You are on page 1of 48

SDI 2008 1


Coal DA Index
Coal DA Index..........................................................1
1NC Shell (1/2)..........................................................3
1NC Shell (2/2)..........................................................4
Uniqueness- Strong Now (1/2).................................5
Uniqueness- Strong Now (2/2).................................6
AT: Down Now..........................................................7
AT: High Costs in Squo  Weak Industry............8
AT: SQ Emissions Caps Kill Coal...........................9
Brink- Now Key Time for Coal Industry.............10
Link- General (1/2).................................................11
Link- General (2/2).................................................12
Link- Emissions Trading (1/2)...............................13
Link- Emissions Trading (2/2)...............................14
Link- Wind Power..................................................15
Link- Lieberman-Warner (1/2).............................16
Link- Lieberman-Warner (2/2).............................17
Links- Nuclear........................................................18
Ext. Econ ! Internal Link (1/2)..............................20
Ext. Econ ! Internal Link (2/2)..............................21
Heg ! Module (1/2)..................................................22
Heg ! Module (2/2)..................................................23
Readiness Key to Heg............................................24
Oil Dependence ! Module (1/2).............................25
Oil Dependence ! Module (2/2).............................26
Ext. Oil Dependence ! Internal Link....................27
AT: Renewables Solve Oil Dependence................28
US-India Relations ! Module (1/2)........................29
US-India Relations ! Module (2/2)........................30
Ext. US-India Relations ! Internal Link...............31
Death !.....................................................................32
T/ Ethanol Bad Affs................................................33
Clean Coal Solves Global Warming.....................34
Clean Coal Better Than Renewables....................35
Clean Coal Better Than Wind...............................36
US Clean Coal Solves China.................................37
SDI 2008 2

Clean Coal Better Than Nuclear in China...........38

AT: Clean Coal Impossible....................................39
Aff Answers- Non Unique......................................40
Aff Answers- No Internal Link.............................41
Aff Answers- ! T/- Warming..................................42
Aff Answers- ! T/- Warming..................................43
Aff Answers- ! T/- Environment...........................44
Aff AT: Clean Coal-Timeframe (1/2)....................45
Aff AT: Clean Coal-Timeframe (2/2)....................46
Aff AT: Clean Coal- Global Warming..................47
Aff AT: Econ !.........................................................48
SDI 2008 3

1NC Shell (1/2)

A. Now is the crucial time – The global coal boom will last, but continued commitment by
the governmentt is key to industry success – top industry experts agree
Bruce Nichols of Reuters, 6/27/08, June 27, 2008, “Current US coal boom likely to last: experts”, jlk,
NEW YORK -- Unlike previous US coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent
world demand and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst has said. Jim
Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some
factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand
and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production
amid regulatory, labour and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth
that is driving persistent coal demand. "I do not believe this cycle will end like the last," Mr Griffin said.
Mr Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the
indefinite future. Gerard McCloskey of The McCloskey Group, a conference sponsor, predicted world
demand for seaborne coal will grow to 800 million tonnes a year by 2017 from 650 million tonnes currently.
Mr McCloskey said the anticipated growth in coal consumption comes against a background of supply
challenges that may see export coal coming from new places such as Tanzania and Alaska. Jeff Watkins,
president of Hill & Associates, a leading coal industry consultant, predicted that in the boom environment,
US coal exports will top 90 million short tons (81 million tonnes) in 2009. Steve Leer, chairman and
CEO of Arch Coal Inc, a major US producer, went further, predicting US exports will reach 100 million
tonnes by 2010. Hill & Associates' current projection of exports in 2008 is between 84 million and 88
million tons (75 to 79 million tonnes), said Hill Vice President John Hanou. That is up from previous
industry estimates of about 80 million tons. Current world coal production is about 6 billion tonnes.
Current US production is about 1.1 billion short tons (990 million tonnes). Despite soaring demand, the
industry faces a hostile political environment because of the perception that coal worsens global
warming. The point was illustrated by remarks from a Greenpeace spokesman at the conference. "For us,
coal isn't the answer. Coal is a part of the problem," Carroll Muffett of the environmental action group said.
Kenneth Nemeth, executive director of the Southern States Energy Board, a coalition of 16 states and two US
territories, argued that coal is a key answer and that it can be done cleanly. But he said coherent
government energy policy is needed to develop it. "We have secure, real alternatives to what we're doing
now, and we're not doing anything about it," Mr Nemeth said. Fred Palmer, government relations vice
president for Peabody Energy, agreed policy has not been coherent and blasted US withdrawal from
FutureGen, a government-industry plan to build a "clean coal" power plant. He said development of
the carbon capture and sequestration technology associated with the project is needed to provide adequate
electric power while minimising damage to the environment. He said industry remains committed to
FutureGen, and he predicted it will continue after a new US president and Congress take office in 2009.

B. <Insert Specific Link>

SDI 2008 4

1NC Shell (2/2)

C. Impact
1. A strong US coal industry is key to the economy – it provides a ripple effect for he rest
of the economy – top experts agree
CARE, Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2003, “Study Shows Economic Impact of Coal Based
Electricity”, jlk,
Using abundant U.S. coal reserves to generate electricity creates economic empowerment for millions
of American businesses and working families. That is the finding of a new study by a team of economists working at Pennsylvania State
University. The study, Projected Economic Impacts of U.S. Coal Production and Utilization, examined the impact of coal-generated electricity on state economies in the continental
coal-based electricity, including the production of coal from the ground, creates
United States. The study found that
substantial benefits to the overall U.S. economy. Today, coal provides the fuel for over half of the power
consumed in the United States, and the economists concluded that in 2010 coal production and
electricity generation would be responsible for: $163 to $659 billion in increased economic output; $40
to $224 billion in increased household earnings; and 800,000 to 6.4 million additional American jobs.
Most of these economic benefits derive from the extraordinary interdependence of the U.S. economy.
Because all businesses rely on electricity to produce and sell goods and services, the economic power of the electric utility industry extends far beyond the generation and sale of
Coal-based electricity produces powerful ripple effects that benefit the American economy as a
whole. The study was conducted by Dr. Adam Rose and Bo Yang, economists at Penn State University. Dr. Rose is a professor and head of the Department of Energy
Environmental, and Mineral Economics, and Yang is a graduate research assistant in the same department. Rose and Yang used certain economic assumptions to present their
findings. In the first instance, the study assumes varying levels of "linkage" (maximum versus minimum) between the coal-based electricity industry and other sectors of the economy.
The linkage variable measures the degree to which coal-based electricity produces ripple effects that
benefit other industries and sectors. These data are then refined by taking into account the economic
effects of using a higher-cost fuel (in this case, natural gas) as a substitute for low-cost coal. By factoring
in these substitution costs, the study shows how coal's economic advantages are even greater when
considering the costs of using a more expensive alternative fuel. The year 2010 was selected for modeling because regulatory
programs aimed at displacing coal would need to be implemented over time. Because reliance on coal as a fuel source for generating electricity varies from region to region, the
The economic advantages for coal-producing states are evident. More
economic benefits are not evenly spread across the nation.
the economic benefits realized by states that do not produce coal, but use it as a primary
surprising, however, are
fuel for electricity generation. The study concludes that coal-based electricity will result in substantial
economic benefits for large and small states alike. For example, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania each stand to gain from $21
billion to $32 billion in increased economic output. Smaller states also share in the advantages, with New Hampshire, Connecticut, Oregon and South Dakota each projected to gain
from $560 million to $720 million in expanded output. "This new analysis proves what we have known for a long time," said Stephen L. Miller, President and CEO of the Center for
"Electricity from coal provides economic empowerment to local
Energy and Economic Development (CEED).
communities, small businesses, and working families". According to Miller, the study provides an additional level of details relative to the
ongoing national energy policy debate. "Despite electricity from coal's low cost and improving environmental performance, some special interest groups still believe we should
coal-based electricity is an essential
abandon this abundant domestic energy resource. The Rose/Yang study provides additional empirical proof that
element of a balanced energy portfolio that increases energy security and provides economic
empowerment for American families," said Miller. Dr. William A. Schaffer, professor and former chairman of the Department of Economics at Georgia
Institute of Technology and one of the preeminent experts in state and regional input-output modeling, peer-reviewed the Rose/Yang study. According to Schaffer, the demand-driven
multipliers used in the PSU study are well-tested in the literature and provide a solid estimate of the impact of coal on incomes in the rest of the economy. In his final peer review, Dr.
"[T]he study represents an impressive and massive combination of data, analytic techniques,
Schaffer said,
and modeling to address a large and significant problem. The authors are to be congratulated on their
boldness in arriving at what seems to be a most reasonable impact statement."

2. Nuclear war.
Walter Russel Mead, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 1992 New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a
new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India -
these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger
to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
SDI 2008 5

Uniqueness- Strong Now (1/2)

Coal industry strong - locked and loaded
The U.S. Coal Review, May 12, 2008, “Some 60% of James River’s anticipated ’09 CAPP yield still to be
priced The U.S. Coal Review”, 2008 Energy Publishing, jlk, Lexis
Some 60% of James River’s anticipated ’09 CAPP yield still to be priced James River Coal is locked and
loaded. Results will be in shortly. James River posted a 78 cents/share loss in the first quarter, which compared to a 46 cents/share deficit in the comparable 2007 quarter.
But folks are just grazing right now at the salad bar. The main course is still to come – and dessert
could be aw fully rich. "The first quarter of 2008 will be remembered as a watershed period for the
coal industry,” Peter T. Socha, chairman and CEO of James River, said. “For the first time, it became
clear to the general public that large developing economies around the world have a voracious and
growing appetite for all commodities, including coal. It also became clear that the coal industry in the
United States will play a much greater role in meeting the world's demand for coal.” As has been clear for a while,
James River has a substantial open position from which it ought to be able to take advantage of record coal prices. A swap of some short-term pain for significant long-term gain
appears sensible. “For our company, (Q1) was a mixed quarter,” Socha said. “Our mine operations struggled against bad weather, new regulations, and commodity related cost
inflation. On a very positive note, we have now substantially completed two major milestones in our efforts to adjust the mine portfolio to the new regulatory and cost environment.”
James River completed the connection between Mine 81 and Mine 74 and is finishing reversing all belt drives. The connection will allow the company to belt the coal directly into its
preparation plant and eliminate a 23-mile truck haul during a period of very high diesel prices, Socha noted. James River is also finishing all mining operations at one of its deepest,
highest cost mines, BL-4. The new replacement mine began operations in late April." But the bigger news probably is on the price front. James River is “completing our shipments
on many CAPP contracts that began during the past several years with much lower prices and replacing them with new contracts with prices between $80 and $90 per ton,” Socha
said. “Our shareholders will see the benefit of these new contracts going forward." The strategy has been in place in Richmond for a while. “We have been able to capitalize on the
stronger coal markets by patiently adding to our contract position for 2009 and 2010,” Socha said. “The utility steam coal placed under contract during the current period had an
average Btu of 12,500 and average sulfur of 1.4-1.5%. All of our recent contracts and contract discussions for CAPP have included steam coal prices above $80 per ton and industrial
Both prices and inquiries from
stoker coal prices above $100 per ton. “We are also seeing a noticeable change in the market for our Indiana coal.
utilities in other coal-burning regions have increased during the past several months. “Our current contract strategy
for CAPP coal is to use our remaining open tonnage in 2008 as part of a package for customer requirements for longer-term contracts. We would like to have a total of approximately
4-5 million tons of expected 2009 production and 2-3 million tons of expected 2010 production under contract by late July." Approximately 60 percent of James River’s expected
2009 CAPP production remains open to new market pricing, which certainly leaves no room for regret.

Coal industry strong- dominate alternative to oil

Andrew Dolbeck, Editor of the Weekly Corporate Growth Report, April 28, 2008, “Valuation of the Mining
Industry”, New York Times, jlk, Lexis
The Coal Sector About 25 percent of the world's known coal reserves are located in the United States.
Historically, the domestic coal industry has been susceptible to economic changes. As budget concerned
consumers carefully monitor their power consumption, the demand for coal-generated power declines.
The current weakening of the US economy is likely to decrease demand. In addition, the industry is
faced is increasing production and freight expenses. Electricity producers consume about 90 percent
of the coal produced in the United States, and coal accounts for more than half the power consumed in
the US. Mild weather in many parts of the country has left domestic power generation facilities with
unexpectedly high inventory levels of coal, limiting the demand for new coal. But as long as coal remains
an abundant, low-cost alternative to oil, it will continue to be the dominant fuel source for electrical power

Coal industry strong- increase demand internationally

Andrew Dolbeck, Editor of the Weekly Corporate Growth Report, April 28, 2008, “Valuation of the Mining
Industry”, New York Times, jlk, Lexis
Like the metals sector, the coal industry is seeing increased demand from international markets. India
and China are moving ahead with massive infrastructure projects that can be expected to generate
demand. At the same time, Russia, the world's fourth-largest coal exporter, is projecting a decline in its
coal exports due to internal demand. While international markets clearly provide an opportunity for
expansion, coal producers need to proceed carefully. International markets are often highly sensitive to
price, and in order to compete effectively coal producers need to run efficient, low-cost operations.
Outlook Like many other industries, the metals sector is challenged by rising energy and production
expenses. Domestic demand for metals is likely to fall, as the economy weakens and production continues to
decline in the automotive and home construction sectors. The industry is well positioned to meet these
challenges, however. Years of high commodity prices have helped the metals mining sector generate cash
reserves and growing international demand is providing new markets. As a result, the sector is likely to
remain profitable. The future also looks bright for the coal sector. On the domestic front, new power
generation facilities are under construction, which should expand the local market nicely.
Internationally, demand is on the rise in the developing world.
SDI 2008 6

Uniqueness- Strong Now (2/2)

Coal industry strong- stock strength.
McClatchy 6/5/08 (McClatchy, Tribune Business News, 6/5/08, JD, Proquest)
In addition to increased demand, flooding in Australia and a major earthquake in China have stalled coal
shipments from those countries. "That's pushing up prices worldwide, particularly for the higher quality
metallurgical coal," said John Ramil, president and chief operating officer of TECO Energy. TECO expects
to produce 10 million tons of coal this year, but the prices TECO receives for those supplies are well below
today's record highs. "We're not getting the full effect of the higher prices," Ramil said. That's because most
coal is sold under one- to three-year contracts. TECO's existing contracts are based on 2006 and 2007 prices.
As those contracts expire this year, however, they will be renewed at today's lucrative prices. As a result,
earnings from TECO's coal-mining business are expected to double next year, Ramil said. What's more,
TECO's customers have expressed interest in signing longer term contracts. Citigroup recently raised its
rating on TECO's stock from "Hold" to "Buy" on prospects of increased earnings from the company's coal-
mining business. The stock is trading at more than $20 a share and is up about 20 percent this year. The
increased demand from abroad is expected to be a boon for coal producers in the United States, which
has 250 billion tons of recoverable coal, more than any country in the world. Those reserves have as
much energy content as about 800 billion barrels of oil, well above the oil reserves of the Middle East,
according to the National Mining Association. The top coal-producing states, according to the association,
are Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Coal industry strong- production prices down

McClatchy 6/5/08 (McClatchy, Tribune Business News, 6/5/08, JD, Proquest)
Jun. 5--TAMPA -- Coal mining has never been more lucrative. The price of coal, a major ingredient in
the production of electricity and steel, has doubled since January, pushing the stock prices and
earnings of U.S. coal producers to new highs. The reason: Steel makers in developing countries have
increased production to record levels and disruptions in global coal production have created a coal
market that is undersupplied. In just five months, spot prices for U.S. coal have surged from about $55 a
ton to more than $100. The booming international coal market means demand for U.S. coal may reach a
record 1.22 billion tons this year. Two Tampa companies, Walter Industries Inc. and TECO Energy Corp.,
are benefiting from the historical surge in coal prices. Both are major producers of metallurgical coal, which
is used in steel production and is in high demand in countries such as India and China.
SDI 2008 7

AT: Down Now

Coal isn’t dead- increased demands will help is surive.
Peter Montague, of Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, March 24, 2008, “The Coal Industry's Ace in the
Hole”, jlk,
We saw recently that, as the price of oil rises, the coal industry is planning to replace oil by turning
coal into liquid fuels and into feedstocks for the chemical industry. Of course they are also planning to
burn ever-more coal to produce electricity. If these plans materialize, green chemistry and renewable
solar energy both will be sidelined for the rest of this century. You may have heard that "coal is dead."
But this is not the case; in its struggle for survival, the coal industry has an ace in the hole. In July of
this year, the industrialized nations of the world are going to announce their united support for "clean
coal." Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. are about to sanction
burying today's global warming problem in the ground, passing it along to our children to manage essentially
forever. There's one major problem with the coal industry's plans, and that's carbon dioxide, the most
important global warming gas. Therefore, the coal industry's plans all hinge on the development of "clean
coal" -- a clever name for an untested idea, burying billions or trillions of tons of liquid, pressurized carbon
dioxide in the ground, hoping it will stay there forever. Burying CO2 is called "carbon capture and storage,"
or CCS for short. If the public can be convinced to support (and pay for) "clean coal" (CCS), then the coal
industry can flourish. If not, the way will remain open for renewable energy and green chemistry.
SDI 2008 8

AT: High Costs in Squo  Weak Industry

The new costs are irrelevant – the industries balancing of capitol spending and cash flows
Business Wire, Feb 7, 2008, “Fitch: Higher Cost Headwinds for U.S. Coal Industry in 2008”, jlk,;col1
NEW YORK -- Higher operating and materials costs will constrain earnings growth for U.S. coal
producers in 2008 despite an improved pricing environment, according to Fitch Ratings. Fitch expects
only modest growth in coal production following a 1% contraction in 2007. Coal producers are
experiencing elevated prices of consumables such as fuel, explosives and steel, in addition to high labor
costs. Maintenance and capital costs continue to be on the rise, and can be amplified when mining in
new or challenging regions. A further uncertainty is the current regulatory environment regarding carbon
emissions, which has stalled plans for many new coal plant builds. These new coal plants would cap
domestic demand in the intermediate term. Despite the high cost environment, Fitch believes that coal
producers will, for the most part, continue to balance capital spending with free cash flows and
maintain healthy capital structures. Growth in export demand may underpin higher pricing and
should help companies manage production volumes efficiently to lower unit costs.

Our evidence subsumes your warrants – new costs and high prices will not effect the
industry – they will take the necessary steps
Business Wire, June 4, 2008, “Fitch: Muted Supply Response to Strong International Coal Demand for U.S.
Coal Industry”, jlk,;col1
NEW YORK -- U.S. coal producers are benefiting from tight global markets for both steam and
metallurgical coal which is diverting imports from the United States and providing export
opportunities for domestic producers, according to a Fitch Ratings report. The supply response to
improving price conditions should be measured, given high operating and materials costs. Fitch expects
only modest growth in U.S. coal production following a 1% contraction in 2007. Constraints to building
new mines include high capital costs, the need for sales contracts covering a high portion of the new
tonnage for a period of time, and a lengthy permitting process. While some producers are announcing
new projects, these have more than two years lead-time and may only replace declining production at
existing mines. 'High consumables prices and labor costs will constrain earnings growth over the next few
months,' said Monica Bonar, Director, Fitch Ratings. 'Mining in new or challenging regions can amplify
already high maintenance and capital costs.' Capital raising for the industry has been fairly active of
late both for expansion capital and to improve weak capital structures. Fitch expects major coal
producers will continue to balance capital spending with free cash flows. Fitch notes that companies
with weaker capital structures are selling common stock or converting debt to common stock and
taking other steps to shore up liquidity.
SDI 2008 9

AT: SQ Emissions Caps Kill Coal

Threats of emissions caps aren’t enough to hurt the coal industry.
The Economist. 11/15/07. Still going strong
But poor and fast-growing places are not the only ones with a hunger for coal. In America, more coal-fired
generation is being built than at any time in the past seven years, despite the threat of emissions caps,
according to the Department of Energy. In Europe, several power companies are building new coal-fired
plants, even though every tonne of carbon dioxide that they emit will require an expensive permit. For
example, RWE, a German utility, plans to spend €6.2 billion ($9.1 billion) on three new coal-fired plants by
2012. One of them is already under construction. All this has helped to push the price of coal steadily
upwards in the past few years. Nonetheless, it has risen less quickly than that of oil or natural gas. Coal is
now by far the cheapest of the common fuels for power stations relative to the amount of heat it generates
when burnt (see chart). At the very least that is encouraging utilities to run their existing coal-fired plants flat
out. But it is also prompting some to convert oil-fired plants to run on coal instead. Enel, Italy's former
electricity monopoly, has already performed one such refurbishment, and has two more under way, at a cost
of €3.8 billion. Leonardo Arrighi, who supervises the firm's investments in generation, says it would like to
build “more and more” coal-fired plants. In theory, the carbon price (in Europe) and the threat of one (in
America) should dent this enthusiasm for coal. But in practice many utilities are betting that the
disparity in fuel prices will outweigh the cost of extra permits to pollute. At the moment such permits
cost pennies in Europe, because governments handed out too many of them. Although there should be more
of a shortage starting next year, the futures price would have to rise from the current €22 per tonne of carbon
to over €30 per tonne to prompt a significant switch away from coal over the next two years, according to
Henrik Hasselknippe of Point Carbon, a consultancy.
SDI 2008 10

Brink- Now Key Time for Coal Industry

The US coal industry is experiencing a global boom – but proceeding with caution is crucial
Andrew Dolbeck, Editor of the Weekly Corporate Growth Report, April 28, 2008, “Valuation of the Mining
Industry”, New York Times, jlk, Lexis
The Mining industry covers establishments primarily engaged in the extraction of minerals, coals, and ores
from the earth. The mining industry provides ores and raw metals to mills and metal fabricators. Over the
past few years, commodity prices have been trending upwards. The global boom in commodities
includes a number of metals. Historically, the domestic coal industry has been susceptible to economic
changes. The current weakening of the US economy is likely to decrease demand. Like the metals sector, the
coal industry is seeing increased demand from international markets. While international markets
clearly provide an opportunity for expansion, coal producers need to proceed carefully. Domestic
demand for metals is likely to fall, as the economy weakens and production continues to decline in the
automotive and home construction sectors. The future also looks bright for the coal sector. FULL TEXT:
The Mining industry covers establishments primarily engaged in the extraction of minerals, coals, and ores
from the earth. Industry operations include quarrying, digging, and related support operations such as
milling, crushing, washing, and screening. The mining industry also covers the exploration for and
development of mineral properties and services performed in the development and operation of mineral
properties. The Metals Sector The mining industry provides ores and raw metals to mills and metal
fabricators. The pricing for metals varies with demand, which is determined by a broad range of industrial'
and economic factors. Over the past few years, commodity prices have been trending upwards. The global
boom in commodities includes a number of metals. Over the last five years, the price of zinc has doubled and
the price of copper has tripled. An economic downturn in the United States could bring a downward trend in
overall commodity prices, but rising consumption in China, India, and other developing countries should
continue to generate demand. International markets offer a possible means of expansion. According to a
European Commission report, many metallic minerals are either not geologically available within the
European Union or are being extracted in relatively small volumes compared with global production,
including copper, iron ore, nickel, and zinc. Europe isn't the only market, either. China's economic and
industrial expansion is creating demand for copper, aluminum, and zinc. The metals sector has suffered from
decreased demand from the North American housing construction and automotive industries. These
industries provide significant demand for a number of metals, particularly aluminum and cooper. Disruptions
in the production output of copper, due to labor disputes and natural disasters, have limited the supply
relative to demand. As a result, copper prices are holding up well, despite the downturn in the automotive and
construction sectors, which account for roughly half of US copper consumption.
SDI 2008 11

Link- General (1/2)

Alternative energy shifts the focus away from coal, deteriorating the industry; Florida
Peter Montague, Staff Writer, Sep 20, 2007, “The Coal Industry is in deep trouble,” Rachel's Democracy &
Health News (Annapolis), SS. proquest
As recently as 2004, the coal industry seemed invincible. But since then the threat of global warming
has produced a scientific consensus, which has begun to produce a political consensus. 'Ban coal' is
becoming a popular slogan. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has announced he
opposes the construction of any new coal plants: "There's not a coal-fired plant in America that's clean.
They're all dirty," Reid told reporters recently. "Unless we do something quickly about global warming, we're
in trouble," he said. Some states have begun to force utilities to consider renewable energy sources. For
example, in June the bi-partisan Florida Public Service Commission rejected a proposal from Florida Power
and Light to build a coal-fired electric plant. Florida's Republican governor Charlie Crist said approvingly
that the Public Service Commission's decision "sent a very powerful message" and that Florida "should look
to solar and wind and nuclear as alternatives to the way we've generated power in the Sunshine State."In
January the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4-0 to prohibit the state's three big electric
companies from entering into long-term contracts with sources that emit more carbon dioxide than a modern
natural gas plant. This means no coal.

Coal industry is threatened by alternative energy sources

Sally Kohn, staff writer. 8/24/07 “Blood Coal, Not ‘Clean Coal” PC
Coal isn’t about electricity. Native American reservations in North and South Dakota alone have enough
wind capacity to meet one-third of America’s energy needs. Wind, solar and other technologies we have
today are viable alternative sources of electricity, and conservation efforts could dramatically reduce
our electricity demand in the first place. But to the coal industry, alternative energy is the real disaster.
So the coal industry will do anything it can to procure coal as quickly and cheaply as possible, slapping
a fresh coat of green paint on top to try and distract us from the harm caused to mine workers, Appalachian
children and air that all of us need to breathe

Renewables whack the coal industry.

Edmund Andrews, New York Times Journalist. 6/12/07 Senate Considers New Energy Package PC
There are a couple of players that have an awful lot to gain or to lose. The car companies for sure feel that
they have an enormous amount to lose, they're already in dire straits. And so the prospect of being forced into
developing much, much stiffer average fuel economy for their cars is a very daunting one to them, so they
have a lot to lose. My own feeling is that the industry who has the most to gain and the most to lose,
potentially, is the coal industry. Coal is the main source of electricity in this country, so the electric
utilities are their biggest customer, the coal producer's biggest customer. If we now go to a system that
requires a much higher percentage of renewable fuels to be used by power-generating companies,
that's going to whack them.
SDI 2008 12

Link- General (2/2)

Alternative energy sources trade off with the coal industry – this leads to industry collapse
Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, “U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes”, March 4,
2008 edition, jlk,
The federal Energy Information Administration forecasts a need for only 4,000 megawatts of additional
capacity by the same date. Bruce Nilles, who organizes grass-roots opposition to coal power plants for the
Sierra Club, an environmental group, says power-demand projections are soft. "There's not going to be a
big need for more coal," he says. "There are plenty of alternatives coming." In fast-growing areas of
the country like Texas, regulators worry that demand will outstrip power supplies. The big Texas utility
TXU last year canceled eight of 11 coal-fired power plants it had on the drawing boards. Yet Texas
now leads the nation in wind-power generation and is aggressively building more. The state also holds
potential to lead the nation in sequestering carbon emissions from power plants in old oil fields and saline
aquifers. Tenaska Inc., a power company based in Omaha, Neb., announced last month it was planning the
nation's first new conventional coal-fired power plant to capture 90 percent of its carbon-dioxide emissions.
It aims to sell the CO2 to oil companies, who would pump it underground to boost oil production. Mr.
Sergel's organization has warned Texas it could have reliability problems if it doesn't build more power soon.
Others in the coal-power industry are adamant, too. "If they don't start building coal plants, it's
going to be an economic prosperity problem for the country," says Richard Storm, CEO of Storm
Technologies, an Albemarle, N.C., company that specializes in optimizing coal-fired power plants. "We need
coal. Coal is a national treasure."
SDI 2008 13

Link- Emissions Trading (1/2)

Regulating carbon emissions massively hurts the coal industry, its community, and the
Jonathan Rivoli, Bismarck Tribune, 1-20-2008, “The Growing Concern Over CO2”, SS. L/N
You can't see it or smell it as it rises from smokestacks into the clear blue sky above the prairie. But to an
increasing number of policymakers around the world, carbon dioxide emissions have become a very
tangible concern. CO2 emissions from cars and coal power plants like the ones in North Dakota are
considered by many scientists to be a chief cause of global warming. The science is complicated, and will be
covered in much greater depth later in this series, but the basics are this: as more CO2 is emitted it causes a
thickening of the atmosphere that traps the sun's heat. Now that the problem is becoming more widely
understood, the question becomes how to stop it. The most obvious solution - regulating CO2 emissions -
is gaining traction from Brussels, Belgium, to St. Paul, Minn. But both environmental groups and the coal
industry agree that such regulation will hurt the coal business and its customers. For western North
Dakota - where coal mining and power plant jobs are a way of life for some and an indirect economic
boon for all - the decisions made over the next few years could have a major impact.

The coal industry is a major part of the economy; cutting emissions hurts local coal
businesses and workers.
Jonathan Rivoli, Bismarck Tribune, 1-20-2008, “The Growing Concern Over CO2”, SS. L/N
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the state gets 93 percent of its electricity from coal - a
ratio that, despite much-hyped alternative energy projects over the last few years, remains unchanged from
1990. In addition to producing most of its own power, North Dakota uses its coal to send power to
neighboring states like Minnesota. The production of all this coal-generated electricity energizes the
region's economy. In Oliver and Mercer counties, the heart of coal country, the industry accounts for
nearly 41 percent of all employment and 66 percent of wages earned, according to data compiled from
Job Service North Dakota and local economic development officials. It pumps more than $43 million in
wages alone into those counties' economies. Indeed, coal is the lifeblood of places like Washburn and
Underwood, where the nearby Coal Creek Station Power Plant and Falkirk mine are at the center of life. For
people like Hank Rasmusson, an Underwood resident who has owned a small gas station near the center
of town since the 1960s, decisions made half a continent or half a world away could have a big effect on
life. "It could have a tremendous impact," Rasmusson said. "I could lock up, that's what could
happen." Rasmusson, 66, said many of his customers at R and S Oil Co. work at the nearby mines and
power plants. A contraction in the coal industry means many of them might not stick around
Underwood to shop at his store, he said.
SDI 2008 14

Link- Emissions Trading (2/2)

Carbon emission caps will severely harm the coal industry
Washington Post. 6/28/07 Senior Coal Executive says Congress Wants Coal Industry Destroyed PC
A senior coal company executive on Wednesday lambasted U.S. lawmakers for proposing caps on emissions
blamed for global warming, saying the Democrats were out to destroy America's coal industry. Robert
Murray, chairman, president and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp., also blasted the federal
government's mine safety agency for "outrageous" new fines that he warned could put some miners out of
business. "There is no question that the majority party in this country wants to eliminate the coal industry,"
Murray told the McCloskey's Coal USA conference, adding that some Republicans were also advocating
tough measures. A prominent environmentalist was quick to dismiss the remarks. "We don't see a conflict
between protecting the climate and continuing to use reasonable amounts of coal," David Hawkins, a climate
expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Murray, who said he was giving
testimony to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday, warned that proposed
restrictions on carbon emissions would severely hurt the coal industry, which supplies the fuel for
approximately 50 percent of America's electricity generation. Congress is considering several bills that
aim to fight global warming by putting tough limits on greenhouse gases. Supporters say the bills would
provide incentives for companies to invest in technology to cut emissions. "This climate change issue is a
human issue," Murray said, paraphrasing what he said he would tell the Senate committee chaired by Sen.
Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. "The present course of action that is proposed will result in little
environmental benefit, but will destroy the lives of America's working families." Murray said some studies
estimated that reducing coal use would lead to the loss of 3 million to 4 million jobs in the United States.

Emissions trading would reduce coal consumption by 20%

Wall Street Journal 6/4/08 Coal States in Climate-Bill Fight proquest

The coal industry is reacting to the possible effects of legislation that aims to reduce emissions 66%
below 2005 levels by 2050. Under the bill, polluters would have to buy allowances to cover emissions
released into the atmosphere, up to the limit permitted under the law. Coal producers would suffer in
particular because coal-fired power plants release about twice as much carbon dioxide as is emitted by
comparable natural-gas-fired plants. Total coal consumption would be between 62% and 89% lower
than what would otherwise be the case, government forecasts show, because the fuel wouldn't be as
economical once the costs of pollution allowances are factored in.
SDI 2008 15

Link- Wind Power

Empirically, expansion of wind energy will trade off with coal investment
UPI Energy, July 25, 2007, “Wind offsets carbon dioxide”, jlk, Lexis
According to a new release by Washington-based Worldwatch, global wind power is offsetting tons of
carbon dioxide. In 2006 the 15,200 megawatts of newly installed wind turbine capacity is expected to
generate enough clean energy to offset nearly 43 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. According to
the Worldwatch Institute, that is the equivalent of 23 U.S. coal plants, 7,200 megawatts of coal-fired
energy or 8 million cars. "Wind power is on track to soon play a major role in reducing fossil fuel
dependence and slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said Janet Sawin,
Worldwatch senior researcher. "Already the 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced by the new wind
plants installed last year equaled more than 5 percent of the year's growth in global emissions. If the wind
market quadruples over the next nine years -- a highly plausible scenario -- wind power could be reducing
global emissions growth by 20 percent in 2015," Sawin said. Investment in wind power has jumped to
$22 billion in 2006, and though it still only accounts for around 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation,
more capacity was added in wind in 2006 than in the coal and nuclear industries combined. Growth
hasn't only been in the United States; efforts are being undertaken all over the world. "China and the Unites
States will compete for leadership of the global wind industry in the years ahead," Sawin said.
"Although the U.S. industry got a 2-year head start, the Chinese are gaining ground rapidly. Whichever
nation wins, it is encouraging to see the world's top two coal burners fighting for the top spot in wind
energy." LOAD-DATE: July 26, 2007
SDI 2008 16

Link- Lieberman-Warner (1/2)

Lieberman-Warner bill will kill the coal industry.
Geof Koss, CongressSnow Staff, 1-28-2008, “Interests; An Industry Under Assault;
Democratic Congress Spells Bad News for Mining Companies,” SS.lexis
Looming even larger on the legislative horizon is the specter of climate change. Reid this year will try to
bring to the Senate floor a bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.)
that attempts to reduce global warming through a market-based cap-and-trade mechanism. The plan would
encourage the use of low-carbon or alternative energy sources - a potential dagger in the heart of the
coal industry, which currently provides about half of U.S. electricity - as well as large quantities of
carbon dioxide, the main culprit in global warming. The House is planning similar legislation. The NMA's
focus is ensuring that climate change policies are "synchronized" with available technologies that enable the
use of coal while preventing the release of harmful carbon dioxide, Naasz said. To that end, the NMA joined
other utility groups in asking the White House earlier this month to spend at least $900 million on "clean
coal" research in fiscal 2009. The figure represents a doubling of fiscal 2008 spending on the issue. The
message appears to be getting through to lawmakers as well. More than three dozen House Members from
both parties urged President Bush last week to "use your State of the Union address to call on Congress to
expand upon the nation's successful clean coal programs." The industry also is flexing its political muscles
outside the Beltway. A group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which includes coal companies
and electric utilities, is spending nearly $40 million on an advertising campaign to highlight the role coal
plays in the U.S. economy. The group, which includes NMA members, already has run ads in the early
primary and caucus states of Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. The campaign serves as a reminder of the
industry's political clout. "[T]he road to the White House travels through coal country," noted NMA
Chairman James F. Roberts, also the head of Maryland's Foundation Coal, in a speech earlier this month.
"Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia - individually or collectively - likely will determine who
will next occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

The coal mining industry is on the brink of being cut back by alternative energy incentives.
Geof Koss, CongressSnow Staff, 1-28-2008, “Interests; An Industry Under Assault;
Democratic Congress Spells Bad News for Mining Companies,” SS. lexis
The second session of the 110th Congress is barely two weeks old, but the mining industry is already
battening down the hatches as it seeks to weather what could be a perfect storm of legislation affecting a
wide swath of its membership. Despite the abbreviated election-year session, mining companies are
suddenly facing the very real possibility of new mine safety mandates, costly changes to the federal law
that governs minerals extraction on public lands, and greenhouse gases controls that would discourage
the use of fossil fuels such as coal to produce energy. But the industry isn't taking the threats sitting down.
Buoyed by a strong forecast for domestic coal and metals production in 2008, mining firms are pouring
money into lobbying and advertising to boost their image, especially in key states and Congressional districts
ahead of the November elections.
SDI 2008 17

Link- Lieberman-Warner (2/2)

Lieberman-Warner devastates the coal industry.
The U.S. Coal Review, 11-19-2007, “Coal industry analyst: Hot CO2 bill isn’t good at all for coal,” SS, Lexis.
Grassroots coal industry guys are maybe a little asleep at the switch as a Very Bad climate bill makes its way
pretty quickly toward the Senate floor. The bill is currently being debated by the Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works. It already has made its way through subcommittee. “America’s Climate
Security Act (ACSA),” introduced by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) and John W. Warner (R-
VA) has the potential to “devastate” the coal industry, according to a coal industry source closely
following its progress. It’s troubling that progress, in this case, is generally unimpeded. “It would be
devastating both in the near term and in the long term, for the coal industry,” the source said. There are
so many things to dislike in the bill, the source said, it is difficult to begin to enumerate them. Worse, the
current momentum leans toward making the bill even more difficult for the coal industry. Sen. Bernard
Sanders (ID-VT) voted against the bill, in the subcommittee, because it does not prevent new coal plants
from being built. Apparently he wants to amend the final bill to prevent such an outcome, even preventing
plants that are under const ruction from being moved forward. "There are a lot of politics that are going on
here," Sanders told the Associated Press, recently. "Coal is an important industry in Montana, Wyoming,
West Virginia, Virginia and other states. So the coal industry is very powerful here in Washington. The solar
and wind industries don't have that kind of clout."

Lieberman-Warner bill is devastating to our coal industry

The U.S. Coal Review, 11-19-2007, “Coal industry analyst: Hot CO2 bill isn’t good at all for coal,” SS, Lexis.
“On the substance of this bill, I am very concerned,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said. “EPA's October 1st analysis shows that emissions
reductions in the range contemplated in this bill will only reduce global greenhouse gas concentrations by about four percent - that's
right, four percent! “In the meantime, the world's leading producer of coal - China - has turned from a net exporter to net importer of
coal and is building three new coal plants a week. India's economy is also exploding. Officials in both countries have been extremely
clear that they have no intention of slowing their growth out of concern over global warming. “Yet supporters of putting the brakes on
our own economy say that our leadership will encourage these other countries to follow us down this self-destructive path.” Inhofe said
the bill’s language is “disastrous to our way of life.” "American families deserve to know the tremendous economic burden that will be
imposed on them if the Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law," Inhofe said. "This bill, if enacted into law, would impose the
equivalent of the largest tax increase in America history - larger than the Clinton-Gore 1993 tax increase. Unfortunately, it appears that
the chair of the committee is committed to rushing this bill through the committee in just two weeks. “As the ranking member of the
committee, I am committed to working to ensure a thorough review of this bill takes place and Committee members have all the facts
before they vote on this devastating legislation." Inhofe noted that Lieberman's has acknowledged the bill would cost “hundreds of
billions of dollars.” In an October 31 letter to Lieberman and Warner, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President for
Government Affairs R. Bruce Josten cautioned: "The bill requires American companies to undertake dramatic
emissions reductions – 15 percent below 20 05 levels in 2020, and 70 percent by 2050 – regardless of
whether its economic competitors do the same, at least prior to the year 2019. “By then much of the
United States' energy-intensive industry could be gone, having either shut down or moved overseas."
"China has outpaced the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of CO2 and India is not far behind,” according to
a letter to the committee from National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Executive Vice President
Charles T. Drevna.
SDI 2008 18

Links- Nuclear
Nuclear power kills the coal industry.
Watthead 6/2/07 “Carbon Backlash: Coal Companies Pitted Against Major U.S.
Corporations Pushing for Climate Regulations” lexis
Murray, whose private company produces about 30 million tons of coal per year, has formed the Coal-based
Stakeholders Chief Executive Officers Group, comprising CEOs of railroads, some coal companies and
utilities. It opposes so-called "cap and trade" regulations, arguing that caps on emissions will devastate the
U.S. coal industry which fuels about 50 percent of the country's electricity generation. Murray said he sent
Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens a letter a few months ago telling him he would no longer do business with him -
a decision he said will result in the loss of millions of dollars in business to Caterpillar. He also pointed out
power company Exelon Corp's (EXC) John Rowe, as "one of the biggest enemies of coal for decades
because he's got nuclear." Chicago-based Exelon, which is not a member of USCAP, said in a statement
that Rowe is "a leading proponent of moderate and thoughtful climate change legislation that preserves all
technological alternatives." He co-chairs the National Commission on Energy Policy, which has advocated
for a variety of technologies to address climate change, including clean coal and carbon sequestration. "And
certainly John is an advocate for nuclear power."
**Murray is chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp
SDI 2008 19

RPS would cause a dramatic shift away from coal
Foster Electric Report, 9-19-2007, “EIA FINDS THAT FEDERAL 25% RPS WOULD CAUSE DRAMATIC
Meeting twin 25% national renewable portfolio standards for electricity and transportation fuels by
2025 would require nearly a 13-fold increase from 2005 levels in non-hydropower renewable generation, and
cause a "dramatic shift" away from coal and natural gas generation, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration said in a report released Sept. 11. "This analysis suggests that, to comply with the twin 25-
by-25 mandates, it will be necessary for electricity and motor fuel producers to dramatically increase
their use of technologies that play a relatively small role in today's energy markets," the report said. For
instance, EIA said the 13-fold increase in renewable electricity generation from 2005 levels would be
accompanied by more than a 12-fold increase in the amount of ethanol and biodiesel needed.

RPS would remove the need for coal.

Jim Madden, Jim Madden is the president of Chesapeake Renewable Energy, Times Dispatch guest columnist,
1/17/2007 , “Support for RPS Legislation Is a Stand for Clean Energy”, jlk,
Virginia has an important choice to make, but it's a no-brainer. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill
sponsored by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple would require that all retail electric utilities in Virginia obtain
12 percent of their electricity from renewable sources -- such as wind, solar, and biomass -- by 2020. It
would also require these utilities to enact energy efficiency programs to save an additional 5 percent of
electric usage by 2020. These limits are attainable and implementing them is unlikely to increase our electric
rates. If the General Assembly passes this bill, Virginia would join 23 other states in taking a stand in support
of clean energy. Every megawatt-hour of clean energy produced removes the need to generate a
megawatt-hour of electricity from other sources, such as coal and natural gas.

More evidence
EIA Special Report, 10-11-2001,, “Fuel Market and Macroeconomic Impacts,”SS.
The imposition of new, more stringent emission caps on electricity power plants would affect coal
consumption, national and regional production, and prices. (Figure 22) In general, the revised caps and the
consequent need for introducing control technologies and other measures necessary to achieve
compliance with the caps would raise the cost of electricity from coal-fired power plants relative to those
using other fuels, encourage fuel switching, and cause the level of coal-fired generation to be reduced.
The impacts on national coal industry production levels are projected to be negative relative to the
reference case. The overall impacts on coal production depend on both the extent of the projected decline in
coal demand and the types of coal expected to be used in the future mix of coal-burning capacity. In the RPS
cases, all the nonhydroelectric renewable generation technologies are projected to increase their market share
of total generation, and the electricity generation shares of both coal and natural gas are projected to be
lower than in the reference case. The effective price premium associated with using renewable fuels declines
over time relative to nonrenewable sources, because the cost of the RPS credits that nonrenewable electricity
generators must hold increases as the renewable share target becomes more stringent. In the RPS 10% case,
the projected impacts on coal markets fall roughly midway between the results in the reference and RPS 20%
SDI 2008 20

Ext. Econ ! Internal Link (1/2)

The current world coal market has led to the US being the key coal producer allowing the
US to expand its energy markets globally – this is key to the US economy
Katy Marquardt, June 5, 2008, 6/5/08 “Skip Alternative Energy—Dig for Coal Stocks”, jlk,
Rather than focus on a specific region of the world, global fund managers roam the Earth in search of
the best investments. The United States represents less than 40 percent of the world's equity markets,
so going global helps U.S. investors avoid home-country bias, says Keith Walter, co-portfolio manager of
the Julius Baer Global Equity fund, which has gained an annualized 14 percent over the past three years.
Recently, Walter talked with U.S. News about his favorite energy stocks, the changing dynamics of coal, and
why he's excited about eastern Europe and Taiwan. What companies in this industry look best? We're
heading toward a world of higher energy prices, so we're trying to invest in the ultimate beneficiaries
of this trend. Since more than 80 percent of the world's proven reserves of oil are controlled by
governments, it's difficult to invest in stocks that own a lot of the oil in the ground. Our process looks at the
world's publicly traded oil companies and compares the valuation of their exploration and production assets
as a percentage of those proven reserves, to see which companies own the most oil in the ground at the most
attractive price. We also want to make sure that they can get the oil out of the ground at a good profit.
Although this process has led us to some investments in the U.S., the more compelling opportunities in oil
companies are in Russia, France, Canada, Norway, and Brazil, among others. One of the best-positioned
energy companies today is OAO Lukoil in Russia, which accounts for 19 percent of Russia's oil production
and has almost twice the proven reserves of Exxon Mobil but trades at a significant discount in the equity
markets. Another global oil company that looks attractive is Total SA, which is based in France. Total has
abundant oil reserves and trades at a 30 percent discount to the MSCI World Energy Index. A third name we
like is Petrobras, which is based in Brazil. While it's already reserve-rich at 15 billion barrels of oil
equivalent, Petrobras has recently made one of the largest new discoveries of oil in more than 20 years.
What about U.S. energy stocks? Hess Corp. is a U.S. name that is working alongside Petrobras in Brazil on
this major new oil find. Hess will likely be able to double their proven reserves of oil from a small $36
million investment they made seven years ago. That said, we think the most exciting part of the U.S.
energy sector today is our nation's coal companies. According to the Energy Information Administration,
the U.S. has the largest reserves of coal in the world, with a 27 percent share. Compared to other fossil
fuels, coal is by far the cheapest fossil fuel in the world today. Also, the dynamics are changing in the
coal industry. Three situations have developed: First, China, which was once a big exporter of coal, has
become an importer to feed its growing demand for electricity. Second, there have been major
disruptions to the operations of the traditional coal exporters, with flooding in Australia and power
outages in South Africa. Third, U.S. coal is more attractively priced than coal from other regions of the
world. These dynamics have made for dramatic increases in the exports of U.S. coal, although
traditionally, our coal was used primarily for domestic consumption. This export demand shows no signs of
letting up in the future, as both India and China each plan to build more than 1,000 new coal-fired
electricity plants over the next five years. How are you investing in coal? First, we want companies with a
lot of coal reserves, and that leads us to Peabody Energy, the largest publicly traded coal company in the
world. Peabody has mining operations in the U.S. and Australia, so they'll be able to meet the rising demand
from both Asia and eastern Europe for coal. Second, we like companies that are well positioned to take
advantage of this new demand for U.S. coal exports, and that brings us to Alpha Natural Resources, which is
based in the Appalachian Mountains and is the largest coal exporter via their partial ownership of one of the
nation's busiest coal ports in Virginia.
SDI 2008 21

Ext. Econ ! Internal Link (2/2)

Coal industry key to the economy.
Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D.,
University of Utah College of Law, 6/4/07
In addition to the benefits provided as a source of energy, the coal industry is an important component in
both Utah’s and the national economy. Based on the National Mining Association statistics, the average
number of miners working daily in this country is approximately 123,000. The Utah Geological Survey
estimates that coal industry in Utah employed approximately 2,000 people in 2006. Employment totals could
increase by another 200 to 300 people in 2007 and 2008 as demand for higher production continues and
proposed coal operations commence production. Revenues from coal produced in Utah increased
substantially in recent years, reaching an estimated $474.9 million in 2005, 23.0% higher than in 2004.
Increases in production and prices are expected in 2006, pushing the estimated revenue up an additional
26.2% to $599.5 million, the highest amount ever recorded in nominal dollars.

Coal is fueling the economy.

PR Newswire 05 (PR Newswire, October 18, 2005, JD,proquest)
"Peabody's 2005 performance continues on its record pace," said Peabody President and Chief Executive
Officer Elect Gregory H. Boyce. "Coal fundamentals are excellent, and coal is fueling the world's largest
and fastest growing economies. Global coal use will set another record in 2005, coal-fueled generating
plants are being built around the world, metallurgical coal remains in high demand, and projects are
being developed to convert coal into natural gas and transportation fuels." U.S. electricity generation
increased an extraordinary 8.2 percent in the third quarter over the prior year, led by a 26 percent increase in
cooling degree days and continued economic growth. As Peabody anticipated, inventories of coal at electric
utilities have been driven to record low levels of approximately 95 million tons, which is approximately
30 million tons below average levels. Nuclear generating units continue to run near full capacity, while
soaring natural gas prices render gas generation extremely expensive. [Peabody] believes that the U.S. coal
supply- demand balance is likely to remain extremely tight for the foreseeable future as customers meet
electricity demand growth and replenish stockpiles.

Coal sector is key to the growth of the economy.

Industrial Energy Consumers of America, 2003, “Coal,” www.ieca- MH
Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) supports open markets and diversity of energy supplies
including coal. Federal policy has long discouraged use of coal by utilities to generate electricity and
manufacturers to directly fuel industrial processes. Coal is our most abundant domestic energy resource.
Growth in the use of coal is critical to the overall domestic economy and to ensure secure energy and
raw materials supplies. Growth in the use of coal for power generation will be one of the most
significant contributors to keeping electricity affordable, balancing natural gas supply and demand and
maintaining U.S. manufacturing jobs dependent upon natural gas. As a result, IECA supports legislation
that removes environmental regulatory uncertainty, encourages open and competitive electricity markets, and
promotes growth in the use of coal to generate electricity, augment natural gas supplies, and to manufacture
SDI 2008 22

Heg ! Module (1/2)

A. Continued coal use is key to military readiness and heg– maintaining the coal industry
would allow for the military to use coal to liquid as a fuel source preventing oil
James Hannah, Associated Press, 03/19/2006, “Military's push to turn coal into fuel picking up speed”, jlk,
DAYTON, Ohio - The Pentagon is trying to persuade investors and the energy industry to embrace an 80-
year-old technology to turn coal into liquid fuel to power planes, tanks and other battlefield vehicles.
Officials have been crisscrossing the country, meeting with energy companies and state government officials to sell them on the idea. At
the same time, military researchers have been testing fuel produced by the process to make sure it is
suitable for military vehicles, especially older ones. Michael Aimone, an assistant Air Force deputy chief of staff, was in
North Dakota last week to discuss a search for sites for a plant to turn coal into fuel for jets and trucks. He said a study to explore the
idea of a plant to make 30,000 barrels of fuel a day from coal is focusing on North Dakota and Ohio, though other states will be
considered as well. The military is worried that political pressure or terrorist acts could cut the flow of oil
from the Middle East or hurricanes or terrorists could destroy U.S. refineries. "We know what the
technical challenges are, but we don't see any show-stoppers," said William Harrison, senior adviser for the
Pentagon's Assured Fuels Initiative. "There is still a level of uncertainty, but it looks like the technology is
mature enough." There are roadblocks. Building coal-to-fuel plants is expensive - possibly up to $5 billion.
Investors worry that their money could go up in smoke if the global price of oil drops, budding government
subsidies dry up, or tougher environmental rules are put into place, said Kevin Book, a Virginia-based senior analyst for Friedman,
Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. But then there is coal - lots of it. The Middle East has about 685 billion barrels of oil compared with 22
billion barrels in the United States. However, there is enough coal in the United States to produce 964 billion
barrels of fuel, according to the Pentagon. Montana, with enough coal to produce 240 billion barrels of fuel, leads the
pack, followed by Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Ohio. "We have probably 250 years' worth
of coal," said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association. "It would have a tremendous impact on the coal industry."
The industry is already on the rise. Demand for U.S. coal is expected to be a record 1.2 billion tons this
year, up from 1.18 billion in 2005, according to the National Mining Association. Production is forecast to be 1.16 billion
tons, a 3.2 percent increase over 2005. Coal is used mainly to generate electricity and in steel-making. Although experts say the
coal-to-fuel process works, it is being done in just a few small demonstration projects. The Pentagon began looking at coal in
2001 when Congress earmarked $13 million to investigate the Fischer-Tropsch process in which coal is gasified and then liquefied into
fuel. The technology was developed by Germany in the 1920s and used by South Africa beginning in the 1950s. The military accounts
for about 4 percent of U.S. fuel consumption. The process promises to produce a cleaner fuel that gives off more
energy per pound and be less subject to freezing. It would reduce transportation costs and ease
logistical headaches by enabling the military to use one fuel for all its planes and vehicles instead of the
more than half dozen different fuels now used. "See how beautifully clean that fuel is," Harrison said, pointing to a
dancing flame inside a large glass tube at a Wright-Patterson Air Force Base lab. The flame turned from orange to blue as the soot was
reduced when the fire began to burn fuel similar to what would be produced from coal. Harrison, chief of the Air Force's fuels lab at the
base, has been trying to light a fire in the private sector. He has spoken to state and industry officials in Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Montana and North Dakota. Some energy companies are eager to have the military for a customer. Houston-
based DKRW Energy hopes to begin producing coal-based diesel fuel in 2010. The company needs to complete the permitting process
and obtain financing for a $1 billion plant that would produce 11,000 barrels of fuel a day in Medicine Bow, Wyo. Syntroleum, based in
Tulsa, Okla., converts natural gas into liquid fuels and is currently involved in several coal-to-fuel projects. President Jack Holmes said
increasing demand for oil should keep the price high and coal-based fuel attractive. "We think that
now's the time," Holmes said. "If we can get these first few plants built and running and get the
acceptability in the government and industry, there's a big market to do this." Others point out that similar
talk in previous years evaporated when Mideast producers cut the price of oil. Dick Bajura, director of the National Research Center for
Coal and Energy at West Virginia University advised supporters of the coal-to-fuel idea to make sure "the people in OPEC land aren't
going to pull the rug out from underneath you." Crude oil is selling for more than $60 a barrel. In December, the U.S. Department of
Energy scrapped its predictions that oil prices would drop to around $30 a barrel by 2025, saying that costs will persist near or above
$50 a barrel for years. As the military evaluates the fuel made from coal, the Energy Department has funded efforts to refine the
process. In January, the department awarded a $100 million grant for the construction of what may end up being the nation's first
commercial coal-to-fuel plant, in eastern Pennsylvania. Private financing is still being secured for the $612 million plant, which could be
up and running by 2009. The risk to Mideast oil supplies was underscored in February when suicide
bombers in explosives-packed cars attacked the world's largest oil processing facility. The attack was
the first on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia and sent world oil prices soaring. Syntroleum's Holmes said
that even though a commercial plant would be expensive to build, it could operate for 30 years or more.
"We're not just trying to build a company, we're trying to build an industry," he said. "The acceptance
of a new idea is always difficult. Everybody wants to be the first person to build the second plant."
SDI 2008 23

Heg ! Module (2/2)

B. Nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, Senior Analyst at RAND, 1995 Washington Quarterly, Spring, Lexis
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would
be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar
or a multipolar balance of power system.
SDI 2008 24

Readiness Key to Heg

Military readiness is key to hegemony
Jack Spencer, Policy Analyst – Heritage Foundation, 2000, “The Facts About Military Readiness”, 9-15, jlk,
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that
the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more
likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in
combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting
aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace. Readiness Defined. Readiness measures the ability of a military unit, such
as an Army division or a carrier battle group, to accomplish its assigned mission. Logistics, available spare parts, training, equipment, and morale all contribute to readiness. The
military recognizes four grades of readiness. 7 At the highest level, a unit is prepared to move into position and accomplish its mission. At the lowest level, a unit requires further
manpower, training, equipment, and/or logistics to accomplish its mission. There is evidence of a widespread lack of readiness within the U.S. armed forces. Recently leaked Army
documents report that 12 of the 20 schools training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. They also disclose that over
half of the Army's combat and support training centers are rated at the lowest readiness grade. 8 As recently as last November, two of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the
lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest. 9 Every division required additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely
to the units' commitments to operations in the Balkans. 10 And 23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its
Apaches are not "mission-capable." 11 In other words, they are not ready. The Facts about Military Readiness The reduction in forces of the U.S. armed forces began in the early
1990s. After the end of the Cold War, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. 12 Under the Clinton
Administration, however, that reduction in forces escalated too rapidly at the same time that U.S. forces were deployed too often with too little funding. The result was decreased
readiness as personnel, equipment, training, and location suffered. Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-
enforcement operations. 13 Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreased nearly 30 percent, and
funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduced forces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated
equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline. Because the security of the United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness: FACT
#1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade. Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million
personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has
lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s. In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical
squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total
number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy
personnel has fallen by over 30 percent. In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty
personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992. Effect on Readiness. In spite of these
drastic force reductions, missions and operations tempo have increased, resulting in decreased military readiness. Because every mission
affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a
significant negative impact on readiness. For each service[person]man who participates in a military operation, two others are involved
in the mission: one who is preparing to take the participant's place, and another who is recovering from having participated and
retraining. Therefore, if 10,000 troops are on peace operations in the Balkans, 30,000 troops are actually being taken away from
preparing for combat. Ten thousand are actively participating, while 10,000 are recovering, and 10,000 are preparing to go. Coupled with
declining personnel, increased tempo has a devastating effect on readiness. Morale problems stemming from prolonged
deployments, equipment that wears out too quickly, and decreased combat training levels heighten when troops are
committed to non-combat operations. Further exacerbating the military's declining readiness is the tendency to
take troops with special skills from non-deployed units. Thus, a mission may affect non-deployed units as well because they will not be able
to train properly. The soldiers integral to the non-deployed mission are not present, and there is no one to take their place. A mission's spillover effects are clearly illustrated by a July
2000 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) on the U.S. commitments in the Balkans: In January 2000 ... four active divisions and one Guard division were affected by
these operations [in the Balkans]. Among the active divisions, the 1st Cavalry Division was recovering from a 1-year deployment in Bosnia, the 10th Mountain Division was deployed
there, and elements of the Guard's 49th Armored Division were preparing to deploy there. At the same time, the European-based 1st Infantry Division was deployed to Kosovo, and
deployment of key components--
the 1st Armored Division was preparing to deploy there. Although none of these divisions deployed in its entirety,
especially headquarters--makes these divisions unavailable for deployment elsewhere in case of a
major war.
SDI 2008 25

Oil Dependence ! Module (1/2)

A. Continued use of US coal is key to stop our reliance on foreign oil
Janet Wilson and Richard Simon, May 10, 2007, “On D.C.’s burner: Coal at the pumps”, jlk,
For years, coal-country lawmakers have talked about turning the abundant natural resource into a fuel
for motor vehicles. The idea went nowhere. But now it has taken on momentum, oddly enough, just as
Congress appears ready to pass legislation to fight global warming. Even though coal has been attacked as
a major culprit in climate change, lawmakers say a coal-derived fuel could solve another problem: U.S.
dependence on foreign oil. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including one presidential candidate, Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.), is pushing to provide federal loan guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies to spur
the production of fuel from coal. But the process of turning coal into a liquid emits carbon dioxide, so much
that each gallon of the fuel would create more greenhouse gases than gasoline – unless the carbon dioxide
released in production could be captured and stored. The idea of using the nation’s coal reserves, the
largest in the world, has drawn new attention as President Bush has pushed for domestically produced
alternative fuels, citing national security concerns. Politically jittery lawmakers also are eager to show
they are responding to high pump prices. The idea, however, remains controversial, as a Senate hearing on a
coal-fuel measure showed last week. “Here is an opportunity to vote for U.S. coal and against Saudi oil,”
Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) said. But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) responded, “At best, coal-to-liquids will be equal to conventional
gasoline. Frankly, we’ve got to do much, much better.” The debate offers a glimpse of the clashes that lie ahead as lawmakers writing
climate-change legislation wrestle with the future of coal. Coal interests remain a powerful force on Capitol Hill, with significant
deposits in about 15 states. And congressional action involving coal could prove vexing for presidential candidates when they are
stumping for votes in key producing states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, while also trying to win the support of environmentalists.
Strange bedfellows The issue has created unusual alliances. “What unites President Bush and Barack Obama?” Frank O’Donnell of
Clean Air Watch asked in a recent e-mail update on energy legislation. “Why, support for plans to subsidize conversion of coal to liquid
fuel.” Obama, who favors tough government action to combat global warming, has teamed up with regulation foe Sen. Jim Bunning (R-
Ky.) to sponsor legislation to promote the coal-derived fuel. Both senators have coal reserves in their states. Their bill aims to reduce the
upfront costs and financial risks of building plants, which can be as much as $4 billion per facility. It would provide loan guarantees for
up to 10 plants, each capable of producing at least 10,000 barrels a day; allow the Pentagon to enter into a long-term contract to buy
coal-derived fuel for military use; and authorize a study on using it in the nation’s emergency supply. It’s unclear how much this would
cost. Obama, who is sponsoring separate legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, said his support for coal fuel depended on finding
a way to remove the greenhouse gases emitted in production. “If it is used simply to compound the problem of greenhouse gases, then
it’s not going to be a credible strategy,” he said. The bill does not require that the fuel be produced without increasing greenhouse gas
emissions, though it does offer tax incentives to encourage the use of technology that captures carbon dioxide. Proponents narrowly lost
a bid last week to add a measure to promote the coal-derived fuel to an alternative fuels bill. But when that bill reaches the Senate floor,
they hope to add a requirement that the United States use 21 billion gallons of coal-derived fuel annually by 2022. The country
consumes about 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year. In the House, government support to develop coal-based fuel has the backing of
key committee chairmen from coal-producing states. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) – who heads the Energy and Commerce subcommittee
on energy and air quality – is preparing to introduce a bill that would offer an additional incentive to spur production: guaranteed federal
payments for coal-fuel producers if the price of oil dropped so much that coal fuel could not compete. Boucher plans to require
companies receiving government support to install carbon-capturing technology. “The truth is coal is our most abundant
energy resource,” Boucher said. “We absolutely must use it if we have any hope of achieving a greater
degree of energy self-reliance.” The U.S. imports about 60% of the oil it uses. The bills have picked up
support from lawmakers outside coal country. “Quite frankly, it needs to pass,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-
Visalia) said of the coal-derived-fuel bill. Nunes recently showed up for a Capitol Hill kickoff of a coalition
of energy companies and labor groups lobbying for coal-based fuel. “We can’t get to energy independence
without using our own natural resources.”
SDI 2008 26

Oil Dependence ! Module (2/2)

B. Oil dependence causes terrorist attacks.
RJ Eskow, Huffington Post 8/16/06
Our dependence on foreign oil greatly increases our susceptibility to terrorism, by forcing us to
continue supporting widely-hated, non-Democratic regimes in the Middle East. A sister initiative to
reduce oil dependence would go a long way toward easing the terrorist threat, by allowing us to
become more neutral brokers in the Arabian peninsula.We also need to face some hard facts about
terrorists: In many ways, they've adopted far more advanced 21st Century techniques in this struggle
than we have. They use blogs, websites, emails, pop music, video, art, poetry ... even video games ... to build
support and find recruits.

C. Extinction
Sid-Ahmed ’04 (Mohamed,- political analyst for Al-Ahram weekly “Extinction!”
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise
and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different
type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds.
This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends
when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the
whole planet, we will all be losers.
SDI 2008 27

Ext. Oil Dependence ! Internal Link

The US coal industry is key to oil dependence – continued government commitment is key
Tim Huber, Associated Press, August 15, 2007, “Coal-to-Liquids Quietly Becoming a Reality in U.S.”, jlk,
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- While the energy industry has been focused on alternative fuels and new
sources of oil, the coal industry is going forward with plants to turn coal into liquid fuels such as diesel
and gasoline. Supporters say at least some plans are a certainty, even if Congress doesn't approve
incentives sought by coal-to-liquids supporters. But they argue some form of subsidy is vital to build
enough plants to dent the nation's reliance on foreign oil. "You're going to have a coal-to-liquids
industry in the United States," said John Ward, vice president for marketing and government relations for
Headwaters Inc. "The question is how fast will it happen." The National Mining Association's Coal-To-
Liquids Coalition is hosting a conference this week in Beckley, W.Va. The event's agenda includes speeches
by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other politicians and updates on various
coal-to-liquids projects by representatives of the U.S. Air Force and Rentech Inc., which is working to
develop proposed plants around the country. South Jordan, Utah-based Headwaters is working on a coal-to-
gasoline plant proposed for North Dakota and researching the feasibility of coal-to-liquid plants for
Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy. While most plants are years away from construction, Los Angeles-based
Rentech hopes to convert a natural gas-fed fertilizer plant in East Dubuque, Ill., by the end of 2009 or 2010.
Production would start low -- 920 tons of fertilizer and 1,800 barrels of diesel a day. That's at once a drop
in the bucket compared with the nation's energy use and, to the industry's way of thinking, a big step in the
right direction. Rentech Chief Executive Hunt Ramsbottom and others figure at least one of several larger
proposed plants will be built. The coal industry and coal-state politicians in particular say the nation
can't afford to patiently wait for small developers to build plants on their own or in conjunction with
coal companies. But so far the notion hasn't gotten very far in Washington. "There's not a concerted
effort to be truly energy independent," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin. "How are you going to get us
from A to B and still be a world superpower?" Supporters argue using domestic coal would reduce
dependence on imported oil from unstable parts of the world. "It has the potential to be a meaningful
supply of fuel that would take the price off of gasoline and diesel fuel and would take the dependence
down on the Mideast," said Don Blankenship, chief executive of Massey Energy Co., the nation's fourth-
largest coal producer by revenue. Environmentalists contend conservation and energy efficiency would do
the same thing. And they argue coal to liquids plants double the greenhouse gases of oil refining, consume of
vast quantities of water and increase coal production. "Why in heaven's name would we be subsidizing
anything that's giving double the greenhouse gases?" said Vivian Stockman of the Ohio Valley
Environmental Coalition. "It's basically a way to prop up the coal industry and give them more subsidies and
hold people economic hostage." Ramsbottom and others contend they'll be able to reduce overall carbon
dioxide emissions by capturing the gas and selling it to oil producers to extend the life of aging wells, among
other things. If several plants get off the ground quickly, they can actually cut down carbon emissions,
he said. "It actually increases your pollution and decreases safety not to do coal to liquids," he said,
explaining that oil producing countries "don't care anything about the environment. ... It's so backwards I
don't really know how to describe it."
SDI 2008 28

AT: Renewables Solve Oil Dependence

Renewables aren’t a viable alternative to oil dependence- the answer is investments in clean
The Register Herald, byline Mannix Porterfield, Columnist, 7/12/08, “Lawmakers believe Reid is
‘shortsighted’ on coal,” MH
“Growing our use of renewable energy is a laudable goal, but coal is going to be around for a long time. It
is a viable, abundant source of energy available right here in our own country, and if we fail to tap the
potential of coal — by investing more, not less, in clean coal technologies — we will keep undercutting
our efforts to get out from under foreign nations that have us hooked on their oil.” Sen. Robert C. Byrd,
D-W.Va., who grew up in a coal mining community in Raleigh County, likewise pointed to the fuel’s critical
role in weaning America off foreign oil. “While renewable energies have a role to play, they are not a
panacea, and cannot begin to replace American coal, which accounts for almost one half of the
electricity in our country,” he said. In his home state, coal provides 99 percent of the electricity that keeps
home and businesses humming. “Majority Leader Reid is entitled to his own opinion about coal, but the
facts speak for themselves — coal is affordable and abundant, and it is here to stay for a long time,”
Byrd said.
SDI 2008 29

US-India Relations ! Module (1/2)

A. The US coal industry offers a unique avenue to foster cooperation and relations with
DOE, Department of Energy, May 31, 2005, “US-India Energy Dialogue: Coal Working Group”, jlk,
On May 31, 2005, U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Samuel W. Bodman and Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia,
Deputy Chairman Planning Commission of India, launched a new Energy Dialogue. The Energy Dialogue
builds upon the broad range of existing energy cooperation between India and the United States, as
well as develops new avenues of collaboration. The Energy Dialogue includes working groups in the
areas of coal, oil and gas, nuclear and renewable resources, electric power generation and energy efficiency. The Coal
Working Group is chaired by James Slutz, U.S. Department of Energy's Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy, and Dr. S.P. Seth, Additional Secretary of India's Ministry of Coal. The objective of the CWG is to: Enhance the
understanding of coal-related energy issues and promote the exchange of information on policies,
programs and technologies with special emphasis on coal utilization for power generation and clean
fuels production; Promote the efficient and environmentally responsible use of coal; Promote increased
trade and investment in the coal and coal power sectors; Encourage India's active participation in the
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, and Methane to Markets Partnership; Work with the
private sector to identify areas of cooperation and collaborate with the business community on joint
activities. Since its inception, the Coal Working Group has had several meetings. Meeting summaries are available, along with
copies of the technical presentations that address a number of topics, including: coal beneficiation; waste coal utilization; coal mine
safety; coal mine methane; overburden dump stability; steep seem coal extraction; underground coal gasification and coal liquefaction.
In addition, the CWG has developed a high level work plan that identifies the priority items of interest that will be pursued by the group.

B. US-India relations are key to boosting global trade.

Alan Kronstadt, Works for the Foreign Affairs, Defense, & Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service
Almanac of Policy Issues, 3/6/2006 , “US Policy toward India,”, jlk,
The end of the Cold War freed India-U.S. relations from the constraints of global bipolarity, but interactions
continued for a decade to be affected by the burden of history, most notably the longstanding India-Pakistan
rivalry and nuclear weapons proliferation in the region. Recent years, however, have witnessed a sea
change in bilateral relations, with more positive interactions becoming the norm. India’s swift offer of
full support for U.S.-led counterterrorism operations after September 2001 was widely viewed as
reflective of such change. Today, President Bush calls India a “natural partner” of the United States
and his Administration seeks to assist India’s rise as a major power in the new century. In July 2005,
President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Singh issued a Joint Statement resolving to establish a U.S.-
India “global partnership” on a wide range of issues. In recent years, the United States and India have
engaged in numerous and unprecedented joint military exercises. Discussions of possible sales to India of
major U.S.-built weapons systems are ongoing. Plans to expand hightechnology trade have become key
bilateral issues in recent years. In the July Joint Statement, the Bush Administration dubbed India “a
responsible state with advanced nuclear technology” and seeks to achieve “full civilian nuclear energy
cooperation with India.” Such proposed cooperation is controversial and would require changes in both U.S. law and
international guidelines. The United States seeks to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in South Asia.
Both India and Pakistan have resisted external pressure to sign the major nonproliferation treaties. In May 1998, the two countries
conducted nuclear tests that evoked international condemnation. Proliferation-related restrictions on U.S. aid were triggered, then later
lifted through congressional-executive cooperation from 1998 to 2000. Remaining sanctions on India (and Pakistan) were removed in
October 2001. Continuing U.S. interest in South Asia focuses on ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, a problem rooted in
unfinished business from the 1947 Partition and competing claims to the Kashmir region. The United States strongly encourages
maintenance of a cease-fire in Kashmir and continued, substantive dialogue between India and Pakistan. U.S. concerns about human
rights issues related to regional dissidence and separatism in several Indian states continue. Strife in these areas has killed tens of
thousands of civilians, militants, and security forces over the past two decades. Communal tensions and religious freedom have been
another matter of concern. Many in Congress, along with the State Department and international human rights groups, have criticized
India for perceived abuses in these and other areas. India is in the midst of major and rapid economic expansion.
Many U.S. business interests view India as a lucrative market and candidate for foreign investment.
The United States supports India’s efforts to transform its once quasi-socialist economy through fiscal
reform and market opening. Since 1991, India has taken steps in this direction, with coalition governments keeping the
country on a general path of reform. However, there is U.S. concern that movement remains slow and inconsistent. See also CRS
Report RL33072, U.S.India Bilateral Agreements; CRS Report RL32259, Terrorism in South Asia; and CRS Report RS21502, India-
U.S. Economic Relations.
SDI 2008 30

US-India Relations ! Module (2/2)

C. Free trade prevents nuclear war.
Copley News Service, 1999
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear
war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists
protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth
is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to
forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide
nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy
themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But
they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about
global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace
activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament
movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other.
These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to
discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations
are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major
disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important.
As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity
increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters
in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage
earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting.
It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for
Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies
for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would
lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic
product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the
specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of
anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade.
They should be celebrating it.
SDI 2008 31

Ext. US-India Relations ! Internal Link

The US coal industry allows for a unique avenue for cooperation between India and the US
– FutureGen Proves
Kandula Subramaniam, Friday, December 14, 2007, “Share clean coal tech with us, India tells US”, jlk,
New Delhi, December 13: India, which is expected to source a significant portion of its energy
requirement from coal-based power plants over the next few years, has asked the US to share with it
the technology behind the FutureGen project, which aims at developing the first-ever coal-based power
plant with near zero emissions. While the US is pioneering the work in the billion dollar project, and
is bringing in bulk of the funds, India too joined the FutureGen club in 2006, which has even China as a
member. Apart from sharing of intellectual property, it is learnt that India has even specified that the
role of the inter-governmental committee, of which India is a part, should be re-oriented from being
“advisory” to providing “direction” to the FutureGen project. Confirming India’s demand for
sharing of intellectual property, Union Power secretary Anil Razdan said: “We would like this technology
to be given to us at the same cost of the presently available technology, which, we would be using for our
power generation,” he told The Indian Express. The Power ministry has reportedly informed the US
Department of Energy that the “main concern” while participating in the project, is of sharing “project related
information with participating countries and the sharing of intellectual property rights for wider
dissemination.” However, India’s financial involvement in the project, like that of some other member
countries, is of a token $10 million. However, it is countries such as India and China that are in the process
of expanding their power capacity in a big way through coal-based plants. Though the US is pioneering
the research into FutureGen project, it is being implemented and developed by a clutch of power
utilities with India’s NTPC also planning to join the alliance. When burned, coal is the dirtiest of all
fossil fuels but a range of technologies are being used and developed to reduce the environmental impact of
coal-based power stations. Collectively, they are known as clean coal technology.
SDI 2008 32

Death !
Hundreds of thousands would die with the loss of coal.
Center for Energy and Economic Development, April 2007, “A Climate Policy Guide,”
%20Inextricable%20Linkage.pdf MH
The cost of electricity not only promotes economic development, it also profoundly affects the lives of
millions of Americans. For those living on low- or fixed-incomes, energy costs consume 20% to 46% of
total household income. Given the demonstrated linkage between household income and health, surges in
energy costs can be expected to damage the quality of life of the one-in-three American households with an
annual income of $30,000 or less. The cost of energy is profoundly important to both economic growth
and human health. According to a 2006 Annapolis Center report, “Strong and convincing evidence exists
in the public health literature that economic growth-development and inexpensive energy drive
worldwide improvement in health and longevity.” Additionally, a 2005 study by Dr. M. Harvey
Brenner of Johns Hopkins University found that, if coal were removed from the energy mix,
approximately 170,000 to 368,000 premature deaths would occur in the U.S. in 2010.
SDI 2008 33

T/ Ethanol Bad Affs

Coal is the best and most viable way to offset ethanol use.
Craig Thomas, Wyoming Senator, 2007, The Cato Institute “Lets Use America’s Energy… and Ingenuity,” MH
In the nearer future, there are great opportunities for the United States to use some of the abundant
resources we already have. Our natural gas and oil reserves are certainly two potential sources, but as a
citizen and Senator of the State of Wyoming, I’d like to focus some attention on one of our nation’s most
traditional energy sources: coal. The United States has more coal than any other nation in the world, and
Wyoming has the most of any state (well over 1/3 of all coal produced yearly in the US). Yes, we all know
coal as an important energy source for electricity – it still accounts for more than half of our electric power
supply – but the abundance of this resource has given me great responsibility to learn more about coal’s
many other potential uses. Biofuels such as ethanol have received much attention and deservedly so, but I
believe coal serves as an even more promising source of fuel energy. Through a line of research and
development that dates back to WWII when the Germans converted coal into liquid fuel, we are now able to
develop coal into a much cleaner and more efficient clean diesel fuel. Unlike biofuels that take a great
deal of energy to be created – diesel to run the tractors, natural gas to produce the fertilizer, more
diesel to run the trucks and trains that deliver it – coal is already available for conversion into fuel
energy. Coal also already has a developed pipeline infrastructure, but biofuels will create a demand to
increase our country’s strained truck and rail capacities. In addition, biofuels like ethanol made from corn
create competition for important resources within our country and around the world, and driving the
price of food crops like corn up in this way puts new strain on other industries and on mouths to feed.
The use of coal helps to eliminate such competition.
SDI 2008 34

Clean Coal Solves Global Warming

Coal can combat global warming.
Ken Berlin, and Robert M. Sussman, Sussman served as Deputy Administer of the EPA, second in demand, on
the Board of Directors of the Environmental Law Institute, the Board of Advisors of the Center for International
Environmental Law, and was on the Board of the Environmental Alliance, the Steering Committee of the Enterprise
for the Environment initiative chaired and on the National Academy of Sciences Board on Chemical Sciences and
Technology, May 31, 2007, “Global Warming and the Future of Coal Carbon Capture and Storage”, jlk,
If the United States is successful in maintaining the viability of coal as a cost-competitive power source
while addressing climate concerns, our leadership position would enable U.S. industries to capture
critical export opportunities to the very nations facing the largest challenges from global warming.
Once our domestic marketplace adopts CCS systems as power industry standards, the opportunities to
export this best-of-breed technology will grow exponentially. This will be critical to combating the
massive rise of coal-derived greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. Boosting exports while
also helping China, India, and other developing nations reduce emissions and sustain economic growth
would be a win-win-win for our economy, their economies, and the global climate.

Clean coal would significantly reduce emissions.

CNBC News, byline Kenneth Stier, Freelance Writer and Energy Analyst, 6/20/08, “Primer: Clean Coal,” MH
There are two leading approaches to meeting the challenge. The first is an advanced steam cycle
technology, known as ultrasupercritical (USC) cycles. The other is integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) technology. USC promises significant efficiency gains, which could reduce carbon
emissions by about a third. The US, long a leader in advanced coal combustion technology, has 170
supercritical units in operation. IGCC, which is still a few years from commercial deployment, promises
a potential quantum leap, approaching zero-emissions. Full-deployment, however, depends on
overcoming another technological challenge — not just the ability to capture carbon but also to safely
dispose of it indefinitely underground, in a process known as sequestration. This is not expected to be
commercially deployable until 2020.

Clean coal is the key energy initiative for climate change

Butler, manager of an environmental news service, 2006, “Clean coal could fight climate change”,
Cleaner, more efficient use of coal could play a key role in addressing climate change, especially with
the growing importance of coal as an energy source as world crude oil supplies are diminished in the
future. Coal presently supplies about two-thirds of China's energy and one-third of the energy demand
in the United States but, due to its abundance, is forecast to become an increasingly important relative to
petroleum around mid-century. Currently, coal is used mostly for electricity generation, but is less thermally
efficient than natural gas-fired power stations. Scientists say that identifying and deploying effective ways
of harnessing coal at acceptable environmental and economic cost is an urgent priority for the global
energy industry.
SDI 2008 35

Clean Coal Better Than Renewables

Clean coal is the most viable way to curb emissions.
Jerzy Buzek, Polish prime minister (97-01), 6-4-2008, “Clean Coal Technology: A way to Offset Global
The package calls for a radical reduction in CO2 emissions, by as much as 20 percent by 2020. This is a
very ambitious goal that can only be achieved if clean coal technologies are developed. The largest
amounts of CO2 are released by coal-fired power plants, so the key issue is to work on zero-emission
systems capable of generating power while completely eliminating CO2 emissions. Europe and the whole
world can only be saved from climate change by developing better, more efficient and cheaper emission-
reducing technologies. Stricter CO2 limits alone will not solve the problem, as they could also restrict
the competitiveness of European industry, whereas the impact on the global situation would be
negligible anyway. It's much better to earmark more funds for innovative technologies. The EU already has
such a project, known as the Flagship Program, under which 12 completely zero-emission coal-based power
generation systems will be built in Europe by 2015. Poland has to do everything in its power to develop such
systems. In fact, the way I see it, at least two of the 12 systems should be built in Poland. Developing new
technologies is the only way to comply with EU requirements for reducing CO2 emissions without
hampering the development of our energy sector, which has no other option but coal. Energy from
renewable sources will always account for a marginal percentage of all energy generated in Poland. We have
to do all we can for Poland to embrace the EU's Flagship Program for producing clean energy from coal. This
is the future of our economy.

More evidence.
Butler, manager of an environmental news service, 2006, “Clean coal could fight climate change”,
Cleaner, more efficient use of coal could play a key role in addressing climate change, especially with
the growing importance of coal as an energy source as world crude oil supplies are diminished in the
future. Coal presently supplies about two-thirds of China's energy and one-third of the energy demand
in the United States but, due to its abundance, is forecast to become an increasingly important relative to
petroleum around mid-century. Currently, coal is used mostly for electricity generation, but is less thermally
efficient than natural gas-fired power stations. Scientists say that identifying and deploying effective ways
of harnessing coal at acceptable environmental and economic cost is an urgent priority for the global
energy industry.

More evidence
Wampler 7/11 (J. Allen Wampler, 7/11/08, JD,
Policymakers like to talk about the need for alternative energy sources —- solar and wind power, geothermal
energy, natural gas, nuclear power and conservation. But those alternatives, though helpful, aren't enough
to meet growing demand for electricity in increasingly digitalized economies. The growth of nuclear
power is severely constrained by equipment and manpower shortages. Even with state mandates, it's
unlikely that renewable energy sources will ever account for more than a fraction of U.S. electricity
generation. Solar and wind have serious limitations due to cost and practicality. Neither one is of much
help on days when the weather isn't cooperating. For the United States and globally, a combination of
more efficient coal combustion and carbon capture-and-storage offers a potentially workable solution
to the greenhouse-gas problem —- and an opportunity to reach a comprehensive strategy for
international cooperation on carbon mitigation. Energy supply would be more secure, and the citizens of
coal-producing countries would gain more from the natural wealth their countries control. Both producing
and consuming countries would win —- regardless of where the carbon is sequestered. > J. Allen Wampler, a
former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, is a consultant to government and industry on
energy issues.
SDI 2008 36

Clean Coal Better Than Wind

Clean Coal is a better option than Wind – England proves
The Times, 2004, “Clean-Coal ‘better than wind’,” MH
The UK could cut the cost of reducing greenhouse gases by £3bn if it fitted clean-coal technology to its
aging power stations, rather than building wind farms, according to Mitsui Babcock, the British based
power station manufacturer. It says that some 2,000 wind turbines will be installed in the UK over the next
six years at a total cost of approximately £9 bn, as power companies seek to comply with a government
demand to increase supplies of renewable energy. However, it is urging the Government to invest in
clean-coal technology, which it argues could be fitted to the UK’s 16 coal-fired power stations for only
£6bn. It claimed that “the cost of installing clean-coal technology across the coal-fired fleet could be
achieved at almost half the cost of achieving equivalent reductions using renewable sources” Mitsui
Babcock wants the Government to introduce a form of incentive, similar to the renewable obligation
certificate, for power generators to invest in clean-coal technology. Clean coal technology could, they say,
cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50-60% from current levels, and they claim that wind power is 6 times
more expensive than its technology in delivering the same CO2 reduction throughout the life of the
power station.
SDI 2008 37

US Clean Coal Solves China

China must import new coal technology in order to solve global warming.
Keith Bradsher and David Barboza, June 11, 2006, “Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow”,
HANJING, China — One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals
and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants. In early April, a dense
cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before
wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast. Researchers
in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of
coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can
work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer. Filters near
Lake Tahoe in the mountains of eastern California "are the darkest that we've seen" outside smoggy urban
areas, said Steven S. Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at Davis. Unless China
finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar
both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably
exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the
reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks. The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion
poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a
year. It also causes acid rain that poisons lakes, rivers, forests and crops. The sulfur pollution is so pervasive
as to have an extraordinary side effect that is helping the rest of the world, but only temporarily: It actually
slows global warming. The tiny, airborne particles deflect the sun's hot rays back into space. But the cooling
effect from sulfur is short-lived. By contrast, the carbon dioxide emanating from Chinese coal plants will last
for decades, with a cumulative warming effect that will eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfur and
deliver another large kick to global warming, climate scientists say. A warmer climate could lead to rising sea
levels, the spread of tropical diseases in previously temperate climes, crop failures in some regions and the
extinction of many plant and animal species, especially those in polar or alpine areas. Coal is indeed
China's double-edged sword — the new economy's black gold and the fragile environment's dark
cloud. Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan
combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the
broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens
somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. To make
matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants —
and has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030. Aware of the country's growing reliance on
coal and of the dangers from burning so much of it, China's leaders have vowed to improve the nation's
energy efficiency. No one thinks that effort will be enough. To make a big improvement in emissions of
global-warming gases and other pollutants, the country must install the most modern equipment —
equipment that for the time being must come from other nations.

Only US clean coal technology solves China

Center for Energy and Economic Development, April 2007, “A Climate Policy Guide,”
%20Inextricable%20Linkage.pdf MH
It important that policymakers embrace the inextricable linkage between energy, economic, and
climate policies so that they do not exacerbate emerging energy supply issues leading to unnecessarily
higher costs for electricity consumers. Additionally, everyone must recognize that wise climate policy
requires actions by business, government, and individual citizens. America and nations around the world
can achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases by employing advanced clean coal technologies.
In fact, many developing nations with the world’s fastest growing GHG emissions will continue to use
coal and will not employ these technologies unless the United States provides strong leadership in the
necessary research, development, demonstration, and deployment. That’s why our recommended
technology-based approach is appropriate and timely.
SDI 2008 38

Clean Coal Better Than Nuclear in China

China finds nuclear energy too costly and is more likely to adopt clean coal techniques
Terry Tamminen, Cullman Senior Climate Policy Fellow at the New America Foundation, 2008, Grist
Magazine, “Terry Tamminen: Nuclear energy and China's development,” SS.
Bush jumps in a long list of presidents of both parties who have not been able to deal with the [nuclear]
waste issue in any meaningful fashion. And talk about a subsidized industry! Once upon a time we thought
it would be too cheap to meter, and now we understand that it's an enormous cost. Yes, look, we may
not be able to stop China from going down that path. When Arnold was there last November, the one
thing they wanted to talk about was retrofit technology for diesel buses, sewage treatment (two-thirds of
their sewage gets dumped into their receiving waters untreated), ways of sequestering carbon -- they're
very interested in those kinds of technologies, and buying them from California companies. They tell us
they're spending millions and millions of dollars on health care and loss of productivity. It’s hurting them.
SDI 2008 39

AT: Clean Coal Impossible

Clean coal is viable- Australia’s CCS proves.
Next Energy News, 4/3/08, “Australia to Open First Carbon Capture and Storage Plant,” MH
The opening of Australia's first carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plant in Victoria has
been hailed as a major step toward making "clean coal" viable. The Otway Basin Project in south-west
Victoria will see up to 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide captured from natural gas injected 2km underground in
a depleted gas reservoir. During the two-year trial, CO2 will be compressed and transported to the basin near
Nirranda, about 30km east of Warrnambool. The project is part of research to learn if emissions can be
successfully trapped in geological formations, as a way of curbing the greenhouse gases produced by
fossil fuels. "The success of this program will confirm the CCS technology as a viable option to reduce
the carbon footprint of coal," federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said at the opening
of the plant.

More evidence
The Age News, byline Orietta Guerrera, 7/6/08, “Carbon Dioxide burial reaches a milestone,” MH
IT IS technology vital to the Government's hopes of cutting greenhouse emissions from Australia's huge coal-
fired power stations: capturing carbon dioxide from the polluting stations and burying it deep underground.
Australia's first trial of geosequestration in the Otways reached its first milestone last week — 10,000 tonnes
of carbon dioxide was successfully stored two kilometres underground in a depleted natural gas field.
Scientists from the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies hope to increase that
to 100,000 tonnes next year, while continuing to monitor the local geology. The centre's chief executive,
Dr Peter Cook, who is overseeing the $40 million project, is confident that the day will come when much
of the carbon dioxide produced from large industrial sources can be buried.

Clean coal technology is only 4 years away.

Next Energy News, 3/14/08, “New Technology Removes CO2 and Mercury from Coal Plants,” MH
Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Powerspan have announced the selection of Powerspan's carbon
dioxide (CO2) capture technology for a commercial demonstration at Basin Electric's coal-based
electrical generation facility, the Antelope Valley Station located near Beulah, North Dakota. Approximately
one million tons of CO2 will be captured annually from the 120 megawatt slipstream project, making
this demonstration among the largest in the world. The captured CO2 will be fed into an existing CO2
compression and pipeline system owned by Basin Electric's wholly owned subsidiary, Dakota Gasification
Company. Today's announcement is the result of the first competitive solicitation process for a CO2
capture demonstration at a coal-based power plant in the U.S. Six companies responded to the request for
proposal issued by Basin Electric in June 2007. Powerspan's CO2 capture process was selected as the most
promising low cost option for commercial deployment and for its ability to best integrate with Basin
Electric's operations. The project is scheduled to move forward in 2009, subject to successful completion of
engineering studies and obtaining of necessary permits and government incentives for early demonstrations
of CO2 capture and sequestration. The facility is expected to be operational in 2012.
SDI 2008 40

Aff Answers- Non Unique

The US coal industry is on the decline – It will continue to be cut back in the status quo
Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, “U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes”, March 4,
2008 edition, jlk,
Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired
power plants in the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power
instead. Utilities canceled or put on hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a
new analysis by the US Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh.
These moves – a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the industry had more than 150 such plants in
development – signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal. Natural-gas and renewable power
projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to Global Energy Decisions, a
Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000 megawatts
under development compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. This year could
diminish coal's future prospects even more. Wall Street investment banks last month said they will now
evaluate the cost of carbon emissions before approving power plants, raising the bar much higher for
new coal projects, analysts say. "What you're seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal power right now,"
says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York. "You turn off the money spigot,
you've turned off those plants." Aside from the 28 or so coal-fired power plants already under
construction, prospects remain tenuous for the half-dozen plants "near construction" and another 80
plants not nearly as far along, says Steve Piper, managing director of power forecasting at Platts, the
energy information division of McGraw-Hill. "Expansions [of existing plants] still have a good chance.
But others will come under increased pressure for deferral or outright cancellation."
SDI 2008 41

Aff Answers- No Internal Link

No Internal Link- Coal industry is resilient

Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D.,
University of Utah College of Law, 6/4/07
Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable
energy sources were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives.
However, despite these predictions, the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the
last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable
future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and coal is now
being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the
United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired
plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the
carbon emissions associated with electrical generation.

More evidence
Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D.,
University of Utah College of Law, 6/4/07
Despite environmental concerns and the development of alternative energy sources, the coal industry (and
coal consumption) is on the rise, with no signs of slowing in the next few decades. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) indicates that U.S. coal production in 2005 increased 1.9% to 1133.3
million short tons. This is the second straight year of increased production after significant declines from
2001-2003. This trend is expected to continue. The EIA predicts that U.S. coal production will continue to
increase by an average of 1.1% each year until 2015, when total production will equal 1272 million short
tons. Coal production growth should be even stronger between 2015 and 2030, averaging 2% per year,
as electricity demand continues to increase. This demand will likely be met with new or expanded coal-
fired power plants.

More evidence
Business Wire 6/19/06. Fitch: U.S. Coal Industry Well Positioned, Strong Market Fundamentals PC
Fundamentals for the U.S. coal industry will continue to be positive through the second half of 2006 as
market conditions will bolster a strong pricing environment, according to a Fitch Ratings report. Demand
for coal, particularly from power generators, will continue to be robust in 2H 2006. Transportation
bottlenecks and outages, the availability of labor and equipment, a challenging regulatory
environment, and geology will all constrain supply growth, improving the price environment for coal.
Mild weather and maintenance shutdowns at power generators have allowed inventories to build
which resulted in a decline in steam coal spot prices in the first half of the year. Natural gas prices have also
drifted lower from post-hurricane spikes and are approaching the point where some older, less efficient coal-
fueled plants will become uncompetitive. Fitch expects steam coal realization growth to continue, but to
moderate, as more contract prices reflect the strength that emerged in 2004 and 2005.
SDI 2008 42

Aff Answers- ! T/- Warming

Coal causes emissions, deforestation and destruction.
Jeff Biggers, Lowell Thomas Award for Travel Journalism, a Field Foundation Fellowship and an Illinois Arts
Council Creative Non-Fiction Award. He serves as a contributing editor to The Bloomsbury Review, and is a
member of the PEN American Center 3/2/08 “Clean Coal? Don’t try to shovel that”
More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died
from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The
injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a
recent report revealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to
assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety
funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed underground in Utah
last summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and churned
into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United
States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the
poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An
estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than
470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased
from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the
equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year.

Coal industry causes massive emissions

Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D.,
University of Utah College of Law, 6/4/07
While coal supplies are abundant and production cost low, many still view coal as an unwelcome guest.
The major disadvantages of coal come from the adverse environmental impacts that accompany the
mining, transportation and combustion of coal. Coal faces significant environmental challenges in mining,
air pollution, and emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). Indeed, coal-fired plants contribute almost one-third
of all the carbon emissions the United States generates – roughly as much produced by every car and
truck on the road. Clearly, no future effort against global climate change will succeed without reducing
coal-related emissions. However, reducing these emissions could significantly impact the competitiveness of
existing and new coal-fired plants, significantly increasing energy costs.

Coal causes pollution and warming

Hansen 06 (Brian Hansen, Inside Energy, New York, January 16, 2006, JD, proquest)
[Kiyo Akasaka] lauded progress on a host of fronts, including EPA's efforts to reduce power-plant pollution,
noting that U.S. emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other key pollutants declined during the
review period despite growth in population and the economy. He attributed the accomplishments to
several factors, including EPA's use of emissions-trading programs, cost-benefit analyses and other
initiatives that inject more "flexibility" into environmental regulations. The study also questions
whether U.S. plans to reduce mercury and fine-particle pollution from old coal power plants are
adequate, saying emissions from those sources "pose human health risks and contribute to persistent
regional pollution problems." The report noted EPA has begun to regulate power-sector mercury emissions,
but OECD does not offer a ringing endorsement of its rule, which environmental and public health groups
say is too weak to adequately protect people from mercury, a potent neurotoxin. The report expounds on
those allegations.
SDI 2008 43

Aff Answers- ! T/- Warming

The current global coal boom will lead to global warming – advancing the industry is suicide
Jeff Goodell, January 25, 2007, “Big Coal’s Dirty Move”, JaretLK,
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is "dangerous to oneself or to
one's interests; self-destructive or ruinous." By this standard, the coal boom that is currently sweeping
America is the atmospheric equivalent of a swan dive off a very tall building. At precisely the moment
that scientists have reached a consensus that we need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the
electric-power industry is racing to build more than 150 new coal plants across the United States. Coal
is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dump hundreds of millions of tons
of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come — virtually guaranteeing that the
U.S. will join China in leading civilization's plunge into a superheated future.
SDI 2008 44

Aff Answers- ! T/- Environment

Every aspect of the coal industry will destsroy the environment – causes warming, land and water ecosystem
destruction, and makes habitats inhabitable
Martha Keating, CATF, Clean Air Task Force, June, 2001, Cradle to Grave: TheEnvironmental Impactsfrom Coal, JaretLK,
The electric power industry is the largest toxic polluter in the country, and coal,
which is used to generate over half of the
electricity produced in the U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1From mining to coal cleaning, from
transportation to electricity generation to disposal, coal releases numerous toxic pollut-ants into our
air, our waters and onto our lands.2Nation-ally, the cumulative impact of all of these effects is
magnified by the enormous quantities of coal burned each year – nearly 900 million tons. Promoting more coal use
without also providing additional environmental safe-guards will only increase this toxic abuse of our health and
ecosystems. The trace elements contained in coal (and others formed during combustion) are a large group of diverse
pollutants with a number of health and environmentaleffects.3They are a public health concern because at sufficient exposure levels they
adversely affect human health. Some are known to cause cancer, others impair reproduc-tion and the normal development of children,
and still others damage the nervous and immunesystems. Many are also respira-tory irritants that can worsen respiratory conditions such
asasthma. They are an environmen-tal concern because they damage ecosystems. Power plants also emit
large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” largely responsible for climate change.
The health and environmental effects caused by power plant emissions may vary over time and space, from short-term episodes of coal
dust blown from a passing train to the long-term global dispersion of mercury, to climate change. Because of different factors like
geology, demographics and climate, impacts will also vary from place to place. For example, effects from coalmining may be the biggest
concern in the coal-field regions of the country, while inhalation exposure may be the foremost risk in an urban setting and, in less
populated rural America, visibility impair-ment and haze may be of special concern. Coal mining harms land, surface
waters, ground water and even our air.4Impacts to the land from mining cause drastic changes in the
local area. Damage to plants, animals and humans occurs from the destruction and removal of habitat
and environ-mental contamination. Surface mining completely removes land from its normal uses.
Property and scenic values are degraded as agricultural crops, forests, rangeland and deserts are replaced by pits, quarries and tailing
piles. Restoring or reclaiming a surface mine by replacing vegetation and restoring the landscape to its original contours helps minimize
any permanent disruption. However, hundreds of thousands of acres of surface mines have not been reclaimed, and reclamation of steep
terrain, such as found in Appalachia, is difficult.5Finally, despite reclama-tion efforts, ecosystems may be destroyed and
replaced by a totally different habitat. Mining impacts both surface waters and ground water. In under-
ground mining, waste materials are piled at the surface creating runoff that both pollutes and alters the
flow of local streams. As rain percolates through these piles, soluble components are dissolved in the
runoff and cause the elevation of total dissolved solids (TDS) in local water bodies. The presence of TDS in a
stream usually indicates that sulfates, calcium, carbonates and bicarbon-ates are present. While not a direct threat to human health, these pollutants make
water undrinkable by altering its taste and can also degrade water to the point where it can’t be used for industry or agriculture.6Acid mine drainage is a
particularly severe by product of mining especially where coal seams have abundant quantities of pyrite. When pyrite is exposed to water and air, it forms
The acidity of the run off is problematic by itself, but it also dissolves metals like
sulfuric acid and iron.
manganese, zinc and nickel, which then become part of the runoff. The resulting acidity and presence
of metals in the runoff are directly toxic to aquatic life and render the water unfit for use.8 Some
metals bioaccumulate in the aquatic food chain. Addition-ally, bottom-dwelling organ-isms can be
smothered byiron that settles out of the water.Also of concern is the impact mining has on ground-water, including
contaminationand physical dislocation of aquifers.These are typically localized effects. Acid mine drainage that seeps intogroundwater is
a common cause of contamination.9Physical disruption of aquifers can occur from blastingwhich can cause the
groundwater to seep to a lower level or even connect two aquifers (leading to contamination of both).
When a mine is located below the water table,water seeps into the mine and has to be pumped out. Thiscan lower the water table and even dry up nearby
wells.The process of mining, followed by reclamation, changes the permeability of overlying soil, alters the rate ofgroundwater discharge and increases
flooding potential.10Underground mines not only impact groundwaterhydrology, they are prone to subsidence.11Subsidence occurs when the ground above
the mine sinks becausethe roof of the mine either shifts or collapses. Subsidence can alter ground slopes to such an extent that roads, water and gas lines and
buildings are damaged. Naturaldrainage patterns, river flows and aquifers can also be altered. The extent and severity of the subsidence depends on
numerous factors including how thick the overlying soil and rock layers are and the mining method. These problems can be addressed by preventive
Deliberately collapsing the mine after the
methods such as leaving enough coal in place to provide structuralsupport to the mine roof.
coal is extracted causes subsidence to occur sooner, but more evenly. For existing mines, one “correc-tive”
measure that has been used is backfilling the minewith either mine wastes or combustion wastes. While this approach may seem to solve
both subsidence and waste disposal problems, it is actually expensive and dangerous and releases contaminants to the
groundwater.12 Inaddition, these wastes often lack the structural strength to support the mine roof.
Mine wastes are generated in huge quantities – on the order of tens of millions of tons per year.13Thesewastes include
the solid waste from the mine, called “gob,”refuse from coal washing and coal preparation, and thesludge from treating acid mine
drainage. There are anumber of environmental impacts from this waste generation. First, the land where these wastes are
dumped is no longer useable for other purposes. Second,the piles are flammable and susceptible to
spontaneous combustion. Third, they are prone to erosion which is amajor concern because the runoff
and seepage from these piles is highly acidic.
SDI 2008 45

Aff AT: Clean Coal-Timeframe (1/2)

Clean Coal is a myth and will still cause pollution – Real “clean” technology is still decades
GPACE (Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy), 7/10/08 “Our Energy Economy,” MH
Coal is not a clean energy source, whether considering pollutants such as mercury, nitrous oxide, sulphur
dioxide, or ozone (which cause illness and premature death, especially among children) or the greenhouse
gas, carbon dioxide. Advances have been made in the industry to develop and implement scrubbers
that remove some of the mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired emissions, but these processes
simply remove those pollutants from airborne emissions and capture them in sludges or slurries that
are then stored at the plants and/or dumped into rivers or groundwater. As for the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide, there is currently no existing technology that can remove carbon dioxide from coal-
fired emissions and effectively “sequester” it. Most credible experts agree that so-called “clean coal”
technologies are at least ten to twenty years off, if in fact ever feasible at all. Additionally, carbon
capture and sequestration technology for pulverized coal plants uses three times as much water as the coal
plant alone – which already uses vast amounts of water.

Clean coal is a long way off. Alternative energy is more viable.

Roger Vanderlely, senior Chemistry teacher, 7-8-2008, “Clean Coal and Business As Usual”, NM,
The problem with clean coal is that the technology is not yet a commercially proven solution. In a move
likely to be mirrored around the world, the Australian government recently ditched its support for solar
energy in favor of pursuing the development of clean coal technology. For any other form of energy supply
still in development such backing from government would be seen as ludicrous. This approach is dangerous.
Solar and wind are proven energy generating technologies that are ready to be implemented NOW.
Commercial production of these technologies could easily be ramped up to meet new energy demands
and replace existing power stations. Ignoring these in favor of a method that does not yet exist and that
may not even work is foolhardy. If climate change is not addressed the economic losses alone are beyond
imagination. They will make the amount of money saved by continuing with coal instead of solar power look
like a drop in the ocean. Once the environmental damage is done, the cost of fixing the problem will be
vastly more than preventing it in the first place. Add to this the fact that coal is still a finite resource and
the foolishness of proceeding with clean coal becomes even clearer.

Clean coal development is 20 years away anyway

David Sassoon, Masters at Columbia University and worker for UN, 2-7-2008, solve climate,
And a week in advance of its big annual energy conference in Houston, CERA has released a new report
on the future of clean energy. Here's what it has to say about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the more
technical term for so-called "clean" coal. Even in the best case, CCS is at least two decades away from
large scale deployment.....Current expectations seem to underestimate the lead time needed for
widespread application. Two decades. Twenty years. 2028. Which makes you wonder what all those
"clean" coal commercials are doing on TV now -- the ones which show the orange extension cord plugged
into a lump of -- um -- dirty coal.
SDI 2008 46

Aff AT: Clean Coal-Timeframe (2/2)

Clean Coal is a joke, current technology fails to reduce emissions, and developing new tech
is unrealistic.
New York Times, byline Elizabeth Rosenthal, 4/23/08, “Europe Turns back to coal, raising climate fears,” MH
“Clean coal” is a term coined by the industry decades ago, referring to its efforts to reduce local pollution.
Using new technology, clean coal plants sharply reduced the number of sooty particles spewed into the air, as
well as gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. The technology has minimal effect on carbon
emissions. In fact, the technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon dioxide
emissions that add to global warning — carbon capture and storage — is not now commercially
available. No one knows if it is feasible on a large, cost-effective scale. The task — in which carbon
emissions are pumped into underground reservoirs rather than released — is challenging for any fuel source,
but particularly so for coal, which produces more carbon dioxide than oil or natural gas. Under optimal
current conditions, coal produces more than twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity as natural
gas, the second most common fuel used for electricity generation, according to the Electric Power Research
Institute. In the developing world, where even new coal plants use lower grade coal and less efficient
machinery, the equation is even worse. Without carbon capture and storage, coal cannot be green. But
solving that problem will take global coordination and billions of dollars in investment, which no one
country or company seems inclined to spend, said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at
Columbia University.

Large Investments in clean coal are already being rejected – empirically proven.
The Daily Green, byline David Bello, 2/3/08, “U.S. Government Cancels Clean Coal Power Plant,” MH
The U.S. government decided to cancel funding for a proposed "clean coal" power plant that would
have captured the carbon dioxide spewed when burning the black rock, according to the New York Times.
The so-called FutureGen power plant had recently selected a site--Mattoon, Ill.--but also seen its cost rise to
as much as $1.8 billion, a price the government was not prepared to pay for what had been hailed by
President Bush as a bold step toward a pollution-free future. The cancellation is also a setback on the
road to the so-called "hydrogen economy" as the 275 megawatt power plant also aimed to produce that
energy carrier along with cleaner electricity from coal. The Department of Energy plans to fund several
smaller power plants instead, after sinking $50 million into the FutureGen project. But without a
demonstration of such carbon capture and storage technology soon, the future of preventing the
greenhouse gases emitted when coal is burned appears bleak, according to experts. Given that hundreds
of coal power plants continue to be built around the world, such technology is needed to forestall catastrophic
climate change, argues M.I.T. physicist Ernest Moniz.
SDI 2008 47

Aff AT: Clean Coal- Global Warming

Coal is deadly- we should not abandon alternative energy like the plan
Jeff Biggers, Lowell Thomas Award for Travel Journalism, a Field Foundation Fellowship and an Illinois Arts
Council Creative Non-Fiction Award. He serves as a contributing editor to The Bloomsbury Review, and is a
member of the PEN American Center 3/2/08 “Clean Coal? Don’t try to shovel that”
Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health.
Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and
conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy
policy. Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more --
billions more -- in funds to reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal."
But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in solar energy,
hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency. Meanwhile, leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy
Department's recent decision to abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois, planned as the
first coal-fired plant to capture and store harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Department officials,
unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of this fantasy. Orwellian language has led to Orwellian
politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as
a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the
earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen
for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are
being destroyed before our eyes. Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather
knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip
mining and underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways of making energy.
Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly.

Clean coal will continue to pollute and isn’t as viable as alternative energy.
Ben Block, writer for Worldwatch Institute, 3-22-2008, ENN Press Services, “U.S. Environmental Groups divided
on “Clean Coal”,
"We need to make sure that the technology to capture and store carbon is feasible and in place," said
Bruce Nilles, The Sierra Club's national coal campaign director. "While we are evaluating the role coal
should play in our energy future, we should continue to move forward with the clean, affordable energy
solutions that are available today, like wind and solar power." Greenpeace has taken a hard-line approach
against CCS. "We are opposed to CCS technology," said Kate Smolski, Greenpeace USA global warming
campaigner. "The No. 1 reason is it's a way the dirty polluting coal industry can prop itself up. It's an
unproven technology. And it takes resources away from solutions that we can use right now."
SDI 2008 48

Aff AT: Econ !

New innovation in energy will spur innovation in the market not kill the economy-
empirically proven.
William B. Bonvillian, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center in D.C. Issues in Science
and Technology, 2004. “Meeting the new challenge to U.S economic competitiveness,” Lexis MH
A school of economic theory that has developed during the past two decades argues that technological and
related innovation accounts for more than half of historical U.S. economic growth, which makes this a
far more significant factor than capital and labor supply, which are the dominant factors in traditional
economic analysis. These economic growth theorists see a pattern shared by important breakthrough
technologies such as railroads, steamships, electricity, telecommunications, aerospace, and computing. The
new technology ignites a chain reaction of related innovation that leads to a surge in productivity
improvements throughout the economy and thus to overall economic growth. The most recent example
is the productivity boom that occurred in the mid-1990s following the IT revolution that spread through the
manufacturing and service sectors.

Alternative energy will spark specialization- helps the economy

Marketing Science, 2007. “Does Marketing Cause bad unemployment?” Lexis MH
Experiments rarely refute conventional wisdom. However, as knowledge increases and technology
advances, previously infeasible (and possible unimaginable) options suddenly become both feasible and
economical. When millions of individuals and organizations each experiment with innovation, then a
1% success rate continuously produces tens of thousands of small and large innovations. Innovation,
in turn, spawns greater divisions of labor, specialization and, consequently, growth in the net number of
occupations. As knowledge increases, so does specialization. Specialization brings more opportunities to
develop unique skills that produce more valued output with the same input. There are more opportunities
to develop differentiated human capital with new, scarce (at least, at first), and valued skills. The
consequence is growth in the net number of occupations and higher average real wages. Of course, the
primary danger that potentially undermines this progress is the political and other coercive actions of
entrenched incumbents. We now have new occupations in Internet services, financial services, wireless
telephone services, gaming services, and so on. Innovation and knowledge growth leads to