of air quality in urban areas. In addition to the domestic
pressure to address these environmental challenges—pressure which has taken the form of large public protests on
several occasions—there will also be enormous international pressure for China to curb
its carbon emissions if the United States takes the critical step of passing its own
carbon control legislation. How China responds to these challenges will have a large effect on its political
trajectory and whether it can become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international community.


Even a weak US commitment to Kyoto turns the pressure to China – Something
substantial would apply much more pressure
Zhang, University of Groningen, 1999 [Zhongxiang, "Decoupling China’s Carbon Emissions Increase from
Economic Growth: An Economic Analysis and Policy Implications ," Aug 6]

Prior to Kyoto, developing count[r]ies’ demand for US leadership in emissions reduction and the EU
proposal for a 15% cut in emissions of a basket of three greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2010 put
collective pressure on the United States, which leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions. Now
the United States has made legally binding commitments at Kyoto. The Kyoto target is
seen as insufficient but yet not unreasonable given that the US economy would not be unduly disrupted. 8
Now the ball has kicked into China’s court. The United States has made it clear that bringing key
developing countries, including China, on board has been and will continue to be its focus of
international climate change negotiations. According to some US senators, it will be countries like
China, India and Mexico that will decide whether the United States will ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It is therefore
conceivable that the pressure will mount for China to make some kind of commitment at the negotiations subsequent to
Buenos Aires. The world’s media will undoubtedly bring attention to China’s nonparticipation, which will be seen as
holding up the ratification of the Protocol by the US Senate and possibly even be blamed for “blowing up” subsequent
negotiations aimed at dealing with developing countries’ commitments.


Bali was not a significant change in US policy – it was an empty promise at the 11th
Bali accomplished nothing
Deutsche Welle 2007 ["Opinion: Mandate for Kyoto Successor Redeems Bali Failure," Dec 17]
Four reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a G8 summit in Heiligendamm, a Nobel
Peace Prize for Al Gore and a world climate council -- never before has there been so much talk about reducing
greenhouse gases as in 2007. Then the environment ministers meet in blistering hot Bali with more
journalists than have ever attended a climate conference and
the result is a minimal consensus. Not a
single reduction goal for after 2010 is included in the final text, although such goals have been the
topic of discussion for weeks -- even months -- and warnings from scientists who have been recognized with the very
highest prizes can be found in a one-and-a-half-line footnote. It's the same old situation that's to blame: The sacred
oath that the wealthy states made at the environment summit in Rio in 1992 to set a good
example in cutting emissions hasn't been kept. The industrialized countries have lost
valuable time -- or, like the US and Russia, simply approach the climate challenge with demonstrative apathy.


China will not respond positively on Sudan if dealt more isolation and pressure
Time 2007 [“The Human-Rights Vacuum,” Oct 11]
Given China's human-rights deficiencies and its reluctance to be seen to cave in to
outside pressure, it will not budge easily [on Sudan]. But China's wealthy trading
partners must show Beijing that the long-term costs of uncritically backing murderous
regimes exceed the benefits of doing so. We must elevate human safety alongside consumer safety,
expressing the same outrage over massacred civilians that we do about faulty toys. And governments sending athletes
to China's Olympic "coming out" must shine the torch on its support for brutal regimes. It may take China decades to
see that governments that kill at home make unreliable neighbors and threaten global stability. In the meantime a
coalition of the concerned must insist that what is manifestly true of the economy is also true of human rights: in this
age, there is no such thing as a purely "internal matter.”
Criticism of Beijing will worsen the policy on Sudan
Bhattacharji and Zissis, Council on Foreign Relations, 2008 [Preeti and Carin, "Olympic Pressure on
China," Jun 17,]

Experts disagree on the efficacy of such outside criticism. Pei suggests Beijing
may moderate its Sudan
policy to a slight degree, but adds that "if the level of [criticism] is too high, then
nothing will be accomplished." He believes increased criticism from abroad will only
serve to unite the Chinese government and its people. In an interview with, former
Olympic CEO Mitt Romney notes that Olympic sponsors are financially "locked in" for the
Beijing games, regardless of any attempts to shame them. He adds that "taking action
which in any way disrespects China—or is seen as being disrespectful or 'taking away face,' if you will,
from China—would have the exact opposite effect than had been intended."

***A2- CHINA DA***

China DA Answer: NON UNIQUE
Nonunique – Pressure on China in the SQuo
There is increasing pressure for China to act on climate change
Terra Daily 2004 [“China facing increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Nov 11]
China's share of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to exceed the world's biggest polluter, the United States, by
around 2020 and pressure is mounting for Beijing to do more to limit global warming,
analysts say. With Russia's ratification this month of the Kyoto Protocol, the UN pact on climate change will finally
come into force and attention will turn towards China, the second biggest emitter in the world, they said.
The United States has refused to ratify the protocol but China, having made a commitment, will be held
accountable, environmentalists said. "They have to do their best and step up development of renewable energy,"
said Lo Sze Ping, campaign director for Greenpeace in China. "The Chinese government is not ambitious enough. It
can do better." China is a Kyoto member but as a developing country does not have to meet specific targets for cutting
emissions. In negotiations to begin in 2005 on the next phase of commitments for Kyoto Protocol signatories,
developing countries will likely be asked to commit to clear anti-pollution targets, even
if the requirement will not be as high as that of industrialized countries, experts said. "China is the second biggest
energy consumer in the world, accounting for 10 percent of global consumption ... China's active participation
in combating climate change is of crucial importance," said Khalid Malik, the United Nations resident
coordinator in Beijing.

Pressure is mounting on China to cut emissions

NPR 2005 ["China Resists Mounting Pressure to Cut Emissions," Dec 8]
As the Montreal conference on
climate change winds down, the [countries] are focusing
increasingly on China, where emissions of greenhouse gases are surging. Chinese officials
and industrialists are resisting pressure to limit emissions, saying China has a right to catch up with wealthy countries.
At the same time, the country is happy to accept funding for projects aimed at promoting energy efficiency.

China DA Answer: A2 – LINK

1. Our plan doesn’t cause the significant shift of pressure to China. Even though our
plan solves functionally, the international perception is that the US role in emissions
is much more phenomenal. It will take much more than our plan to counter this
perception and turn the pressure on China.
2. The US has already shifted stance on emissions policy at Bali.
The US shifted stance on cutting emissions at Bali
CNN 2007 [“In U-turn, U.S. agrees to global warming deal,” Dec 15]
BALI, Indonesia (CNN) -- In a dramatic reversal Saturday, the United States rejected and then
accepted a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at
reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The change at Bali was a significant concession and shift in US policy
Guardian 2007 ["Deal agreed in Bali climate talks," Dec 15]
[The] compromise deal for a new international climate change agenda was agreed at the UN summit
in Bali today. The move was hailed by environment secretary, Hilary Benn, as "an historic
breakthrough". Ministers from around 180 countries were united in accepting the agenda for a global emissions
cuts agreement to launch negotiations for a post-2012 agreement to tackle climate change. Consensus for the road
map followed a dramatic U-turn by the US, which had threatened to block the deal at the 11th hour and
been booed by other countries. It dropped its opposition to poorer countries' calls for
technological and financial help to combat the issue.

3. This should have triggered the link and impacts. However, none of your impacts
have occurred.
A. The situation in Sudan remains the same.
B. There has been no war between Taiwan, China, and the US.

China DA Answer: A2 – SUDAN IMPACT

Turn – Pressure is good because it forces China to act on Sudan
China’s concern about international reputation leads to improvements in Sudan
Stratfor 2007 [“Sudan: Al Bashir and Continuity in Darfur,” Aug 6,]

Khartoum has offered China a similar trade-off: China trades money and weapons for oil. This arrangement would be a
pleasant enough exchange from Beijing's perspective were it not for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China has worked
hard to create the international perception that it is interested in multilateral cooperation through institutions such as the
United Nations. It has cast this approach as more appealing and responsible than U.S.-style unilateralism. To this end,
China has leaned on Sudan to show progress in resolving the conflict in Darfur. The Sudanese concession
allowing the use of attack helicopters to support U.N. operations represents the first
result of that pressure [on China]. The big winner from Sudan's decision to allow the
world's largest peacekeeping force inside its borders is not the United States or Darfur's rebel groups but China.
The Sudanese concession allows China to point to what seems like reasonable progress on a humanitarian
issue without Beijing's having to sacrifice anything that would be needed to bring about actual progress. Of further
benefit to Beijing's international reputation, China's position with the United States as a member of
the U.N. Security Council is consistent with the multilateralist image China is working to cultivate internationally.
Meanwhile, al Bashir has his own concerns. He had been reluctant to allow a U.N. force inside Sudanese borders since
this threatens to make existing divisions in Sudan permanent in two ways.

Beijing will act on Sudan if under pressure

Bhattacharji and Zissis, Council on Foreign Relations, 2008 [Preeti and Carin, "Olympic Pressure on
China," Foreign Affairs, Jun 17,]

But other experts say Beijing is watching U.S. public opinion on how it handles Khartoum.
In a January/February 2008 article for Foreign Affairs, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt and Andrew Small write that
Beijing has already changed its Sudan policy because of the public outcry on
Darfur. In 2006, China abandoned its policy of noninterference and began
pressuring Sudan into accepting the deployment of more than twenty thousand UN
and African Union troops in Darfur. China has also sent close to three hundred of
its own military engineers to Sudan. "China's shifting diplomacy reflects not a fundamental change in its
values but a new perception of its national interests," they say.

China DA Answer: A2 – TAIWAN/US IMPACT

Turn – No Chance of War
China will not go to war with Taiwan or the US
Ross, Boston College, 2006 [Robert, “Taiwan's Fading Independence Movement”, Foreign Affairs, Apr,]

Never popular at home, Taiwan's independence movement has suffered successive electoral defeats and is
increasingly irrelevant. The movement's demise and the rise of politicians promising greater
cooperation with Beijing have removed the only plausible cause of war between
China and the United States. Political developments in Taiwan over the past year have effectively ended
the independence movement there. What had been a major source of regional instability -- and the most likely source of
a great-power war anywhere in the world -- has become increasingly irrelevant. The peaceful
transformation of relations between China and Taiwan will help stabilize eastern Asia,
reduce the likelihood of conflict between China and the United States, and present an
opportunity for Beijing, Taipei, and Washington to adjust their defense postures -- all without hurting Taiwan's security
or threatening U.S. interests.

The US would not fight China over Taiwan

Real Clear Politics 2007 [“U.S. Must Defend Taiwan Against China,” Jul 15]
"No reasonable American would be happy about the possibility of a democratic Taiwan being forcibly absorbed by an
authoritarian China, but preserving Taiwan's de-facto independence is not worth risking war
with a [China] capable of striking the United States." Those who doubt the willingness of the U.S.
to defend Taiwan point to blood and treasure spent in the unpopular war in Iraq. Even though the U.S. could confront
China with naval and air power, they argue, polls indicate that political support would be lacking.
Further, they point to China's rise as a political and military power that must be reckoned
with, and the fear of China in other Asian nations. And they point to the economic intertwining of
the U.S. and China. In 2006, China was the second-largest source of imports into the
U.S. (after Canada,) and the fourth-largest market for U.S. exports, (after Canada, Mexico, and
Japan). Political leaders in Taiwan, notably President Chen Shui-bian, have not helped their own cause. Chen stirred
the wrath of both Beijing and Washington recently by announcing he would hold a referendum to build domestic
support for a proposal that his government apply for United Nations membership using the name Taiwan. While the
application would be blocked by China, an affirmative vote in the referendum would underscore Taiwan's drive for
independence -- and erode China's claim to the island. The State Department immediately reflected Bush's displeasure:
"The U.S. opposes any initiative that appears designed to change Taiwan's status unilaterally." The department added:
"Such a move would appear to run counter to President Chen's repeated commitments to President Bush" not to press
for independence. Taiwan has also lost U.S. support by appearing to be unwilling to defend
itself. Taipei has dithered over the purchase of a large arms package that Bush offered, and U.S. military officers
have said that Taiwan's forces, while improved, have been slow to modernize.