Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 1

INDEX
index................................................................................................................................................................................1 lcfs 1ac 1.........................................................................................................................................................................5 lcfs 1ac 2.........................................................................................................................................................................6 lcfs 1ac 3.........................................................................................................................................................................7 lcfs 1ac 4.........................................................................................................................................................................8 lcfs 1ac 5.........................................................................................................................................................................9 lcfs 1ac 6.......................................................................................................................................................................10 lcfs 1ac 7........................................................................................................................................................................11 lcfs 1ac 8.......................................................................................................................................................................12 lcfs 1ac 9.......................................................................................................................................................................13 lcfs 1ac 10.....................................................................................................................................................................14 lcfs 1ac 11......................................................................................................................................................................15 lcfs 1ac 12.....................................................................................................................................................................16 lcfs 1ac 13.....................................................................................................................................................................17 lcfs 1ac 14.....................................................................................................................................................................18 lcfs 1ac 15.....................................................................................................................................................................19 lcfs 1ac 16.....................................................................................................................................................................20 inherency – alternatives not inevitable..........................................................................................................................21 lcfs solves – biofuel shift..............................................................................................................................................22 lcfs solves – viable alt fuels..........................................................................................................................................23 lcfs solves – new tech....................................................................................................................................................24 lcfs solves – new tech....................................................................................................................................................25 lcfs solves - infrastructure.............................................................................................................................................26 lcfs solves – markets best..............................................................................................................................................27 lcfs solves - emissions...................................................................................................................................................28 lcfs solves – emissions..................................................................................................................................................29 lcfs solves – emissions..................................................................................................................................................30 lcfs solves - emissions...................................................................................................................................................31 lcfs solves - conservation..............................................................................................................................................32 lcfs solves – stops tar sands, oil shales..........................................................................................................................33 lcfs solves – oil dependence..........................................................................................................................................34 lcfs solves - oil dependence..........................................................................................................................................35 lcfs solves – oil dependence..........................................................................................................................................36 lcfs Solves – 75% gasoline............................................................................................................................................37 lcfs solves – shift to cellulosic......................................................................................................................................38 lcfs solves – shift to cellulosic......................................................................................................................................39 lcfs solves – shift to cellulosic......................................................................................................................................40 lcfs solves – global agreements.....................................................................................................................................41 lcfs solves – creates carbon sinks..................................................................................................................................42 lcfs solves – food prices................................................................................................................................................43 lcfs solves – global poverty...........................................................................................................................................44 lcfs solves - oceans........................................................................................................................................................45 lcfs solves – cancer from pollution...............................................................................................................................46 lcfs solves - competitiveness.........................................................................................................................................47 lcfs solves - latin american narcoterrorism...................................................................................................................48 lcfs solves – worldwide modeling.................................................................................................................................49 lcfs solves – regulations key.........................................................................................................................................50 lcfs solves – stops health care collapse.........................................................................................................................51 lcfs solves – saves rainforests.......................................................................................................................................52 lcfs solves – at: other countries overwhelm..................................................................................................................53 lcfs solves – china model..............................................................................................................................................54 cellulosic – displaces corn.............................................................................................................................................55 cellulosic good – food prices........................................................................................................................................56

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 2

cellulosic good – food prices........................................................................................................................................57 cellulosic good – environment......................................................................................................................................58 cellulosic good - ag industry.........................................................................................................................................59 cellulosic good – solves oil dependence.......................................................................................................................60 cellulosic good – solves oil dependence.......................................................................................................................61 cellulosic good – reduces emissions.............................................................................................................................62 cellolosic good - economy............................................................................................................................................63 cellulosic good - emissions...........................................................................................................................................64 cellulosic good – poverty..............................................................................................................................................65 corn bad – water............................................................................................................................................................66 corn bad – food prices...................................................................................................................................................67 corn bad – food prices...................................................................................................................................................68 corn bad – food prices...................................................................................................................................................69 corn bad – food prices...................................................................................................................................................70 corn bad – unsustainable...............................................................................................................................................71 corn bad - environment.................................................................................................................................................72 corn bad - biodiversity..................................................................................................................................................73 corn bad – killer fertilizers............................................................................................................................................74 corn bad - emissions......................................................................................................................................................75 oil bad - african militarization......................................................................................................................................76 oil bad - african militarization impacts.........................................................................................................................77 oil bad – amazon deforestation.....................................................................................................................................78 oil bad – middle east failure..........................................................................................................................................79 oil bad – lose war to china............................................................................................................................................80 oil bad – hurts us-sino relations....................................................................................................................................81 oil bad - china impacts.................................................................................................................................................82 oil bad - china impacts.................................................................................................................................................83 oil bad – supports corrupt regimes................................................................................................................................84 oil bad – undermines democracy..................................................................................................................................85 oil bad – undermines democracy..................................................................................................................................86 oil bad – undermines democracy..................................................................................................................................87 oil bad – human rights impact.......................................................................................................................................88 oil bad – hurts economy................................................................................................................................................89 oil bad – hurts economy................................................................................................................................................90 oil bad – hurts economy................................................................................................................................................91 oil bad – hurts dollar.....................................................................................................................................................92 oil bad – hurts stock market..........................................................................................................................................93 oIl bad – food prices......................................................................................................................................................94 oil bad – less soft power................................................................................................................................................95 oil bad – less soft power, less heg.................................................................................................................................96 oil bad – kills readiness.................................................................................................................................................97 oil bad - hegemony........................................................................................................................................................98 oil bad - hegemony impact............................................................................................................................................99 oil bad – civil wars......................................................................................................................................................100 oil bad – leads to oil shocks........................................................................................................................................101 oil bad – prices high long term....................................................................................................................................102 oil bad – terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................103 oil bad – terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................104 oil bad - terrorism........................................................................................................................................................105 oil bad – terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................106 oil bad – terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................107 oil bad - terrorism impacts..........................................................................................................................................108 oil bad - terrorism impacts..........................................................................................................................................109 oil bad – great power wars..........................................................................................................................................110 oil bad – shocks = nuclear war....................................................................................................................................111 oil bad – resource wars................................................................................................................................................112

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 3

oil bad – air pollution..................................................................................................................................................113 oil bad – warming........................................................................................................................................................114 oil bad – civil wars & state collapse............................................................................................................................115 oil bad – failed states impact.......................................................................................................................................116 environmental leadership key to heg...........................................................................................................................117 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................118 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................119 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................120 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................121 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................122 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................123 peak oil now................................................................................................................................................................124 peak oil – destroys agriculture....................................................................................................................................125 peak oil - extinction.....................................................................................................................................................126 peak oil – militarism...................................................................................................................................................127 peak oil – war..............................................................................................................................................................128 peak oil – at: price hikes temporary............................................................................................................................129 peak oil – destroys economy.......................................................................................................................................130 peak oil – destroys economy ......................................................................................................................................131 peak oil – destroys economy.......................................................................................................................................132 peak oil – at: enough reserves.....................................................................................................................................133 peak oil – at: enough reserves.....................................................................................................................................134 peak oil – at: enough reserves.....................................................................................................................................135 peak oil - at: anwr solves.............................................................................................................................................136 peak oil - at: new sources solve .................................................................................................................................137 peak oil - at: new sources solve .................................................................................................................................138 peak oil - at: deep water will save us..........................................................................................................................139 peak oil - at: liquid coal will save us...........................................................................................................................140 food prices impacts.....................................................................................................................................................141 food prices impacts.....................................................................................................................................................142 food prices impacts.....................................................................................................................................................143 pollution impacts—3 million/yr..................................................................................................................................144 pollution impacts—extinction.....................................................................................................................................145 envt leadership – key soft power.................................................................................................................................146 at: business confidence da ..........................................................................................................................................147 at: business confidence da ..........................................................................................................................................148 at: spending da............................................................................................................................................................149 at: voluntary cp............................................................................................................................................................150 at: regulation cp – uniform regs fail............................................................................................................................151 at: carbon tax cp..........................................................................................................................................................152 at: carbon tax cp..........................................................................................................................................................153 at: rfs cp.......................................................................................................................................................................154 at: states cp—epa key..................................................................................................................................................155 at: states cp – uniform fiat kills solvency....................................................................................................................156 at: states cp – uniform fiat kills solvency....................................................................................................................157 at: states cp – uniform fiat kills solvency....................................................................................................................158 topicality......................................................................................................................................................................159

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 4

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 5

LCFS 1AC 1
CONTENTION ONE: INHERENCY Bush has halted EPA research which states are dependent on for LCFS implementation. Only federal government action ensures that life-cycle carbon emissions are accurately measured. Peckham, 08 (Jack Peckham, Diesel Fuel News. “U.S. EPA Biofuels 'Life-Cycle Analysis' Lacks Certification Scheme.” 3-3-08. avail. InfoTrack General Reference Center) U.S. EPA is working to develop a "life-cycle analysis" (LCA) scheme for biofuels (including biodiesel) to ensure they won't cause even worse greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than ordinary fuels. Recent studies (including two articles in the latest Science magazine) indicate that biofuels can cause several times worse GHG emissions than ordinary petroleum fuels, if biofuels expansion leads to unfavorable land-use changes. As EPA mobile sources director Margo Oge explained to the annual Clean Heavy Duty Vehicle Conference (CHDVC, sponsored by Westart) here, EPA recently had to suspend earlier internal work on possible ways to cut carbon from transportation fuels, "until the Administration decides how to proceed" with the requirements of the 2007 energy bill, she said. That bill, mandating 36 billion gallons of "renewable" fuels by 2022, requires up-to 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol, 1 billion gallons of renewable biodiesel, and billions more gallons of cellulosic-based biofuels that must not come from corn starch. At least part of such cellulosic biofuels could wind up as diesel fuel blendstock. The bill has "aggressive schedules" for minimum biofuel blending volumes as well as mandatory "life-cycle" analyses to ensure that biofuels result in true reductions in net GHG, rather than increases, Oge pointed out. This will require EPA to discuss LCA issues with biofuels producers, environmental advocates, refiners and states -- "especially California," she said. California Air Resources Board (CARB) aims to come up with its own "low-carbon fuel standard" (LCFS) by end-2008, Oge noted. Asked here when EPA might complete work on greenhouse "life-cycle analyses" (LCA) of various biofuels, including the impact of land-use changes, Oge wouldn't commit to a fixed date. But she said that EPA has made "tremendous progress" on a corn-ethanol LCA methodology, which has been shared with California Air Resources Board (CARB). Eventually, "when we go out with a proposed rule, we'll have an LCA methodology for all renewables," including feedstocks such as cellulosic, she said. "It's not an easy task and we take it very seriously," she added. "We don't want unintended consequences; we don't want to make greenhouse gas emissions worse, nor [unfavorable] impacts on water or food." Thus the plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives by phasing in a ten percent lifecycle carbon fuel standard.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 6

LCFS 1AC 2
CONTENTION TWO – CELLULOSIC ETHANOL A. FOOD PRICES Corn ethanol causes skyrocketing food prices—leading to failed states, economic collapse and mass starvation. Brown 07 (Lester, President of the Earth Policy Institute, June 17, 2007, “BIOFUELS BLUNDER: Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain to Fuel Cars is Raising World Food Prices, Risking Political Instability”, http://www.earth-policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07.htm) The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability. The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy. In six of the last seven years, total world grain production has fallen short of use. As a result, world carryover stocks of grain have been drawn down to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level in 34 years. (See data.) The last time they were this low wheat and rice prices doubled. Already corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense heat and severe drought this summer in the
Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory. The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas. Food prices are also rising in China, India, and the United States, countries that contain 40 percent of the world's people. While relatively little corn is eaten directly in these countries, vast quantities are consumed indirectly. The milk, eggs, cheese, chicken, ham, ground beef, ice cream, and yogurt in the typical refrigerator are all produced with corn. In effect, the refrigerator is filled with corn. And the price of every one of these items in the refrigerator is affected by the price of corn. Rising grain and soybean prices are driving up meat and egg prices in China. January pork prices were up 20 percent above a year earlier, eggs were up 16 percent, while beef, which is less dependent on grain, was up 6 percent. For China, which suffered the most massive famine in human history in 1959-61, these food price rises could be approaching a politically dangerous level. In India, the overall food price index in January 2007 was 10 percent higher than a year earlier. The price of wheat, the staple food in northern India, has jumped 11 percent, moving above the world market price. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the wholesale price of chicken in 2007 will be 10 percent higher on average than in 2006, the price of a dozen eggs will be up a whopping 21 percent, and milk will be 14 percent higher. And this is only the beginning. In the past, food price rises have usually been weather related and always temporary. This situation is different. As more and more

The food and energy economies, historically separate, are now merging. In this new economy, if the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will move it into the energy economy. As the price of oil climbs so will the price of food. If oil jumps from $60 to $80 a barrel,
fuel ethanol distilleries are built, world grain prices are starting to move up toward their oil-equivalent value in what appears to be the beginning of a long-term rise you can bet that your supermarket bills will also go up. If oil climbs to $100, how much will you pay for a dozen eggs? From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank. The number of

. The United Nations currently lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of these are considered failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since food aid programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half. Urban food protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political instability that would add to the growing list of failing states. At some point, spreading political instability could disrupt global economic progress. Against this backdrop, Washington is
hungry people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and the number began to rise consumed with "ethanol euphoria." President Bush in his State of the Union address set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels, including grain-based and cellulosic ethanol, and fuel from coal. Given the current difficulties in producing cellulosic ethanol at a competitive cost and given the mounting public opposition to coal fuels, which are far more carbonintensive than gasoline, most of the fuel to meet this goal might well have to come from grain. This could take most of the U.S. grain harvest, leaving little grain to <Brown Continues> meet U.S. needs, much less those of the hundred or so countries that import grain. The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and

millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising food prices drop their consumption below the survival level. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and Mexico. The resulting political instability could in turn disrupt the global economy, directly affecting all countries.
the world's 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 7

LCFS 1AC 3
Even small food price increases kill half the planet. Brown 05 Lester Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute, MPA at Harvard, Former Advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture, 2005. “Outgrowing The Earth,” http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/. “Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security,” said Brown, “but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 percent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern.” Failed states threaten to collapse and cause terrorism Krasner and Pascual ’05 (Stephen D., professor at Stanford University , and Carlos, director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute, “Addressing State Failure,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, lexis nexis, 07-01-08) In today's increasingly interconnected world, weak and failed states pose an acute risk to U.S. and global security. Indeed, they present one of the most important foreign policy challenges of the contemporary era. States are most vulnerable to collapse in the time immediately before, during, and after conflict. When chaos prevails, terrorism, narcotics trade, weapons proliferation, and other forms of organized crime can flourish. Left in dire straits, subject to depredation, and denied access to basic services, people become susceptible to the exhortations of demagogues and hatemongers. It was in such circumstances that in 2001 one of the poorest countries in the world, Afghanistan, became the base for the deadliest attack ever on the U.S. homeland, graphically and tragically illustrating that the problems of other countries often do not affect them alone. The international community is not, however, adequately organized to deal with governance failures. Economic collapse causes extinction. Bearden 2000 T.E., LTC U.S. Army (Retired), ["The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly," http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24] History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 8

LCFS 1AC 4
Failed states cause terrorist safe-havens – only strong governance solves Krasner and Pascual ’05 (Stephen D., professor at Stanford University, and Carlos, director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute, “Addressing State Failure,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, lexis nexis, 07-01-08) Further complicating matters, modern conflicts are far more likely to be internal, civil matters than to be clashes between opposing countries. "State death" as a result of external invasion, common before World War II, has almost disappeared since 1945. The lack of good governance in weak states means they often do not have the ability to deal with disaffected or criminal groups within their own borders. Recent scholarship suggests that civil strife is no more likely in ethnically or religiously divided countries than it is in homogeneous ones. Internal discord is more likely to arise in countries suffering from poverty, a highly unequal income distribution, recent decolonization, weak institutions, ineffective police and counterinsurgency forces, and difficult terrain -- conditions that allow small guerrilla bands to thrive. Valuable raw materials, such as diamonds or oil, also tend to spark conflict among competitors who want to seize control of the wealth. Warring groups generally have easy access to weapons and may even control territory, giving them a base for launching attacks on the state, its citizens, or its neighbors. Other nonstate actors, including transnational terrorist organizations, can also take root in such environments, posing a threat to global security. These elements of state weakness constitute structural threats akin to dead leaves that accumulate in a forest. No one knows what spark will ignite them, or when. Over the long run, the only real way to create lasting peace is to promote better governance. Terrorism causes extinction. Alexander 2003 (Yonah Alexander, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director, 2003 [The Washington Times, "Terrorism myths and realities," 8/28]) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked ceasefire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 9

LCFS 1AC 5
B. WATER Corn-based ethanol destroys water resources and causes erosion O'Hanlon and Fales 07 (Michael and Steve, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy and Agronomist Associate Director of the Biorenewables Program, "Beyond Corn-Based Ethanol", Iowa State University, Brookings Institute, October 26, 2007, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1026_ethanol_ohanlon.aspx) The concept of corn-based ethanol is sound — that is, up to a point. As several of the panelists, including Jerry Schnoor, Mani Subramanian, and Tonya Peeples of the University of Iowa's engineering schools, one of us, Steve Fales of Iowa State's agronomy department, and John Miranowski of Iowa State's economics department underscored, however, there are lots of downsides to pushing the corn-based ethanol concept too far. The gist of the panelists' remarks was that it should be viewed as a transitional biofuel and not the final objective in and of itself. It can help us create markets for biofuel, refineries to make it, infrastructure (like dedicated pipelines) to move it around the country, and demand for cars utilizing it. But the real breakthrough will have to be of a different type. As Jerry Schnoor emphasizes, when you put a gallon of Iowa ethanol in your flex-fuel vehicle, you're also effectively putting several pounds of Iowa topsoil into the Mississippi River and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. That is because plowing fields for annual crops inevitably creates substantial erosion — not to mention the usual pesticides and fertilizer runoff characteristic of intensive agriculture. Most of Iowa's potential farmland, about 23 million acres, is already devoted to corn and beans. The popularity of ethanol may, however, lead farmers to cultivate an additional 1 million acres now in the conservation reserve program, with associated environmental consequences. While growing corn for ethanol production in Iowa can be done without irrigation, doing so in the dryer Plains states cannot. Using modern methods, It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to grow a bushel of corn. The Plains states were already depleting their water tables unsustainably before America's recent ethanol trend took root, meaning they have little room for further expansion (in fact, they have no real capacity for expansion). Corn-based ethanol now produces more energy than is required to produce it. So its net effect on energy balances is positive and desirable. But it does require fossil energy to produce — in the form of fertilizers, diesel fuel for tractors, and more often than not the fuel to operate refineries. On average, corn ethanol only yields about 30 percent more energy than is consumed in production. This efficiency is improving all the time, but not enough to make corn ethanol the real biofuel of choice for the longer term. In addition, the United States has about 450 million acres of farmland of all types under cultivation today. Up to 100 million acres more would be needed to reach the president's goal using corn-based ethanol. It will be impractical to find that much new farmland; substantial amounts of food crops from existing farmland would have to be displaced to do so. The alternative is to use some other raw material.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 10

LCFS 1AC 6
Collapsing global water supply causes extinction. Marlow, 2001 (Maude, Spring) National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and IFG Committee on the Globalization of Water. “BLUE GOLD: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World's Water Supply,” http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BlueGold.pdf. Perhaps the most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer Michal Kravèík and his team of scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People and Water. Kravèík, who has a distinguished career with the Slovak Academy of Sciences, has studied the effect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation, dam construction, and infrastructure and paving on water systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an alarming finding. Destroying water's natural habitat not only creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it also dramatically diminishes the amount of available fresh water on the planet. Kravèík describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first evaporate from a plant, earth surface, swamp, river, lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of water falls back onto a forest, lake, blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with nature to return to the hydrologic cycle. "Right of domicile of a drop is one of the basic rights, a more serious right than human rights," says Kravèík. However, if the earth's surface is paved over, denuded of forests and meadows, and drained of natural springs and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins and continental watersheds, where it is needed by people and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling onto a huge roof, or umbrella; everything underneath stays dry and the water runs off to the perimeter. The consequent reduction in continental water basins results in reduced water evaporation from the earth's surface, and becomes a net loss, while the seas begin to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent of roofing, paving, car parks and highways constructed, water supplies decrease in volume by more than 100 billion meters per year. Kravèík issues a dire warning about the growing number of what he calls the earth's "hot stains"—places already drained of water. The "drying out" of the earth will cause massive global warming, with the attendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased protection from the atmosphere, increased solar radiation, decreased biodiversity, melting of the polar icecaps, submersion of vast territories, massive continental desertification and, eventually, "global collapse."

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 11

LCFS 1AC 7
C. SHIFT TO CELLULOSIC SOLVES Federal LCFS causes cellulosic ethanol to become rapidly competitive. Daschle, Runge, and Senauer 2007 (Former South Dakota Senator, Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota, Tom, C. Ford, Benjamin, September/October, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86512/tom-daschle-c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/food-forfuel.html) One such proposal is for a U.S.-wide carbon cap-and-trade system, which would immediately provide an economic advantage to fuels with lower carbon content. Although such a system is unlikely to come into being under the current president, most analysts believe that it will by 2012. Another significant proposal is for new state and federal incentives for low-carbon fuels, such as the program now being implemented in California, which is set to take full effect by November 2008. By mandating that a growing percentage of the market for transportation fuel be set aside for low-carbon fuels, such programs would unleash a tidal wave of private-sector investment and technological innovation that would ultimately bring about something of a low-carbon-fuel Manhattan Project. In stark contrast to the head-in-the-sand policies of the Bush administration, the example of these policies could serve as a beacon to the rest of the world and encourage similar behavior elsewhere, including in China and India. Under either of these policies, both the costs associated with carbon-intensive fossil fuels and the incentives for innovation in low-carbon fuels would dramatically increase. Thus, it is reasonable to expect cellulose-based ethanol to be competitive far sooner than in ten years, the time frame predicted by Runge and Senauer. Cellulosic ethanol will displace corn. Podesta, Stern and Batten 07 ("Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy: Part of Progressive Growth, CAP’s Economic Plan for the Next Administration" John - President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress. Todd - Senior Fellow at American Progress. Kit - Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Center for American Progress. November 27, 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/energy_chapter.html) The key for the United States to meet aggressive biofuel goals is to move from corn-based biofuels to cellulosic biofuels, the latter of which is produced from agricultural plant waste, such as rice straw or corn stover, or dedicated crops such as switchgrass, a fast-growing, drought-resistant perennial grass, or algae. Cellulosic feedstocks can potentially provide much greater quantities of biofuel with lower “lifecycle” CO2 emissions—meaning the amount of CO2 emitted during the production and transportation of the biofuel as well as during its use in automobiles— than corn-based ethanol. In addition, diversified sources of cellulosic ethanol would compete with corn-based ethanol in the marketplace, helping to stabilize the cost of corn as a key source of food and feed. Two early generation cellulosic ethanol plants are currently under construction in Georgia78 and Louisiana, signaling that this technology is making strides. A recent University of Minnesota study suggests that mixed grasses grown on marginal land without fertilizers or pesticides would produce 51 percent more energy per acre than corn grown on fertile land.80 And fewer greenhouse gases are emitted during the cultivation of dedicated energy crops for cellulosic biofuel production because less petroleum-based fuel is used than in the cultivation of traditional crops. Moreover, dedicated energy crops themselves can absorb CO2 emissions through photosynthesis; perennial grasses can absorb 14 times the CO2 that they produce after a decade of growth.81 Additionally, a portion of the waste products generated during the production of the biofuel can become the biomass fuel needed to power biorefineries, further reducing emissions compared with coal-based power generation.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 12

LCFS 1AC 8
CONTENTION THREE: OIL A. PEAK OIL We’ve reached peak oil now – global suppliers, the IEA, and OPEC are only forecasting decline in oil supply. The Guardian 2008 (June 19 “Oil output outside OPEC at risk of no growth in 2008” Reuters, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7596372) LONDON, June 19 (Reuters) - Oil supply from countries outside OPEC, source of three in every five barrels, is stalling this year and may even decline, keeping the heat under record-high oil prices. The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. government have cut forecasts for supply growth in 2008, in part due to delays at new fields and declining output at existing ones. "There is a risk of zero non-OPEC growth," said Mike Wittner, oil analyst at Societe Generale, who forecasts non-OPEC supply will expand by 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year. "As far as our forecast is concerned, there is definitely downside to our numbers." Struggling supply outside OPEC has helped fuel the surge in oil prices to a record near $140 a barrel, adding a strain to the world economy. It also increases reliance on OPEC oil exporters to meet rising demand. Signs that oil supply is faltering in parts of the world are leading to growing interest in peak oil, the view that production is nearing a high point and will then fall. Influential forecasters such as the IEA, adviser to 27 industrialised countries, have been lowering forecasts for supply from non-OPEC countries, but still predict an expansion. Output from non-OPEC will grow by 460,000 bpd in 2008 from 2007, the IEA said in a monthly report on June 10, down from growth of 680,000 bpd previously forecast. Others say even that may prove optimistic. Analysts at investment bank Barclays Capital expect nonOPEC supply to decline by 40,000 bpd this year, while Credit Suisse sees non-OPEC supply as flat or negative through 2012 or longer. Another bank, Citigroup, said on June 9 that non-OPEC supply was at risk of posting no growth this year. There are several reasons why supply from non-OPEC has fallen short of forecasts in recent years. Delays at new fields, faster-than-expected declines at existing ones and unforeseen events such as hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico have meant production came in lower than first thought. Oilfields in places such as the North Sea and Mexico are seeing declines while output in Russia, the world's second-largest exporter and the engine of growth outside OPEC in recent years, has faltered. Russian oil supply in May averaged 9.95 million bpd, the fifth straight month of decline from a year ago, according to the IEA. It expects Russian supply to be largely flat in 2008 at 10.1 million bpd. Barclays questions if the IEA's prediction of a surge in non-OPEC supply in the last few months of 2008 will materialise, saying that the IEA's figures show a second-quarter drop of 500,000 bpd year-onyear. "We believe that the IEA is significantly overstating the short-term ability of non-OPEC supply to bounce back and moderate the current situation," the bank said. Some in the industry are more pessimistic about supply. Billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens said on Tuesday that he believed world crude production has topped out at 85 million bpd. Peak oil has its detractors, such as BP Plc Chief Executive Tony Hayward. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is still expected by the IEA and others to expand its supply capacity this year. Others avoid the term but still see non-OPEC output levelling off. "The rate of year-on-year decline in Russia and Mexico has been surprising and it doesn't show any sign of letting up," Wittner said. "Non-OPEC output is certainly hitting a plateau." (Editing by William Hardy).

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 13

LCFS 1AC 9
Middle Eastern oil fuels terrorism – U.S. aggression over oil breeds resentment and oil profits finance terrorist networks. Sandlow, May 22, 2008 (“Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security,” The Brookings Institute, David B. Sandlow, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute in Foreign Policy, http://www.brookings.edu/experts/sandalowd.aspx, Accessed 06-23-08) First, oil dependence strengthens Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists. The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will last for generations. Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a central role in the struggle. For more than 50 years, the need to protect oil flows has shaped U.S. policy and relationships in the Persian Gulf. During the Cold War, we supported the Shah of Iran in part to keep oil flowing from the region. In 1980, President Carter declared that attempts by outside forces to gain control of the Persian Gulf would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In 1991, with Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush told Congress that war was necessary because “[v]ital economic interests are at risk…Iraq itself controls some 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment. These steps to secure oil flows have come at a cost. By making us central players in a region torn by ancient rivalries, oil dependence has exposed us to resentment, vulnerability and attack. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment tool for Islamic fundamentalists. Yet the United States faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil and the world’s only spare production capacity, the Persian Gulf will remain an indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To protect oil flows, the U.S. policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel Islamic terrorists. Compounding these problems, the huge money flows into the Persian Gulf from oil purchases help finance terrorist networks. Al Qaeda raises funds from an extensive global network, with Islamic charities and NGOs playing an important role. Saudi money provides critical support for madrassas with virulent anti-American views.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 14

LCFS 1AC 10
Oil dependence leads to oil shocks. Podesta, Stern and Batten 07 ("Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy: Part of Progressive Growth, CAP’s Economic Plan for the Next Administration" John - President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress. Todd - Senior Fellow at American Progress. Kit - Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Center for American Progress. November 27, 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/energy_chapter.html) The United States uses over 20 million barrels of oil a day, importing nearly 13 million of these barrels.25 Our economy’s dependence on oil, independent of whether it is domestic or imported, contributes significantly not just to global warming but also to our vulnerability to price shocks. If oil prices spike because of events in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Venezuela, they will spike for oil pumped in West Texas or off the Louisiana coast as well as for oil pumped in an Arabian desert. The oil market upheavals of the last 30 years (such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo) have cost the U.S. economy some $8 trillion.26 Then there are the economic consequences of our nation’s rising dependence on imported oil. In 2006, the U.S. petroleum deficit reached $270.9 billion, an 18 percent increase over 2005, comprising 33 percent of our overall trade deficit.27 In addition, nearly 40 percent of oil imports come from potentially hostile or unstable regimes and 92 percent of conventional oil reserves are in these nations.29 Oil and gas price volatility can hit lowand middle-income families and small businesses especially hard. Over 79 percent of American workers drive themselves to work, and most of these people cannot switch jobs, telecommute, or buy a new more fuel-efficient car to handle a spike in gas prices.30 Americans with the lowest incomes spend at least 9 percent of their total income on gasoline.31 Price volatility makes it impossible for many families to plan accurately for future expenditures. The combination of oil imported from a number of potentially unstable countries and rising demand, especially from China, makes the prospect of future price shocks all too real. The so-called “reference projection” of the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency for 2030 shows world oil consumption rising from 83 million barrels a day in 2004 to 118 million barrels a day in 2030, with North America and the developing nations of Asia, including China and India, accounting for the largest increases in consumption over this time period.32

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 15

LCFS 1AC 11
Major oil shocks would plunge the world into nuclear war. Lauria 08 – (Joe - New York-based investigative journalist. A freelance member of the Sunday Times of London Insight team, he has also worked on investigations for the Boston Globe and Bloomberg News., The Huffington Post, April 14, “The Coming War with Iran: It’s About the Oil, Stupid,” http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8282/) The Saudis would not mind seeing the Iranian regime go. But the Saudis may also be on the list. The US may have to destabilize and control Saudi Arabia some day too. The Wall Street Journal a few years ago revealed that in the 1970s under Nixon, Kissinger had plans drawn up for the US invasion and occupation of the Saudi oil fields. Those plans can be dusted off. The American oil wars are being launched out of weakness, not strength. The American economy is teetering and without control of the remaining oil it will collapse. There will be massive chaos in any case, when only enough oil remains for the American elite and whomever they choose to share it with. That will leave an oil-starved China and India, both with nuclear weapons, with no alternative but to bow to America or go to war. It’s not about greed any more. It’s about survival. Because the leadership of this country was initially too greedy to switch from oil to solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable alternatives, it may now be too late. Had the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the invasion and occupation of Iraq been put into alternative energy the world might have had a fighting chance. Now that is far from certain. What is certain is that these wars are not about democracy. They are not about WMD. The coming one will not even be about Iran’s nuclear weapons project. It’s about the oil, stupid.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 16

LCFS 1AC 12
Peak oil and US dependency will crush the economy and spur wars – switching to renewable is key. Howley, June 13, 2008 (John, energy policy consultant, “Oil Insecurity: America’s Choice” Dissent Magazine, http://dissentmag.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/oil-insecurity-americas-choice/) Our nation’s economic well-being today depends on maintaining secure access to petroleum supplies at stable prices. If domestic oil production continues to decline and demand continues to grow, the U.S. increasingly will have to look for foreign oil to meet its needs. Two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the politically volatile Middle East where wars have already been fought over the control of oil, where the U.S. is currently occupying by force the country with the second largest proven reserves, and where U.S. foreign and military policies increasingly are condemned. The vast majority of proven oil reserves around the world are controlled by authoritarian, undemocratic governments with poor records of advancing human rights or human development for their citizens. Within these trends are the seeds for further violence and suffering. Today, we in the U.S. face a choice: continue to increase our dependence on imported oil using any means necessary to secure access to it, including war and threats of war, or, undertake a sustained, national mobilization to free us from oil dependence by reducing consumption and investing in energy efficiency, renewable fuels, and public and alternative transportation. By reducing our reliance on petroleum, and helping other countries (both the oil-rich and the oilpoor) do the same, we can make our country safer, our economy stronger, and our world less vulnerable to economic crises and war.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 17

LCFS 1AC 13
We don’t even need to win that peak oil will occur now – the oil industry lacks the infrastructure to meet the rising demand so the effects will be the same. Leggett, ’05 (Jeremy, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board, The Empty Tank, Random House, New York. p. 57-59) Let us suppose for a moment that the late toppers are correct. The topping point, as defined by reserves available in principle, is off in the 2020s or 2030s, and we can look forward to growing-supplies of relatively cheap oil for a decade or more. There is another aspect of the problem: whether or not the production capacity is sufficient. Oil industry analyst Michael Smith, who took his Ph.D. in geology just after me-sitting in the same chair as I did in the research lab-is an expert in this subject. He has spent most of his vocational life as an oil industry geologist working around the world, particularly in the Middle East. "Reserves are largely irrelevant to the peak;' he says. "Production capacity is the important thing-how quickly you can get it out. It is an engineering problem, not a geological problem." Of the eleven countries in the Middle East, only five are significant oil producers: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, known sometimes [end page 57] as the Middle East 5. They produce around 20 million barrels a day today, a quarter of the global total. If global demand rises at the average rate of the last thirty years, 1.5 percent per year, these five countries will have to meet around two thirds of the demand, Smith calculates. Let us assume they can do what they say they can, no more, no less. Where does that leave us? Saudi Arabia says it can lift production from 9.5 million barrels per day today to 12 million barrels by 2016 and 15 million barrels beyond that. This despite 50 percent of the oil coming from the Ghawar field, where a water cut is already reported. Smith adds up all the reported capacities in the Middle East 5 and finds that if the rate of demand growth continues at 1.5 percent they will fail to meet global demand by as soon as 2011. If it rises to 2.5 percent the demand gap appears in 2008. If it is 3.5 percent-the rates in China and the U.S. of late-the gap is already here. "What's more," Smith adds, referring back wryly to the starting assumption, "I do not truly believe the claims of the Middle East 5. Although I don't believe Saudi and Iranian claims in particular, I think their politicians do believe them. I don't think there is a conspiracy, more a division of labor such that no one knows the whole story, each part of which has wide error bars. The summed result is inevitably the most positive conclusion which goes to the politicians. I've seen this in all the oil companies I have worked for. At the November 2004 conference on oil depletion at the Energy Institute, Michael Smith showed a slide at the end of his presentation that gave a pictorial summary of his views. It showed a group of firemen posing for the camera outside a burning house." The investment bank Goldman Sachs drew attention to the problem of access to oil on a global scale in a much quoted 2004 report. "The industry is not running out of oil-reserves are large and continue to grow;' it asserts-though failing to offer evidence of this analysis." What the industry is running out of is the ability to access this oil:' Two decades of chronic underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s are responsible. During this time the industry has been feasting on reserves discovered in the 1960s and earlier with infrastructure capitalized in the 1970s, after the first oil shock. Global oil demand is now closing fast on tanker capacity and refining capacity. The peak year for tanker capacity was way back in 1981. So too was the peak for refinery capacity.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 18

LCFS 1AC 14
B. LCFS SOLVES PEAK OIL LCFS will decrease oil dependence through new tech and market flexibility. Farrell and Sperling, 2007 (Alexander E. and Daniel, May 18, San Francisco Chronicle, “Getting the Carbon Out”, Farrell is an associate professor at UC Berkeley and Sperling is professor and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/18/EDGKOP3EFJ1.DTL&hw=Getting+the+Carbon+Out&sn=001&sc=1000) A low carbon fuel standard has two primary strengths. First, it creates a durable but flexible framework to guide the transition to a low-carbon future. Second, it stimulates innovation and investment in low-carbon and very-lowcarbon fuels and vehicles. The first advantage is key to the second. Oil companies and automakers consistently tell us that they are amenable to carbon controls that are predictable and based on science. Indeed, several major oil companies tell us they support this proposal and believe it should be adopted broadly, beyond California. They say they prefer this approach over mandates for specific technologies and fuels. They appreciate the flexibility and certainty it provides, though they will undoubtedly quibble over the magnitude or speed of the emission-reduction requirements. The low-carbon fuel standard addresses not only global warming, but the intertwined problems of high oil prices and foreign oil dependence. It does so by stimulating private companies to develop new technologies and bring them to market. Thus, it will, for the first time, create viable alternatives to petroleum, which lessens the need for oil imports and undermines OPEC cartel pricing. The result will be less volatile and, yes, lower fuel prices. A national LCFS will spark massive private sector investment, creating a viable alternative fuel within ten years and serving as a global model. Daschle, 07 (Tom Daschle, former Senator. “Food for Fuel?” http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86512/tom-daschle-c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/food-forfuel.html) The current generation of biofuels has significant environmental benefits. The U.S. federal policy that requires minimum levels of oxygenates in U.S. gasoline has improved air quality in the United States while increasing the use of biofuels -- two of the primary benefits that Senator Bob Dole and I sought when we successfully pushed for that policy in 1991. The current generation of biofuels also helps reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. An interesting analysis released by the Natural Resources Defense Council last May showed that corn-based ethanol outperforms gasoline when the two fuels' full production and use cycles are compared. Innovation in the biofuel industry is leading to even greater greenhouse gas reductions, regardless of the feedstock. Runge and Senauer themselves argue that
the next generation of biofuels will dramatically lessen greenhouse gases. But not content to highlight these benefits, the authors stack the deck by focusing on the costs of developing these fuels. The problem is that their cost predictions take no account of the effects of innovation or of policy proposals that appear likely to be implemented over the next several years (and which they support). One such proposal is for a U.S.-wide carbon cap-and-trade system, which would immediately provide an economic advantage to fuels with lower carbon content. Although such a system is unlikely to come into being under the current president, most analysts believe that it will by 2012. Another significant proposal is for new state and federal incentives for low-carbon

. By mandating that a growing percentage of the market for transportation fuel be set aside for low-carbon fuels, such programs would unleash a tidal wave of private-sector investment and technological innovation that would ultimately bring about something of a lowcarbon-fuel Manhattan Project. In stark contrast to the head-in-the-sand policies of the Bush administration, the example of these policies could serve as a beacon to the rest of the world and encourage similar behavior elsewhere, including in China and India. Under either of these policies, both the costs associated with carbon-intensive fossil fuels and the incentives for innovation in low-carbon fuels would dramatically increase. Thus, it is reasonable to expect cellulose-based ethanol to be competitive far sooner than in ten years, the time frame predicted by Runge and Senauer.
fuels, such as the program now being implemented in California, which is set to take full effect by November 2008

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 19

LCFS 1AC 15
Only federal action solves worldwide – the plan restores US environmental credibility and spurs global investment in renewables. Podesta, Stern and Batten 07 ("Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy: Part of Progressive Growth, CAP’s Economic Plan for the Next Administration" John - President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress. Todd - Senior Fellow at American Progress. Kit - Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Center for American Progress. November 27, 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/energy_chapter.html) All major carbon-emitting nations, including key developing countries such as China and India, will have to be part of the solution. In fact, most of the future emissions growth will be generated by developing countries who collectively will account for over 75 percent of global emissions growth by 2030. But far-reaching, mandatory U.S. action has to come first. Without that, the United States will have no credibility to argue for broader global participation. American action will spur developing world action in two separate ways. First, the policy changes needed to cut carbon emissions in the United States are jobproducing and growth-generating actions. Other countries will emulate them, just as China, Russia, Brazil, and other countries have adopted building energy codes and appliance efficiency standards based on U.S. models. Second, the technologies needed to promote low-carbon economies are increasingly produced and sold in a global market. When America buys compact fluorescent lamps, most of them are made in China, so China automatically develops the manufacturing technology to use them domestically. When America requires that computers and TVs become more efficient, it affects the market in India and Africa. And conversely, when America lags in efficiency or renewable energy technology, either the rest of the world also lags or else other developed countries grab the market and control the export sales to the developing world.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 20

LCFS 1AC 16
No other incentive solves the aff. Absent a focus on lifecycle carbon emissions the market will ensure that high-pollution biofuels win out. Greene, 07 (Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Testimony before the House Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming. 10-24-07. http://docs.nrdc.org/air/air_07102401A.pdf ) To achieve the full potential of biofuels, policies must focus on the benefits that can be achieved by the policies rather than just the feedstocks, conversion technologies or the number of gallons produced. Current federal biofuels policies, from the RFS to the various tax credits, simply reward volume and are based on the assumption that “more is better.” Moving forward, it is critical that these policies mature to a “better is better” approach and start to reward good performance. Nowhere is the need for better performance more evident and urgent than when considering the global warming pollution impacts of biofuels. It is possible to produce ethanol derived from corn in a way that produces less than half of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of gasoline (per BTU of delivered fuel). Conversely it is possible to produce ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks in a manner that produces far more CO2 than gasoline. Unless our policies value, encourage and ultimately require biofuels to produce greenhouse gas reductions, the market will provide whatever is cheapest and fastest. There is no reason to believe that such fuels will be better than gasoline. Consider, for example, a dry mill corn ethanol plant. Greenhouse gas emissions from corn production can be minimized by obtaining the corn from a farm that practices no-till cultivation. In addition, by collecting a portion of the corn stover along with the grain the ethanol plant can meet its thermal energy needs with this biomass energy source rather than fossil fuels. Finally, fermentation produces carbon dioxide in a pure stream that can be easily captured for geologic sequestration. Using Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET model, we estimate that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol produced at such a plant would be 7.5 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent, or more than 70% lower than gasoline. NRDC has examined the greenhouse gas emissions from a wide variety of feedstock and conversion process combinations using the Argonne GREET model (see Figure 3 and Appendix). EPA conducted a similar analysis for a fact sheet released in conjunction with its final rule for implementing the Renewable Fuels Standard enacted in EPACT 2005. 5 EPA’s results are shown in Figure 4 and are very similar to ours (note that EPA displays results relative to conventional gasoline, which is set to zero on their chart.) Now consider a cellulosic ethanol plant. While such plants are often considered to be environmentally superior to corn ethanol plants, this is not necessarily the case, depending on how the cellulosic feedstock is produced. For example, if the biomass for the cellulosic ethanol plant is obtained by converting to biomass production land that had been enrolled in the conservation reserve program (CRP), then the forgone conservation benefits and carbon benefits must be accounted for. The CRP has enrolled more than 1 million acres in forest cover, including hardwoods, longleaf pine, and other softwoods. These forests provide both important ecological services and sequester a substantial amount of carbon. Converting such lands to biofuels production would not only rapidly return to the atmosphere the carbon sequestered since the trees were planted, but would also forgo future carbon sequestration on this land. The net result would be CO2 emissions to the atmosphere many times greater than the annual greenhouse gas benefits from cellulosic ethanol production on this land. Land conversion need not be this direct to undermine the environmental benefits of biofuel production. Devoting an increased share of U.S. agricultural output to fuel production rather than grain exports will result in increased demand for animal feed from sources abroad. If any significant portion of this additional feed is obtained by converting mature forests into pasture or cropland the CO2 emissions from this land use change could greatly exceed the emission reductions from the use of biofuels. The Argonne GREET model and most lifecycle analyses conducted to date have either ignored these land use related emissions or minimized them. These emissions, however, are unavoidably caused by using certain crops and types of land for biofuels feedstocks and they have the potential to negate all of the global warming benefits of an expanded RFS.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 21

INHERENCY – ALTERNATIVES NOT INEVITABLE
US won’t switch to alternatives in the status quo – multiple factors ensure continued support for fossil fuels. Elhefnawy, 2008 (Nadar, Apirl 1, Visiting Assistant Professor of Literature at the University of Miami, “The Impending Oil Shock,” Informaworld, ProQuest, Accessed 06-30-08) Energy-efficient states will also have an easier time transitioning to alternatives, and here again the United States is in an unenviable position. Even were America not already so far behind in this area, it faces two special difficulties that European and Asian nations do not. The first is that the ‘culture of oil’ has much deeper roots in the national infrastructure and culture of the United States (for example in urban design and the status of public transport), which would force it to make more strenuous efforts just to keep up.53 The second difficulty, the exceptional strength of the oil lobby in the United States, reinforces this. It was largely because of oil-lobby pressure in the early 1980s that the US Federal Government abandoned tax credits and regulations aimed at fostering alternative energy sources, measures intended to create a ‘free market’ in energy.54 Abandoning these measures tilted the market in favour of more established sources, not least because coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy attained their market position because of a long history of government subsidy. Given the complexity of the issue and that many forms of government assistance are indirect, such as favourable terms on leases of government land to oil drillers, estimates of such support vary wildly.55 Nevertheless, the figure easily ran into several hundred billion federal dollars during the last century – investments never made in renewable energy.56 This remained the case even after the 1973 embargo, the federal government spending six times as much on researching energy production from fossil fuels and nuclear energy as on renewables between 1972 and 1995.57 Such support of oil is actually increasing, at least when the ‘security subsidy’ of military protection for energy production and transport is taken into account.58 As a result of these two factors, the ‘US alternative energy industry was not only left to sink or swim among more mature competition, but was put at a disadvantage and withered’, while the ‘oil, gas and nuclear lobbies received the lion’s share of government support’.59 To give one example, the US share of the world’s installed wind-energy capacity fell from 92% in 1988 to a meagre 35% by 1995, with American energy production from wind actually registering negative growth for several years during the 1990s.60 While growth since 1999 has been rapid, as of 2005 the US share of world capacity was still a mere 15%, behind Spain and Germany, the latter country producing twice as much electricity from wind as did the United States.61 Not surprisingly, wind energy’s contribution to American electricity production remains modest, well under 1% – compared with 6% for Germany and over 20% for Denmark.62

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 22

LCFS SOLVES – BIOFUEL SHIFT
Low carbon fuel standards will spark a shift to cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, reducing CO2 emissions. Daschle, 07 (Tom Daschle, former Senator. “Food for Fuel?” http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86512/tom-daschle-c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/food-forfuel.html) The legislation promoting a low-carbon fuel standard now being considered by Congress will attract investment for next-generation facilities that convert animal waste and other waste (replacing fossil fuel inputs) into biogas and biofertilizers. As energy costs rise, farmers will increasingly rely on low- and no-till cultivation techniques. And as their incomes improve, they will have more capital available to employ other environmentally friendly techniques. An acre of corn, one of the rare plant species to use a carbon-dioxide-efficient photosynthesis system, removes more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than does an acre of mature Amazonian rain forest, and next-generation biofuel technologies -- including those using nonfood cellulosic feedstocks -- will increasingly contribute to the critically important goal of reducing, as the author Michael Pollan has put it, humans' "carbon footprint." Emission controls will lead to sustainable biofuels. Farrell, 2007, (Alexander E., Energy and Resources Group Director, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.041807.Farrell-testimony.pdf, April 18) There is an enormous range of potential GHG emissions from biofuels. In my view, the American agriculture and energy industries can certainly develop and market affordable, low-GHG and sustainable biofuels, but only if given the appropriate regulatory and incentive structure, including mandatory GHG emission controls. The combination of Coal-To-Liquids with both CCS and Advanced Biofuels is a relatively new concept that includes several uncommercialized technologies and its prospects are uncertain, but, in my view, it merits significant investigation.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 23

LCFS SOLVES – VIABLE ALT FUELS
Low carbon fuel standards will spark massive private sector investment and create a viable alternative fuel within ten years. And, federal action is key to modeling. Daschle, 07 (Tom Daschle, former Senator. “Food for Fuel?” http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86512/tom-daschle-c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/food-forfuel.html) The current generation of biofuels has significant environmental benefits. The U.S. federal policy that requires minimum levels of oxygenates in U.S. gasoline has improved air quality in the United States while increasing the use of biofuels -- two of the primary benefits that Senator Bob Dole and I sought when we successfully pushed for that policy in 1991. The current generation of biofuels also helps reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. An interesting analysis released by the Natural Resources Defense Council last May showed that corn-based ethanol outperforms gasoline when the two fuels' full production and use cycles are compared. Innovation in the biofuel industry is leading to even greater greenhouse gas reductions, regardless of the feedstock. Runge and Senauer themselves argue that the next generation of biofuels will dramatically lessen greenhouse gases. But not content to highlight these benefits, the authors stack the deck by focusing on the costs of developing these fuels. The problem is that their cost predictions take no account of the effects of innovation or of policy proposals that appear likely to be implemented over the next several years (and which they support). One such proposal is for a U.S.-wide carbon cap-and-trade system, which would immediately provide an economic advantage to fuels with lower carbon content. Although such a system is unlikely to come into being under the current president, most analysts believe that it will by 2012. Another significant proposal is for new state and federal incentives for low-carbon fuels, such as the program now being implemented in California, which is set to take full effect by November 2008. By mandating that a growing percentage of the market for transportation fuel be set aside for low-carbon fuels, such programs would unleash a tidal wave of private-sector investment and technological innovation that would ultimately bring about something of a low-carbon-fuel Manhattan Project. In stark contrast to the head-in-the-sand policies of the Bush administration, the example of these policies could serve as a beacon to the rest of the world and encourage similar behavior elsewhere, including in China and India. Under either of these policies, both the costs associated with carbon-intensive fossil fuels and the incentives for innovation in low-carbon fuels would dramatically increase. Thus, it is reasonable to expect cellulose-based ethanol to be competitive far sooner than in ten years, the time frame predicted by Runge and Senauer.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 24

LCFS SOLVES – NEW TECH
The development of LCFS stimulates investment in new tech—status quo mandates and taxes will fail. Sperling, 07 (Daniel, 6-21, 2007, Los Angeles Times, “A new carbon standard; Taxes on CO2 emissions alone won't get us where we need to go”, Main News, pg . A21, Editorial Pages Desk, professor and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, co-leader of the UC study of proposed low-carbon fuel standard, Proquest) Here is what we can say – and did, in our recent recommendations to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Air Resources Board: Cutting carbon emissions from transportation fuels with mandates and taxes won’t work. But a new approach using a low-carbon fuel standard will. This new standard will require oil companies and other fuel providers to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions of transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. It will be up to the providers to choose how to do that, including blending low-carbon biofuels into conventional gasoline, selling low-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen, and buying credits from providers of other lowcarbon fuels, such as low-carbon electricity or natural gas. This allows businesses to identify new technologies and strategies that work. The low-carbon fuel standard picks neither winners nor losers. Instead, it sends a fuels-neutral signal that alternatives are welcome in California’s $50-billion-a-year transportation fuels marketplace. The Wall Street Journal recently described a new “fuels gold rush” as innovators and well-funded distributors battle for California’s emerging alternative fuels market. Real solutions to global warming are needed. Let’s just be sure they’re effective.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 25

LCFS SOLVES – NEW TECH
The status quo blocks innovation and CO2 levels are only increasing; plan opens up space for new energy resources. Sperling and Farrell, 2007 (Alexander E. and Daniel, August, “A Low Carbon Fuel Standard for California, Part 2: Policy Analysis”, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis Research Report, Farrell is an associate professor at UC Berkeley and Sperling is professor and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1084) The LCFS provides a durable framework for reducing the large amount of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, that are emitted from today’s petroleum-based transport fuel system. It will facilitate the introduction of low-carbon fuels and restrain the trend toward investments in more carbon intense transport fuels. These unconventional resources, including heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale and coal, have higher, sometimes much higher, carbon emissions than fuels made from conventional petroleum. The LCFS is a response to this recarbonization of transportation fuels, as well as the many market failures blocking innovation and investments in low-carbon alternatives to petroleum. LCFS encourages transportation innovation. Kammen, 2007 (Daniel, June, Greener World Media, “The Next Big Thing in Transportation is Already Here”, Kammen is the Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy at the University of California, Berkeley. He codirects the Berkeley Institute of the Environment and is founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. He has appointments in the Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy.) A LCFS does one other remarkable thing - it allows added competitors into the transportation fuel sector. Liquid fuel providers – producing and selling diesel fuel, gasoline, or biofuels – and electricity providers – ‘fuelling’ plug-in hybrid vehicles with electricity generated with renewable energy – can now compete for the transportation dollar. Competition and market forces are tremendously useful, and can lead to both added innovation and lower costs.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 26

LCFS SOLVES - INFRASTRUCTURE
LCFS encourages the development of distribution infrastructure. Adams, 2007 (Linda, April 3, The Press- Enterprise, pg. B. 09, Fueling Freedom- Low-Carbon standard will keep economy humming, cut emissions, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Proquest) And in a convenient twist, the low-carbon fuel standard also addresses the most troublesome constraint on the transition to a clean-energy economy: distribution infrastructure. Since the 1980s, California has enacted several pieces of legislation to reduce our dependency on petroleum. Yet California is still 96 percent reliant on that commodity, just one percentage point better than the United States as a whole. The reason is lack of sustainable demand for alternative fuels. Because oil prices fluctuate, no one can be certain there will be demand for alternative products. As a result, and despite huge amounts of money being invested on research and development of alternative fuels, little money or attention has gone into the infrastructure for distributing those fuels. In turn, consumers and carmakers are justifiably leery of laying out capital for a vehicle that can't be filled up or serviced with the same convenience as a gasoline-powered car. The standard changes all that because it unleashes the power of competitive markets to provide and distribute alternative fuels. The net result is that California's fuel market is now open and receptive to all kinds of enterprises eager to grab part of that massive market, and not a drop of taxpayer capital is required to subsidize any of the distribution chains or fuels.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 27

LCFS SOLVES – MARKETS BEST
Current requirement for alternative fuels fail – a market-based approach is effective. Farrell, 2007, (Alexander E., Energy and Resources Group Director, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.041807.Farrell-testimony.pdf, April 18) My second point is that by themselves, requirements for “alternative” or “renewable” fuels are inadequate and can even make the problem worse; strong environmental regulation is required to ensure good environmental performance. Alternative fuels are not created equal and can either improve or degrade the environment (Farrell, Plevin et al. 2006). Research by my group shows that the current set of laws and regulations do not give the private sector adequate incentives to produce “green” fuels, but that the American energy and agriculture industries can do so if properly motivated (Turner, Plevin et al. 2007). My third and final point is that a sectoral approach to managing greenhouse gas emissions will be far more successful in addressing all three challenges in transportation fuels than a single economy-wide approach. I will mention one such approach, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and invite Subcommittee members to attend an international symposium on this topic at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on May 18th.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 28

LCFS SOLVES - EMISSIONS
Current ethanol production fails to reduce emissions—lifecycle standards are essential. Lieberman, 2007 (March 28, The Heritage Foundation, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “The Ethanol Mandate Should Not be Expanded”, Proquest) The claimed environmental benefits of ethanol are also suspect. Although promoted as a means of reducing vehicular emissions that contribute to smog, ethanol is a mixed bag. It lowers some types of pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, but increases others, such as the evaporative emissions that contribute to smog. [13] The fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation required for corn farming in some areas also have negative environmental impacts.[14] These impacts will only worsen if forests are cleared or marginal lands are planted to expand corn acreage to meet increasing demand.[15] The President has touted the benefits of ethanol in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which are linked to global warming.[16] Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, but it is also the byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels, including gasoline. By some measures, using ethanol in vehicles results in fewer carbon dioxide emissions than an equivalent amount of gasoline. However, after taking into account the carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol production, the reduction in emissions is modest.[17] Overall, the costs of the ethanol mandate are substantial, while the benefits are small at best. The only real winners are the direct beneficiaries of this special-interest program, mainly corn farmers and ethanol producers. Only lifecycle standards ensure that biofuels don’t increase GHGs. Breining, 2007 (Greg, January 11, University of Minnesota Magazine, Jan-Feb issue, “Five Reasons Corn Ethanol Won’t Save the Planet”, Breining writes for several publications, including the New York Times, National Geographic Traveler, and Wildlife Conservation.) Ethanol indeed reduces air pollution—in small doses. Ethanol has become a much-needed replacement for the gasoline additive MBTE (a possible carcinogen and pervasive groundwater pollutant) to help gasoline burn cleaner. Blending a small amount of ethanol with gasoline reduces carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulates. But when you look at the entire life-cycle of ethanol—from growing to harvest to processing to combustion—burning E85 (85 percent ethanol) as fuel actually produces more carbon monoxide, volatile organics, particulates, and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen than an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline, according to the University’s [University of Minnesota] study. And ethanol doesn’t do much to address the big issue: global warming. “We found corn ethanol as currently produced saves about 12 percent greenhouse gases from gasoline,” Hill says. And that’s if the corn is grown on existing fields. “If you take land out of CRP you may have a net greenhouse gas release.” That would actually exacerbate global warming.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 29

LCFS SOLVES – EMISSIONS
A lifecycle standard is key – biofuels can be net carbon contributors. Washington Post 08 (February 27, 2008, “The Problem With Biofuels; More proof that there are no easy solutions to climate change”, Lexis) Corn and sugar cane are common sources of ethanol. Aside from emitting fewer greenhouse gases than coal or oil when burned as fuel, these biofuel crops remove carbon from the atmosphere while they are growing -- thus making them nearly carbon-neutral. But the studies show that ethanol may be even more dangerous for the environment than fossil fuels are. As the Princeton study points out, clearing previously untouched land to grow biofuel crops releases long-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. While planting corn and sugar cane in already tilled land is fine, a problem arises when farmers churn up new land to grow more fuel or the food and feed displaced by biofuel crops. The impact of these land-use changes is enormous. As the study from the Nature Conservancy warns, "converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace." There are other negative effects. Massive amounts of water are needed to irrigate cornfields, setting up potential competition between farms and homes. The runoff of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers used by farmers could lead to increased pollution and oxygen-depleted waterways. The natural gas used to make the fertilizer adds to the carbon deficit created by biofuels. LCFS will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Johnson 08 ("Low-carbon fuels important to stem transportation sector’s emissions." Senator Tim - member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Hill. 1/30/08 http://thehill.com/op-eds/low-carbon-fuelsimportant-to-stem-transportation-sectors-emissions-2008-01-30.html) According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 percent in the near term, with greater reductions to follow. This is because ethanol generates 30 percent less greenhouse gas emissions compared to an equivalent amount of gasoline. In 2006, domestic ethanol use reduced carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions by approximately 8 million tons, and with new energy-efficient technologies employed at new and existing plants, the positive life-cycle greenhouse gas profile of ethanol will reduce carbon dioxide even further. It is important that Congress support the continued development of low-carbon renewable fuels because in the United States, the transportation sector accounts for approximately 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing high-carbon content oil with low-carbon renewable fuels must fit within an economy-wide plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This means adopting a low-carbon fuels standard and transitioning to a fuels policy based on its carbon content.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 30

LCFS SOLVES – EMISSIONS
LCFS establishes efficient market incentives for low-emission biofuels. Greene and Lynd, 08 (Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Lee Lynd, Professor of Engineering at Dartmouth and Chief Scientific Officer of Mascoma Corporation."Rethink Biofuels But Watch the Bath Water" 5-13-08. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/oped_on_biofuels_food_prices_a.html) Global warming is also a crisis, and two recent papers in Science identify issues that we must pay attention to if biofuels are going to contribute to lowering global warming pollution. The papers point out that if the demand for biofuels causes unmanaged forests or grasslands to be converted to row crops, we must account for the global warming pollution released during that conversion, and that these emissions can overwhelm the benefits of displaced gasoline or diesel consumption. However, showing that these undesirable results could happen given unsustainable practices in no way establishes that they must happen. There are solutions. We can produce biofuels in ways responsive to these challenges. This can be done by making biofuels from non-food biomass (woody material, grasses, stalks and stems), while also producing this “cellulosic” biomass in ways that neither compete with food production nor cause increased global warming pollution that comes from converting wild landscapes to row crops. In other words, using the right part of plants and producing them in the right ways take biofuels out of the food price equation and makes them part of the solution to global warming. Such cellulosic biomass is available from a greater diversity of sources than row crops, including wastes, land that cannot grow food crops or is not needed for food production, and potentially new approaches that coproduce food and biofuel feedstocks. Several studies have shown that wastes from the forest products industry, crop residues and winter cover crops could provide hundreds of millions of tons of biomass annually and certainly enough to comply with the recently adopted 21 billion gallon federal renewable fuel standard for “advanced biofuels.” Higher production levels are likely possible, particularly in light of emergent market forces and public policies. The renewable fuel standard, signed into law in December as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), is the first biofuels policy to mandate a shift in our production practices in a way that directly addresses global warming pollution and indirectly – by promoting sustainable cellulosic biofuels - will address the food production challenge. The Act establishes minimum global warming pollution standards for biofuels and critical land-use safeguards. New biofuels projects that increase global warming emissions—including emissions from land conversion—are not permitted under EISA. Most of the mandated 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol production capacity required by the Act is already in place or under construction. As expansion beyond this level is unlikely to be favored by either market forces or regulation, the ceiling of corn ethanol production appears to be in sight. The low-carbon fuel standard, first embraced by California and recently by Massachusetts, goes beyond setting a minimum standard and rewards the best solutions. This approach requires that oil companies reduce the average global warming pollution of their fuels, but lets the market decide the best mix of options. Biofuels that provide the most reductions will certainly play a big role, but so can other technologies such as plug-in vehicles that use electricity and natural gas powered cars and trucks.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 31

LCFS SOLVES - EMISSIONS
Low carbon fuel standards could reduce emissions by 10-15 percent within a decade – immediate action is necessary. Sperling and Farrell, 07 (Daniel Sperling, Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies and professor of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis. Alexander E. Farrell, UC Berkeley. “A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for California” http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/UC-1000-2007-002-PT1.PDF) Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (January 18, 2007), calls for a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020. It instructed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate activities between the University of California, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and other state agencies to develop and propose a draft compliance schedule to meet the 2020 Target. This report is the first of two by the University of California in response. This first study assesses the low-carbon fuels options that might be used to meet the proposed standard, and presents a number of scenarios for mixes of fuels that might meet a 5, 10, and 15 percent standard. The second part of the study, to be released one month later, will examine key policy issues associated with the LCFS. On the basis of a study of a wide range of vehicle fuel options, we find a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020 to be an ambitious but attainable target. With some vehicle and fuel combinations, a reduction of 15 percent may be possible. All of the major low carbon fuel options to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector (e.g., biofuel production and electric vehicles) have technical and economic uncertainties that need further research and evaluation. However, there is a wide variety of options, of which many show great potential to lower the global warming impact of transportation fuels. Many research and development efforts are already underway to bring these advanced technologies to market. The diversity of promising low-carbon fuel and vehicle options leads us to conclude that the California Air Resources Board should include the LCFS as an early action measure under AB 32 (Núñez/Pavley), the Global Warming Solutions Act. Under the LCFS, fuel providers would be required to track the global warming intensity (GWI) of their products, measured on a per-unit-energy basis, and reduce this value over time. “Global warming intensity” is a measure of all of the mechanisms that affect global climate including not only greenhouse gases (GHGs) but also other processes (like land use changes that may result from biofuel production). The term “life cycle” refers to all of the activities included in the production, transport, storage and use of the fuel. The unit of measure for GWI used in this study is grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of fuel delivered to the vehicle (gCO2e/MJ) adjusted for inherent differences in the in-use energy efficiency of different fuels (e.g., diesel, electricity and hydrogen). These definitions are important both because they are direct measurements of the objectives of the policy and because of their scientific clarity, making a successful policy more likely. For convenience, the term carbon intensity is used to refer to the total life cycle GWI per unit of delivered fuel energy. Attaining both the AB 32 (Núñez/Pavley) legislative goal for 2020 and the climate stabilization goal for 2050 will be challenging, requiring significant changes in the transportation sector to achieve the required emission reductions. The magnitude of the 2050 goal, combined with the large size and complexity of California’s transportation and energy systems, means that it is crucial to begin the process of technological innovation immediately and to build markets for low carbon fuels so that suppliers will have incentives to innovate, as well as to support research and development for work that is further away from commercialization.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 32

LCFS SOLVES - CONSERVATION
LCFS encourages business competition for new methods of conservation. Fialka, 2007 (John J., May 12, pg. A4, Wall Street Journal, “Politics and Economics: A Fuel Gold Rush Fires Up; California Plan Spurs Race for New Ethanols”, author of War By Other Means: Economic Espionage in America, Proquest) Many scientists and environmentalists believe the contest to develop a fuel resulting in less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be won by businesses that go beyond corn-based ethanol. The state's new fuel standard, to take effect in 2010, is a big part of California's drive to lower greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming. About 41% of the state's emissions come from vehicles. Mr. Schwarzenegger unveiled the plan in January, directing that the carbon content of passenger-vehicle fuels be reduced by at least a tenth by 2020. Though the regulations are still being drafted, oil companies will have to show the carbon content of their fuel is dropping starting in 2010. Those that can't meet the standard might be able to buy credits from producers who sell low-carbon fuel. Under the plan, market forces will decide which alternative-fuel producers win or lose when it comes to helping the oil companies meet the new standard. "I think of it as a boxing ring," said David Crane, special adviser to Mr. Schwarzenegger. One contender is Bill Jones, chairman of Pacific Ethanol Inc. His company once scavenged spoiled beer to make ethanol in this state, where little corn is grown. More recently it built California's first modern ethanol refinery, here in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. He figures that to meet Mr. Schwarzenegger's target, the state would soon have to raise the ethanol blend to 10% of most gasoline sold, from the current 5.7%. "That will make a lot of room for additional production out here," he said. Two of the biggest oil companies selling fuel in the state, BP PLC and Chevron Corp., hope to leapfrog Mr. Jones by mounting big research programs to find ways to make ethanol out of such things as elephant grass and wood chips. The companies contend that these materials would score much better than ethanol in terms of how much carbon emissions are created by renewable fuels. Other contenders are betting on converting vehicles to burn natural gas. California, which taken alone ranks as the world's sixth-largest economy, once was skeptical of corn-based ethanol, but it now consumes more of the stuff than any other state. It is likely to scarf up still more, because corn ethanol appears to be the easiest near-term way to meet the governor's carbon-reduction goal. More-effective low-carbon products may be on the way. A team of scientists is tracking the life cycle of alternative fuels to see how much oil and coal is consumed in making them. Daniel Sperling, a professor at the University of California at Davis, said the effort is being guided by new studies that show carbon emissions from farming practices used to grow corn "can be quite large."

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 33

LCFS SOLVES – STOPS TAR SANDS, OIL SHALES
Higher energy costs will cause us to turn to even more carbon intensive fuels—LCFS is key to promoting sustainable renewables. NRDC, 07 (Natural Resources Defense Council, a national organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. “Controversial Oil Substitutes Sharply Increase Emissions, Devour Landscapes” 6-11-07. http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070611.asp) The warning comes as lawmakers are facing growing pressure to give huge new subsidies and other incentives to companies involved in liquid coal, oil shale and tar sands. “Industry and political leaders are pushing us blindly down a dangerous and expensive energy path,” said NRDC energy analyst and report author Deron Lovaas. “The vast amounts of energy needed to make these fuels means that overall emissions from every gallon could double or even triple. Mining fuels to put in our gas tanks would have devastating impacts on local communities and the landscape. It will suck up valuable water in places where it is already in short supply.” Western Resources Advocates (WRA), a group
active on the oil shale issue in the American west, joined NRDC in authoring the report, as did the Pembina Institute, a Canadian energy and climate change research organization based in Alberta. All three groups are calling for a better path forward through increased fuel efficiency, and the use of renewable, cleaner fuels. The report, Driving It Home, is available online. The report also warns potential investors of looming liabilities and steep financial risks if project developers continue to ignore the prospect of new emission rules and other environmental safeguards. Every major oil company is pursuing these unconventional oil technologies. High oil prices are making such sources more cost competitive, but vast new spending is still required to develop them. Industry and its supporters are increasingly asking taxpayers to foot the bill. In energy legislation making its way through Congress this week, companies are aggressively seeking a suite of subsidies including 25-year Defense Department contracts, price guarantees, and a variety of special tax treatments. “There’s no question we need to reduce our dependence on oil, but this is the

To avoid these risks, the report recommends establishment of a low carbon fuel standard for all new oil alternatives, regardless of what they are made from. And to reduce the need for such measures in the first place, they urge lawmakers to improve fuel economy performance standards for vehicles, and increase use of biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, to achieve a future energy supply that is both clean and sustainable. Liquid Coal Liquid coal poses disastrous consequences for global warming and local environments, according to the report. The energy required in the production stage of liquid coal would mean twice as much global warming pollution as ordinary gasoline. Mining would tear through natural habitats and contribute to air pollution. Displacing just 10 percent of our total oil demand with liquid coal would require a doubling in coal mining and the construction of hundreds of costly new production facilities – each with its own emissions issues. Nevertheless, industry has teamed with the
worst possible way to go about it,” said Lovaas. Department of Defense to lobby Congress to implement a plan to use liquid coal for 70 percent of the DOD’s aviation fuel by 2025. This would be accomplished by 25-year fixed price contacts to guarantee a market for liquid coal. Wall Street has been wary to provide the massive capital investments necessary for liquid coal development due to the high risks involved. Tar Sands Canadian tar sands are estimated to contain 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen. The problem comes in getting it out of the ground. After lagging for years, production has doubled over the past

To get at tar sands, companies use huge amounts of natural gas – enough to heat 4 million homes last year alone – to generate steam that is pumped deep under ground. In other cases, vast open pit mines are used to dig the material out. Either way, the industrial mix of roads, pipelines, pits and heavy equipment cause irreparable damage across the rare and irreplaceable habitats of Canada’s vast Boreal Forest, home to more than 40 percent of North America’s waterfowl. Toxic tailings threaten regional water supplies. From start to finish the process generates three times the global warming emissions of conventional gasoline. Emissions from tar sands production totaled 125 million tons in 2003. “The irony is that extracting energy from the Alberta tar sands actually requires an input of massive amounts of energy. It’s counterproductive, could contribute triple the global warming pollution as conventional oil, and devastates the environment. It just doesn’t make sense,” said NRDC senior attorney Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. Oil Shale Energy companies have spent years eyeing the vast
decade. The Alberta government and the government of Canada have laid out an aggressive new package of tax breaks, subsidies and discount royalties to ramp up extraction even more. oil shale deposits beneath hundreds of miles of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming wilderness. But until now high costs and technical challenges have kept them largely at bay since Exxon shuttered its failed $5 billion facility near Rifle, Colorado. Extracting oil from shale involves heating the stone to 900 degrees F. This used to be done after mining hundreds of tons shale. Now companies

estimates it would require a 1200-megawatt power plant just to unlock just 100,000 barrels of shale oil a day (less than 1 percent of our total oil demand). Large enough to serve half a million people, the power plant alone would burn 5 million tons of coal each year and release 10 million tons of global warming pollution. Moreover, each barrel of shale oil produced by the conventional mining method consumes between 2.1 and 5.2 barrels of water, a commodity already scarce in the region. Runoff from mine tailings – 150,000 tons a day; 55 million tons a year – would threaten water supplies used by cities, farms, and wildlife. “Oil shale development is all talk and no gain. It presents huge risks to both the economic and environmental lifeblood of this state. At a bare minimum we need to do serious testing and evaluation on a pilot basis before we even consider unleashing this technology on a large scale,” said Bob Randall, an expert with WRA.
are experimenting with heating it in place, creating a horizontal river of boiling oil deep below the ground. A 2005 study by the RAND Corporation

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 34

LCFS SOLVES – OIL DEPENDENCE
Ethanol solves oil dependence and global warming. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 25-27)s To liberate ourselves from the threat of foreign economic domination, to destroy the economic power of the terrorists' financiers, and to give ourselves the free hand necessary to deal as forcefully as required with such people, we must devalue their resources and increase the value of our own. We can do this by taking the world off the petroleum standard and putting it on an alcohol standard. This may sound like a huge and impossible task, but with gasoline prices well over $2 per gallon, the means to accomplish it are now at hand. Congress could make an enormous step toward American energy independence within a decade or so if it would simply pass a law stating that all new cars sold in the United States must be flexible fuel vehicles (FFV s) capable of burning any combination of gasoline and alcohol. The alcohol so employed could be either methanol or ethanol. The largest producers of both ethanol and methanol are all in the Western Hemisphere, with the United States having by far the greatest production potential for both. Ethanol is made from agricultural products. Methanol can also be made from any kind of biomass, as well as from natural gas or coal. American coal reserves alone are sufficient to power every car in the country on methanol for more than 250 years. Ethanol can currently be produced for about $1.50 per gallon. At this writing (August 2007) methanol is being sold, without any subsidy, for $0.93 per gallon. With gasoline having roughly doubled in price in the past three years and little likelihood of a substantial price retreat in the future, high alcohol-to-gasoline fuel mixtures are suddenly practical. As discussed in chapter 6, cars capable of burning such fuel are no futuristic dream. This year, Detroit will offer some two dozen models of standard cars with a flex-fuel option available for purchase. The engineering difference is in one sensor and a computer chip that controls the fuel-air mixture, and the employment of a corrosion-resistant fuel system. The difference in price from standard units ranges from zero to $500, with $100 being typical. [end page 25] Flex-fuel cars offer consumers little advantage right now, because the high-alcohol fuels they could employ are not generally available for purchase. This is because there are so few such vehicles that it doesn't pay gas station owners to dedicate a pump to cater to them. Were flex-fuel cars made the standard, however, the fuel would quickly be made available everywhere. If all cars sold in the United States had to be flexible-fueled, foreign manufacturers would also mass-produce such units, creating a large market in Europe and Asia as well as the United States for methanol and ethanol- much of which could be produced in America. Instead of being the world's largest fuel importer, the United States could become the world's largest fuel exporter. A large portion of the money now going to the Middle East would instead go to the United States and Canada, with much of the rest going to Brazil and other tropical agricultural nations. This would reverse our trade deficit, improve conditions in the third world, and cause a global shift in world economic power in favor of the West. By promoting agriculture, flexible-fueled vehicles also act as global cooling agents. Plants draw carbon dioxide (C02) out of the atmosphere. They increase water evaporation, and the water vapor thus produced transports heat from the earth's surface to the upper atmosphere, where most of it is released into space.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 35

LCFS SOLVES - OIL DEPENDENCE
LCFS will decrease oil dependence through new tech and market flexibility. Farrell and Sperling, 2007 (Alexander E. and Daniel, May 18, San Francisco Chronicle, “Getting the Carbon Out”, Farrell is an associate professor at UC Berkeley and Sperling is professor and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/18/EDGKOP3EFJ1.DTL&hw=Getting+the+Carbon+Out&sn=001&sc=1000) A low carbon fuel standard has two primary strengths. First, it creates a durable but flexible framework to guide the transition to a low-carbon future. Second, it stimulates innovation and investment in low-carbon and very-lowcarbon fuels and vehicles. The first advantage is key to the second. Oil companies and automakers consistently tell us that they are amenable to carbon controls that are predictable and based on science. Indeed, several major oil companies tell us they support this proposal and believe it should be adopted broadly, beyond California. They say they prefer this approach over mandates for specific technologies and fuels. They appreciate the flexibility and certainty it provides, though they will undoubtedly quibble over the magnitude or speed of the emission-reduction requirements. The low-carbon fuel standard addresses not only global warming, but the intertwined problems of high oil prices and foreign oil dependence. It does so by stimulating private companies to develop new technologies and bring them to market. Thus, it will, for the first time, create viable alternatives to petroleum, which lessens the need for oil imports and undermines OPEC cartel pricing. The result will be less volatile and, yes, lower fuel prices. Only alternative fuels can solve dependence – domestic oil production still leaves us vulnerable to peak oil crises. Sandalow, 2008 (Freedom From Oil, David B. Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the Energy and Climate Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative, McGrawHill: New York, New York, 2008. p. 3) Today, oil imports are indeed a problem, adding to the trade deficit. But they are hardly the fundamental problem when it comes to oil. Even if imports dropped dramatically, we would still face serious national security threats from the world's dependence on oil. (We haven't imported a drop of oil from Iran in more than 25 years, but that fact doesn't prevent Iran from playing its oil card in negotiations over its nuclear program.) We'd still face serious environmental threats from heat-trapping gases. (Emissions from imported and domestic oil are the same.) We'd still face wild price swings. (In the summer of 2000, British truckers went on strike over rising oil prices. At the time, the United Kingdom was energy independent, exporting oil into world markets. That fact didn't protect British truckers from rising world prices.) The fundamental problem with oil is that we have no substitutes. If every American could choose between oil, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity from the grid when fueling their cars, Saudi Arabia's influence would decline sharply. Emissions of heat-trapping gases would plummet. Drivers' exposure to swings in world oil markets would fall.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 36

LCFS SOLVES – OIL DEPENDENCE
Federal alternative energy use in the transportation sector is independently key to avoided unprecedented economic damage during peak oil – only a national framework can solve. GAO Report, 2007 (“Crude Oil: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production,” United States Government Accountability Office, February, The Honorable Bart Gordon, Congressman, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:d07283.pdf, Accessed 06-23-08) The prospect of a peak in oil production presents problems of global proportion whose consequences will depend critically on our preparedness. The consequences would be most dire if a peak occurred soon, without warning, and were followed by a sharp decline in oil production because alternative energy sources, particularly for transportation, are not yet available in large quantities. Such a peak would require sharp reductions in oil consumption, and the competition for increasingly scarce energy would drive up prices, possibly to unprecedented levels, causing severe economic damage. While these consequences would be felt globally, the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the industrialized nations of the world. [end page 38] In the longer term, there are many possible alternatives to using oil, including using biofuels and improving automotive fuel efficiency, but these alternatives will require large investments, and in some cases, major changes in infrastructure or break-through technological advances. In the past, the private sector has responded to higher oil prices by investing in alternatives, and it is doing so now. Investment, however, is determined largely by price expectations, so unless high oil prices are sustained, we cannot expect private investment in alternatives to continue at current levels. If a peak were anticipated, oil prices would rise, signaling industry to increase efforts to develop alternatives and consumers of energy to conserve and look for more energy-efficient products. Federal agencies have programs and activities that could be directed toward reducing uncertainty about the timing of a peak in oil production, and agency officials have stated the value in doing so. In addition, agency efforts to stimulate the development and adoption of alternatives to oil use could be increased if a peak in oil production were deemed imminent. While public and private responses to an anticipated peak could mitigate the consequences significantly, federal agencies currently have no coordinated or well-defined strategy either to reduce uncertainty about the timing of a peak or to mitigate its consequences. This lack of a strategy makes it difficult to gauge the appropriate level of effort or resources to commit to alternatives to oil and puts the nation unnecessarily at risk.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 37

LCFS SOLVES – 75% GASOLINE
Even if our crop yields aren’t optimally efficient, we will replace 75% of gasoline. Dale 06 (Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at MSU, Bruce E. “Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy” http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F848DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf) Land Devoted to Cellulosic Crops—We have about 450 million acres of cropland in the United States with approximately another 580 million acres of grassland pasture and range. Forest use land totals about 640 million acres, for a total of nearly 1700 million acres of land potentially available to produce feedstocks for ethanol production. Approximately 40 million of these acres are in the Conservation Reserve Program, a government program designed to take more fragile lands out of conventional grain or oilseed production. If we devote only 100 million acres to energy crop production and obtain an average of 15 tons of biomass per acre per year on that acreage and then convert that biomass to ethanol at 100 gallons perton (approximately 85 percent of the theoretical maximum yield), we will produce 150 billion gallons of ethanol per year. This is equivalent to about 75 percent of the gasoline we currently use, taking into account ethanol’s lower energy content per gallon.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 38

LCFS SOLVES – SHIFT TO CELLULOSIC
If the LCFS is federally implemented, cellulosic ethanol will be competitive in sooner than 10 years. Daschle, Runge, and Senauer 2007 (Former South Dakota Senator, Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota, Tom, C. Ford, Benjamin, September/October, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86512/tom-daschle-c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/food-forfuel.html) One such proposal is for a U.S.-wide carbon cap-and-trade system, which would immediately provide an economic advantage to fuels with lower carbon content. Although such a system is unlikely to come into being under the current president, most analysts believe that it will by 2012. Another significant proposal is for new state and federal incentives for low-carbon fuels, such as the program now being implemented in California, which is set to take full effect by November 2008. By mandating that a growing percentage of the market for transportation fuel be set aside for low-carbon fuels, such programs would unleash a tidal wave of private-sector investment and technological innovation that would ultimately bring about something of a low-carbon-fuel Manhattan Project. In stark contrast to the head-in-the-sand policies of the Bush administration, the example of these policies could serve as a beacon to the rest of the world and encourage similar behavior elsewhere, including in China and India. Under either of these policies, both the costs associated with carbon-intensive fossil fuels and the incentives for innovation in low-carbon fuels would dramatically increase. Thus, it is reasonable to expect cellulose-based ethanol to be competitive far sooner than in ten years, the time frame predicted by Runge and Senauer. LCFS will move farmers away from corn ethanol and towards cellulosic. Carey 2008 (John, senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau and received awards from the American Institute of Biological Sciences and former editor of The Scientist and the National & International Wildlife magazines, “Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap?” May 1) Instead of throwing out biofuels, the key is to speed up the transition from corn to crops that offer more benefits. There's a surprisingly simple way to do it: Judge fuels on how much greenhouse gas is emitted during their entire production and transport, including emissions caused by converting land from food crops and other uses to fuel crops. Then ratchet down the amount of carbon that's allowed. This low-carbon fuel standard approach sets the market free to pick the best fuels to meet the standard. It immediately rules out biofuels from palm oil plantations carved out of the rainforest, for instance. It would also steer farmers away from corn because of corn ethanol's lack of substantial greenhouse gas benefits. "Almost all of the pathways for using food crops to make energy will look very bad with a carbon metric," explains UC Davis' Sperling, who has worked on the approach. "The low-carbon fuel standard is one of the most outstanding policy instruments we have ever developed," he says. Make this approach widespread, and it should be possible to have our biofuels and eat our crops, too.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 39

LCFS SOLVES – SHIFT TO CELLULOSIC
Low carbon fuel standards spur the market demands for cellulosic feedstock. Johnson 08 ("Low-carbon fuels important to stem transportation sector’s emissions." Senator Tim - member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Hill. 1/30/08 http://thehill.com/op-eds/low-carbon-fuelsimportant-to-stem-transportation-sectors-emissions-2008-01-30.html) The goal of a low-carbon fuel standard is to spur technological innovation in the transportation fuels sector. The blending of low-carbon fuels, including ethanol with gasoline and biodiesel with diesel fuel is a bridge to developing even better low-greenhouse gas fuels that will replace oil-based transportation fuels. Robust development of available low-carbon fuels will spur the market to demand E85 and advanced biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks resulting in nearly zero greenhouse gas emissions over the full fuel cycle. We have to act prudently so that any new policy does not pick winners and losers and remains technology-neutral in developing biofuels. In order to avoid this political temptation we will need to pay particular attention in determining how renewable fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions are measured and verified. We can undo a lot of the positive gains of the existing biofuels industry if we move too quickly in adopting a low-carbon fuel standard that fails to recognize different regions of the country will produce different types of bio-fuels. Investing in the development and deployment of low-carbon fuels and improving the measurement of the greenhouse gas effects of these fuels should be part of a comprehensive climate change and energy security strategy. If we are deliberate and exhaustive in how we structure a low-carbon fuels plan, the market will respond and provide benefits to consumers in the form of competitively priced and clean fuels. Let’s not fail to address this challenge by building on what we accomplished last year. LCFS will increase investment in cellulosic ethanol and massive decrease carbon emissions. Monahan 07 (Patricia, Union of Concerned Scientists, June 2007, “Issue Brief: Low Carbon Fuel Standard”, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/ca-low-carbon-fuel-standard-fact-sheet_final.pdf) California’s vanguard approach to controlling global warming pollution, including the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), is putting the state’s fleet of vehicles on a lowcarbon track. With strong standards for new vehicles and a new policy on the horizon to reduce global warming pollution from fuels, California is leading the way in decarbonizing transportation. The low carbon fuel standard is ground-breaking policy that would, for the first time ever, hold fuel providers responsible for global warming pollution from the production and use of transportation fuels. This program does not “pick winners” by focusing on specific fuels, but instead relies on performance criteria, requiring each gallon of fuel (on an energy-equivalent basis) to meet a declining standard for global warming pollution. The standard is for the full lifecycle of the fuel, promoting carbon reduction along all links in the fuel supply chain. The standard protects the state from high carbon fuels, like liquid coal, and builds a market for lower carbon alternatives, which could include ethanol, hydrogen, or electricity. The standard can also foster investment in very low carbon fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, with the potential to radically cut global warming pollution by 70 to 90 percent or more. Key challenges include accurately accounting for global warming pollution from all feedstocks and fuels, while promoting air quality and sustainable fuel production.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 40

LCFS SOLVES – SHIFT TO CELLULOSIC
LCFS would switch production of over half of corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol. Crane and Prusnek 07 (David and Brian, Senior Advisor and Cabinet Secretary to Governor Schwarzenegger, January 8, 2007, “The Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protecting Our Economy”, http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/5155/) Adoption of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard will substantially reduce global warming pollution, cut petroleum dependency and create a sustainable and growing market for cleaner fuels. Based on the mix of strategies shown in Table 3, we estimate that a fuel standard requiring an initial reduction of 10 percent in the greenhouse gas impacts of passenger vehicle fuels by 2020 will: Cut global warming pollution from the passenger vehicle fleet by 10 percent, equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road. Displace 20 percent of on-road gasoline consumption with lowcarbon fuels, reducing consumption by up to 3.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year, equivalent to the output of 2.5 average-sized California refineries.19 Expand the size of the current renewable fuels market in California (already the largest in the nation) by 3 to 5 times. Instead of today’s corn, over half of the ethanol is likely to be made from extremely low-carbon, cellulosic feedstocks such as agricultural waste and switchgrass.20 Place on California’s roads more than 7 million alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles, approximately 20 times the number of such vehicles on California’s roads today.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 41

LCFS SOLVES – GLOBAL AGREEMENTS
Alternative fuels are an essential starting point for agreements on climate change. Farrell, 2007, (Alexander E., Energy and Resources Group Director, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.041807.Farrell-testimony.pdf, April 18) Some of the strategic implications of alternative fuels are obvious, by diversifying both the types of resources and the geographic locations they come from, we apply the first principal of energy security (Yergin 2006). Moreover, developing alternative fuels without a strong climate policy framework brings additional strategic risks. This is because climate change itself presents strategic risks and failing to address climate change increases these risks (Holdren 2001; CNA Corporation 2007). In addition, continuing to ignore climate change will make national consensus on energy policy more difficult, delaying the implementation of alternative fuel development and thereby delaying any reduction in strategic risks and tend to encourage disrespect for international processes and agreements on common problems. This lessens the security of the United States directly and also inhibits the development of the global agreement necessary to solve the climate change problem.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 42

LCFS SOLVES – CREATES CARBON SINKS
Ethanol production acts as a carbon sink. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 110-111) Ethanol is made from plant material and methanol can be. All fuel so produced acts in two ways as a counter to global warming. In the first instance, since plant material is derived from carbon dioxide drawn from the atmosphere, burning it produces no net CO2 increase. Methanol made from natural gas that would otherwise be vented or flared, or from municipal waste that would otherwise be decomposed by microbes, is also global-warming neutral. In addition, however, the very act of growing plants acts as a powerful mechanism for active global cooling. This is so because the leaves of plants create an enormous amount of surface area for the transpiration and evaporation of water, in the process absorbing large amounts of heat from the environment. (That is why it feels cooler on a hot day to stand on the lawn rather than the pavement.) This heat is then incorporated into water vapor, which transports it high up into the stratosphere. When the vapor condenses, the heat is released, and most of it is lost to space. [end page 110] The promotion of agriculture is thus the key to fighting global warming. This can most effectively be done through the alcohol economy, which will transfer trillions of dollars of business per year from the OPEC terror patrons to the world’s farmers.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 43

LCFS SOLVES – FOOD PRICES
LCFS is the key to producing biofuels without raising food prices. Carey, 2008 (May 12, Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? Corn-based ethanol isn’t the villain critics contend, but shifting to other fuels is critical, Business Week, What’s Next—Green Biz; p. 60, Vol. 4083) Still, corn ethanol is far from perfect. It barely helps in the fight against global warming, because of the carbon emissions from all the fossil-fuel energy needed to make it. "Everyone agrees corn is not the right crop," says Merrill Lynch's Blanch. Brazilian
sugarcane is more efficient. It doesn't grow in the Amazon region, so it doesn't cause rainforest destruction, and it can be turned into other, more valuable fuels. On Apr. 23, Amyris Biotechnologies in Emeryville, Calif., announced plans, with Brazilian partners, to make biodiesel, jet fuel, and bio-gasoline from sugarcane. Even better is biofuel from feedstocks that don't eat into food supplies, displace crops, or cause greenhouse gas emissions from plowing up forests or prairies. One prime candidate is switchgrass, a perennial prairie plant. Thanks to ninefoot-deep roots, switchgrass in test plots in the American Southeast thrived last summer despite an historic drought. The growth and decay of those deep roots also adds carbon to soil, making switchgrass cultivation a boon to fighting global warming. Ceres figures that its new commercial strain of the plant, with improved yields, could be grown on former tobacco, cotton,

. Instead of throwing out biofuels, the key is to speed up the transition from corn to crops that offer more benefits. There's a surprisingly simple way to do it: Judge fuels on how much greenhouse gas is emitted during their entire production and transport, including emissions caused by converting land from food crops and other uses to fuel crops. Then ratchet down the amount of carbon that's allowed. This low-carbon fuel standard approach sets the market free to pick the best fuels to meet the standard. It immediately rules out biofuels from palm oil plantations carved out of the rainforest, for instance. It would also steer farmers away from corn because of corn ethanol's lack of substantial greenhouse gas benefits. "Almost all of the pathways for using food crops to make energy will look very bad with a carbon metric," explains UC Davis' Sperling, who has worked on the approach. "The low-carbon fuel standard is one of the most outstanding policy instruments we have ever developed," he says. Make this approach widespread, and it should be possible to have our biofuels and eat our crops, too.
and rice fields across the southern U.S. "There are a lot of available acres out there," says Ceres' Hamilton

Energy costs, not biofuels, are responsible for food price inflation. Greene and Lynd, 08 (Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Lee Lynd, Professor of Engineering at Dartmouth and Chief Scientific Officer of Mascoma Corporation."Rethink Biofuels But Watch the Bath Water" 5-13-08. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/oped_on_biofuels_food_prices_a.html) Biofuels are a modest part of the food price picture, consuming only 4 percent of world grain, and there is little evidence that food prices would be much lower if we did not produce biofuels. The primary reasons for skyrocketing food prices include our rising energy costs, increased demand for meat in developing countries, drought, and misguided national and international agricultural policies. Energy costs, not biofuel production, is driving up global food prices. Carey, 2008 (May 12, Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? Corn-based ethanol isn’t the villain critics contend, but shifting to other fuels is critical, Business Week, What’s Next—Green Biz; p. 60, Vol. 4083) Has ethanol contributed to the surge in food prices? Not very much, concludes a group of agricultural economists at Texas A&M University in an Apr. 10 report from the school's Agricultural & Food Policy Center. "The underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs," the researchers conclude, not biofuels. In addition, reducing the amount of ethanol the government requires each year "does not result in significantly lower corn prices," they say. That's because the ethanol industry is here to stay, since it is now being driven largely by market forces rather than by the government's renewable-fuel mandate.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 44

LCFS SOLVES – GLOBAL POVERTY
Switching to ethanol alleviates global poverty. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 144-148) Doha was a disaster of historic proportions. International trade negotiations are an obscure subject, so Doha will never be as famous as, say, the diplomatic catastrophe of August 1914 that led to World War I. But it should be. As a consequence of the failure of the Doha Round, tens of millions of people will be denied their livelihood – and millions of them will die. [end page 144] Why did Doha stall? It was not because of lack of humanitarian feeling. On the contrary, the political classes and government bureaucracies of the OECD nations are filled with people overflowing with humanitarian feelings. They have all the caring, sympathetic, humanitarian feelings anyone could ever want from such people, and more. But what they don't have is a market in their home countries capable of absorbing third world agricultural produce without bankrupting their own nations' farmers. Until they do, the economic holocaust will continue. That is why we need to move to the alcohol economy. Recall: Ethanol is made from food crops with a large sugar or starch content. Methanol can be made from any kind of biomass, as well as from coal, natural gas, and recycled wastes.
How large a market for the world's agricultural sector could be created if we switched our cars to flex-fuels? As I write this, the price of oil is hovering around $70 per barrel, and 76 million barrels a day are being sold worldwide. That works out to a revenue stream of $5.5 billion per day, or $2 trillion per year. About 40 percent of the total is produced by OPEC. Let's say our goal is to wipe OPEC out by replacing all of their oil with alcohol. This would be an excellent move, since doing so would essentially annihilate the financial base of Islamofascism, not to mention the

, we would also liberate $800 billion per year, much of which could go to agriculture. To get an idea of what this would mean, take a look at table 8.1, where I present a list of the world's thirty top agricultural nations along with the value of their 2005 crops. Sent into the world agricultural sector, $800 billion per year would present a global farm income boost of nearly 50 percent. But that is al income; most farm products are consumed
Iranian nuclear bomb program. In the process, however domestically. Relative international agricultural trade, the impact would be much larger. [end page 145, graphic on page 146, continues on 147] To see this, let's consider the case of the United States. The United States imports 12 million barrels of oil per day, more than a third of the OPEC total. In 2006 this oil cost us about $260 billion. If we were to spend this on alcohol fuels instead, we could increase the total US farm income of $127 billion by 50 percent-and still have around $200 billion left over to pay for alcohol fuel imports derived from third world agriculture.

, by switching to alcohol, we could quadruple our purchases of third world agricultural goods, while giving US farmers substantially more business, not less. America, as mentioned, is responsible for about one-third of global oil imports. If the pattern described above were followed by other oil importers as well, the net effect would be to multiply total third world agricultural foreign exchange earnings fourfold, yielding earnings that would dwarf all current worldwide foreign aid expenditures by a factor of ten. Moreover, while most foreign aid given to third world governments is stolen by the gangsters who rule them, in this case the money would go to the productive sectors of the poor nations' economies. The kleptocrats would seek to tax this income, of course, but their ability to do so would be severely constrained by the need to keep their country's alcohol exports competitively priced. A huge engine for world development would thus be created. The above analysis is
For comparison, US agricultural imports in 2005 totaled $56 billion. Thus oversimplified in a number of ways. Methanol can be produced from sources other than biomass. So in the absence of tax or tariff policies favoring renewable options for alcohol fuel production, not all of the funds transferred away from the oil cartel would go to agriculture. Furthermore, OPEC nations would no doubt attempt to counter a shift to alcohol fuels such as that described

Both advanced and third world nations would benefit from the reduced oil price, and the latter could still obtain a critical improvement in their foreign exchange position as well as increased farm income through the substitution of home-grown alcohol for imported [end page 147] petroleum. However, if the goal is to defeat the OPEC terror patrons rather than just constrain the growth of their income, further measures
above by dropping their prices. This in itself might be considered a major achievement on behalf of humanity for the flex-fuel mandate policy. would be required. These could range from punitive tariffs, counter-embargoes, and alcohol-biased fuel tax policies, to blockades or air strikes on oil export facilities in need of more rapid termination. We shall return to this subject in chapter 12. Suffice at this point to say that, were it in our interests to do so, we could shut down the oil exports of such major terror sponsors as Iran

the potential market for agricultural products made possible by transitioning from the petroleum economy to the alcohol economy is huge – much greater than would have been required to break the impasse at Doha, and large enough, in fact, to uplift the world.
and Saudi Arabia at our discretion. In any case, what is clear is that

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 45

LCFS SOLVES - OCEANS
Ethanol solves the petroleum threat to oceans and fresh water. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p.107-108) A fundamental difference between alcohol fuels and petroleum [end page 107] fuels is that alcohols can mix with water, whereas oil, gasoline, kerosene, and virtually all other petroleum products cannot. The earth is a water world, covered by a huge and extremely active hydrosphere. The fact that alcohols can dissolve in this ocean, and that alcohols are readily consumed by common bacteria, means that long-term environmental degradation caused by uncontrolled releases of alcohols is impossible. Today, a quarter century after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster devastated twelve hundred miles of coastline, thousands of sea otters are still being killed by eating polluted clams. If, however, the Exxon Valdez had been carrying alcohol instead of petroleum when it wrecked, the threat to wildlife would have been rendered harmless within hours, or days at most, and the past occurrence of the event would have been made undetectable within months. Instead of hanging about for decades as a noxious oil slick, the alcohol cargo would have simply washed away and been diluted to nothing in the vastness of the sea. These same considerations hold with respect to possible seepage of methanol or ethanol into groundwater from defective pumping stations, crashed or abandoned automobiles, wrecked tanker trucks, leaky lawnmowers, or any other landbased source. On many lakes frequented by recreational powerboats today, an iridescent petroleum scum dangerous to wildlife and obnoxious to swimmers can be widely observed. If those powerboats were running on alcohol, that pollution would not exist.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 46

LCFS SOLVES – CANCER FROM POLLUTION
A transition to ethanol avoids the cancer causing pollution from fossil fuels. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 109) Neither methanol nor ethanol is cancer or mutation causing. In contrast, gasoline contains many carcinogens and mutagens, including benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene, and n-hexane. As a result of fuel leaks and spills, incomplete combustion, and fumes from ordinary refueling operations, vast amounts of these gasoline carcinogens and mutagens are released into our environment every day, causing an increased incidence of cancer among the general public. The result is many deaths and billions of dollars in healthcare costs inflicted on the nation every year. When burned in internal combustion engines, alcohol fuels do not produce any smoke, soot, or particulate pollution. According to the EPA, such pollution currently causes approximately forty thousand American deaths per year from lung cancer and other ailments. Converting to alcohol fuels could drastically reduce this toll. Alcohols, especially methanol, also produce much less nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution than gasoline, because they burn cooler. Since alcohols contain no sulfur, they produce no sulfur dioxide emissions at all. Thus, conversion to-alcohol would also eliminate most of the vehicular contribution to acid rain. Ozone smog is created when sunlight drives the reaction of nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. As noted above, alcohol fuels produce less NOx than gasoline does. In addition, however, the reactivity of alcohol molecules (which might be released by incomplete combustion or evaporative emissions) with NOx in the atmosphere is less than a tenth as great as typical gasoline components. Not only that, but because of their solubility in water, alcohol molecules are readily swept out of the atmosphere by rain.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 47

LCFS SOLVES - COMPETITIVENESS
A low carbon fuel standard is key to US job growth and international competitiveness. Kammen, 07 (Daniel M. Kammen, Distinguished Chair in Energy at UC Berkeley and Co-Director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “Green Jobs Created by Global Warming Initiatives” http://www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF9/pdfs/karmen-senate.pdf) On February 21, 2007 California Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator McCain called for a federal LCFS. An important piece of the LCFS should be the inclusion of electricity as a fuel to support the development and use of plug-in hybrid vehicles in areas where the average grid power is sufficiently low-carbon to result in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. A low carbon fuel standard will promote the development of at least two important industries: a sustainable biofuels sector; and the evolution of the plug-in hybrid sector. Both of these are area of potentially strong and sustained job growth. At present, however, Detroit automakers have expressed concerns about the job benefits of a clean energy economy. A study conducted by the University of Michigan found, in fact, that job losses could occur if Detroit does not become more innovative and competitive. Integration of bioenergy/ethanol resources and work to develop the commercially successful plug-in hybrid industries could both become major areas of new job growth. Significantly, bioenergy work – agriculture and distilling – and battery construction and vehicle construction are areas where high wages can be expected. Green jobs can accrue across the entire economy, from laboratory research and development positions, to traditionally unionized work in plumbing, electrical wiring, and civil engineering. Following the critically important Green Jobs initiative Senator Sanders spearheaded in the Senate, the House Green Jobs Act (initially sponsored by Solis and Tierny, HR 2847, now part of the HR 3221, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007) invests in worker training and career opportunities for low-income Americans. These efforts are to be applauded, and could be the model for expanded job access and development efforts in a wide range of energy related industries. In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel cell and wind technologies, where European nations and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Some of those orders are for U. S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for both domestic installation and overseas export.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 48

LCFS SOLVES - LATIN AMERICAN NARCOTERRORISM
Ethanol solves Latin American narcoterrorism – farmers would grow sugar instead of drugs. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 176-178) Americans need to take the issue of Islamofascist expansion into Latin America very seriously. The two-thousandmile US border with Mexico is notoriously porous and open to illegal immigration. Up until now, however, the primary concern with illegal immigration has been limited to relatively benign issues such as the potential impact of cheap Mexican labor on the US job market. However, once the Islamists become established in South America, it will not be merely well-meaning job seekers crossing the border, but lethal terrorists fanatically committed to our destruction. It is the drug lords who have provided the Islamofascists with their invitation into our hemisphere. How can they be shut down? As a criminal enterprise, the narcotics trade suffers from two critical weaknesses: Its ultimate foundation is both land and labor intensive. A lot of people have to be willing to devote themselves to growing the required crops, and they have to be willing to dedicate a great deal of land to that purpose. Now the Islamist poppy farmers of rural Afghanistan may be proud that the poison they grow will be used to destroy infidels, but Latin American peasants growing crops for the drug traffic know that what they are doing is wrong. So the question is: Why do they do it? "For the money" is the obvious answer, but it's a bit too quick. Working for a brutal criminal enterprise is personally degrading and quite risky, and most people would prefer not to have to do so. They do it because they have to because it is the only way they can see to make a living. The problem in rural Latin America, as throughout most of the third world, is the refusal of the advanced-sector nations to allow imports of their agricultural produce. It is this protectionist policy that, by denying many peasants a legal cash crop, forces them into the service of the narcotics trade. The-fact that this is the case has been shown by a modest US government initiative pursued under the Andean Trade
Promotion Act [end page 176] (ATPA, later renamed the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, or ATPDEA).19 Targeted toward Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, this act gives duty-free treatment to certain agricultural imports as an incentive to encourage farmers to switch from coca to other crops. Unfortunately, the ATPA explicitly excludes sugar and most other major agricultural products from its purview, but the US Congress was able to muster the courage to rebuff the protectionist demands of the mighty American cut-flower industry and liberalize trade in at least this sector. As a result, the export of cut flowers from Colombia to the United States became highly profitable. This created an opportunity for many Colombian peasants to enter the legitimate economy, and hundreds of thousands of them were delighted to seize it. Before the ATPA was enacted, Colombia was essentially kept out of the US flower market by high tariffs. After the ATPA passed, Colombia became America's main supplier of flowers. The industry has grown to the point where it is a significant economic sector and has been instrumental in helping the Colombia government regain control of several narcoterrorist regions. The ATPA is also credited with causing the elimination of some tens of thousands of hectares of coca farms in Peru and Ecuador as well. Evidently, despite the high street price of cocaine, the peasants who grow coca don't see much of the money, or at least not enough to make them choose it when there is a legal

if we want to create an advanced-sector agricultural demand sufficient to replace the narcotics harvest, cut flowers are not going to do the job. A much larger market is required. This can be supplied by the alcohol economy. This year, $600 billion will be shelled out by Americans, Europeans, and Japanese as tribute to OPEC, helping it fund terrorism. That same money, spent on alcohol crops, could convince a lot of narcotics farmers to grow something else. By itself, a vigorous crop substitution initiative based on the alcohol economy could severely cut the narcotics harvest – but, admittedly, a significant fraction would remain. As most of the land was [end page 177] taken out of narcotics production, the price for the remaining product would go up, so some people would undoubtedly stay in the business out of pure greed. But under such conditions, where narcotics cultivation has become a minority enterprise rather than a necessary regional staple, crop eradication programs can become effective. Every plant species has diseases or parasites specific to it that can be quite effective in its destruction. For example, in the 1940s and 1950s American elm trees were hit by an
alternative available. However, outbreak of the Dutch elm disease, and despite desperate defensive efforts backed by the full resources of the US government, they were virtually wiped out. Since the 1970s researchers have identified similarly effective fungi or other pathogens variously specific for marijuana, cocaine, and opium poppies.21 The use of such mycoherbicides to destroy coca was signed into law in the United States on July 13,2000.22 They could easily be used to wreak havoc on narcotics crops worldwide, but have not been because of concern expressed by grower countries over massive

, once the alcohol economy has made substantial worldwide crop substitution possible, there would be no further reason to hold back. Species that currently provide the foundation of the global narcotics trade could be relegated to the status of curiosities preserved from extinction III greenhouses for the entertainment of professional botanists.
socioeconomic impact to the affected regions. However

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 49

LCFS SOLVES – WORLDWIDE MODELING
The plan solves worldwide – China and other developing countries will import US biofuel technologies to decrease emissions. Kammen, 07 (Daniel M. Kammen, Distinguished Chair in Energy at UC Berkeley and Co-Director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “Green Jobs Created by Global Warming Initiatives” 9-25-07. http://www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF9/pdfs/karmensenate.pdf) Technology exports have impacts well beyond domestic job creation. In fact, if properly managed, the development of a thriving ‘cleantech’ sector can address a vital global issues, namely the emissions trajectories of major developing nations. China and India are often singled out for attention as major, emerging global emitters. China, in fact, will become the world’s largest greenhouse emitter in the near future, if it has not already. This fact, is often used – mistakenly in my view – to argue against unilateral climate protection efforts by nations such asthe United States. This view is shortsighted in two vital respects. First, China is demonstrably already suffering from the impacts of fossil fuel use. Crop yields in many parts of China are significantly lower than they would be without the significant sulfur and particulate burden that results from domestic coal combustion. (In fact, coal combustions emissions from China have significant air quality impacts on Japan, and can be measured in the U. S. as well.) Crop losses of over 20% have been reported in part of China, with the decrease unambiguously linked to air pollution. China also experiences significant human health impacts from this pollution burden as well. Second, China has committed, on paper, to a ‘circular economy’ where waste is reduced and overall productivity is enhanced. If the United States were to become a major exporter, or even a partner, in the production of low-emissions technologies – from truly carbon-capture coal-fired power plants, to increased numbers of solar, wind, and biofuel technologies – China would be an eager trading partner, so that they could install increasing numbers of low-emissions technologies. This would directly help the Chinese economy and their environmental and public health situation. On both of these grounds, U. S. domestic expansion of the clean energy sector will likely positively impact the ability and the actions of a number of emerging economies to ‘go green’.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 50

LCFS SOLVES – REGULATIONS KEY
Absent a focus on lifecycle carbon emissions, the market will ensure that high-pollution biofuels win out. No other incentive solves. Greene, 07 (Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Testimony before the House Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming. 10-24-07. http://docs.nrdc.org/air/air_07102401A.pdf ) To achieve the full potential of biofuels, policies must focus on the benefits that can be achieved by the policies rather than just the feedstocks, conversion technologies or the number of gallons produced. Current federal biofuels policies, from the RFS to the various tax credits, simply reward volume and are based on the assumption that “more is better.” Moving forward, it is critical that these policies mature to a “better is better” approach and start to reward good performance. Nowhere is the need for better performance more evident and urgent than when considering the global warming pollution impacts of biofuels. It is possible to produce ethanol derived from corn in a way that produces less than half of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of gasoline (per BTU of delivered fuel). Conversely it is possible to produce ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks in a manner that produces far more CO2 than gasoline. Unless our policies value, encourage and ultimately require biofuels to produce greenhouse gas reductions, the market will provide whatever is cheapest and fastest. There is no reason to believe that such fuels will be better than gasoline. Consider, for example, a dry mill corn ethanol plant. Greenhouse gas emissions from corn production can be
minimized by obtaining the corn from a farm that practices no-till cultivation. In addition, by collecting a portion of the corn stover along with the grain the ethanol plant can meet its thermal energy needs with this biomass energy source rather than fossil fuels. Finally, fermentation produces carbon dioxide in a pure stream that can be easily captured for geologic sequestration. Using

ethanol produced at such a plant would be 7.5 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent, or more than 70% lower than gasoline. NRDC has examined the greenhouse gas emissions from a
Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET model, we estimate that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from variety of feedstock and conversion process combinations using the Argonne GREET model (see Figure 3 and Appendix). EPA conducted a similar analysis for a fact sheet released in conjunction with its final rule for implementing the Renewable Fuels Standard enacted in EPACT 2005. 5 EPA’s results are shown in Figure 4 and are very similar to ours (note that EPA displays results relative to conventional gasoline, which is set to zero on their chart.)

wide

Now consider a cellulosic ethanol plant. While such plants are often considered to be environmentally superior to corn ethanol plants, this is not necessarily the case, depending on how the cellulosic feedstock is produced. For example, if the biomass for the cellulosic ethanol plant is obtained by converting to biomass production land that had been enrolled in the conservation reserve program (CRP), then the forgone conservation benefits and carbon benefits must be accounted for. The CRP has enrolled more than 1 million acres in forest cover, including hardwoods, longleaf pine, and other softwoods. These forests provide both important ecological services and sequester a substantial amount of carbon. Converting such lands to biofuels production would not only rapidly return to the atmosphere the carbon sequestered since the trees were planted, but would also forgo future carbon sequestration on this land. The net result would be CO2 emissions to the atmosphere many times greater than the annual greenhouse gas benefits from cellulosic ethanol production on this land. Land conversion need not be this direct to undermine the environmental benefits of biofuel production. Devoting an increased share of U.S. agricultural output to fuel production rather than grain exports will result in increased demand for animal feed from sources abroad. If any significant portion of this additional feed is obtained by converting mature forests into pasture or cropland the CO2 emissions from this land use change could greatly exceed the emission reductions from the use of biofuels. The Argonne GREET model and most lifecycle analyses conducted to date have either ignored these land use related emissions or minimized them. These emissions, however, are unavoidably caused by using certain crops and types of land for biofuels feedstocks and they have the potential to negate all of the global warming benefits of an expanded RFS.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 51

LCFS SOLVES – STOPS HEALTH CARE COLLAPSE
Alternative energy prevents medical system from collapsing. Bednarz 07 (Daniel Bednarz- healthcare consultant, July/August 2007, “Medicine After Oil,” Orion Magazine, http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/314). The scale and subtlety of our country’s dependency on oil and natural gas cannot be overstated. Nowhere is this truer than in our medical system. Petrochemicals are used to manufacture analgesics, antihistamines, antibiotics, antibacterials, rectal suppositories, cough syrups, lubricants, creams, ointments, salves, and many gels. Processed plastics made with oil are used in heart valves and other esoteric medical equipment. Petrochemicals are used in radiological dyes and films, intravenous tubing, syringes, and oxygen masks. In all but rare instances, fossil fuels heat and cool buildings and supply electricity. Ambulances and helicopter “life flights” depend on petroleum, as do personnel who travel to and from medical workplaces in motor vehicles. Supplies and equipment are shipped—often from overseas—in petroleum-powered carriers. In addition there are the subtle consequences of fossil fuel reliance. A recently retired doctor informs me, “In orthopedics we used to set fractures mostly by feel and knowing the mechanics of how the fractures were created. I doubt that many of the present orthopedists could do a good job if you took away their [energy-powered] fluoroscope or X-ray.” Despite this enormous vulnerability, public discussions of health care routinely ignore the prospect of peak oil. The proposed reforms, which seek to cover more people while holding down escalating costs, amount to little more than fiscal maneuvers. They take no notice of ecological resource constraints that will set limits on our ability to give people access to medical care. The coming scarcity of fossil fuels, on top of inflationary costs in medicine (the prices of oil and natural gas are approximately four times what they were in 1999 and rising) and the expenses of treating Baby Boomers (a cohort twice the size of its predecessor), could overwhelm a medical system already in crisis. We can avoid collapse, however, by reducing medicine’s present consumption of energy and creating a health-care system that reflects our actual relationship to resources. Ironically, peak oil can be a catalyst for creating a health-care system that is cost-effective, ecologically sustainable, and congruent with a democratic social ethos.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 52

LCFS SOLVES – SAVES RAINFORESTS
LCFS protects rainforests. Carey 08 (John, senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau, May 1, 2008, “Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap?”, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19/b4083060454256.htm) Instead of throwing out biofuels, the key is to speed up the transition from corn to crops that offer more benefits. There's a surprisingly simple way to do it: Judge fuels on how much greenhouse gas is emitted during their entire production and transport, including emissions caused by converting land from food crops and other uses to fuel crops. Then ratchet down the amount of carbon that's allowed. This low-carbon fuel standard approach sets the market free to pick the best fuels to meet the standard. It immediately rules out biofuels from palm oil plantations carved out of the rainforest, for instance. It would also steer farmers away from corn because of corn ethanol's lack of substantial greenhouse gas benefits. "Almost all of the pathways for using food crops to make energy will look very bad with a carbon metric," explains UC Davis' Sperling, who has worked on the approach. "The low-carbon fuel standard is one of the most outstanding policy instruments we have ever developed," he says. Make this approach widespread, and it should be possible to have our biofuels and eat our crops, too.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 53

LCFS SOLVES – AT: OTHER COUNTRIES OVERWHELM
U.S. leadership is critical to promote global renewables. Podesta, Stern and Batten 07 ("Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy: Part of Progressive Growth, CAP’s Economic Plan for the Next Administration" John - President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress. Todd - Senior Fellow at American Progress. Kit - Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Center for American Progress. November 27, 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/energy_chapter.html) All major carbon-emitting nations, including key developing countries such as China and India, will have to be part of the solution. In fact, most of the future emissions growth will be generated by developing countries who collectively will account for over 75 percent of global emissions growth by 2030. But far-reaching, mandatory U.S. action has to come first. Without that, the United States will have no credibility to argue for broader global participation. American action will spur developing world action in two separate ways. First, the policy changes needed to cut carbon emissions in the United States are jobproducing and growth-generating actions. Other countries will emulate them, just as China, Russia, Brazil, and other countries have adopted building energy codes and appliance efficiency standards based on U.S. models. Second, the technologies needed to promote low-carbon economies are increasingly produced and sold in a global market. When America buys compact fluorescent lamps, most of them are made in China, so China automatically develops the manufacturing technology to use them domestically. When America requires that computers and TVs become more efficient, it affects the market in India and Africa. And conversely, when America lags in efficiency or renewable energy technology, either the rest of the world also lags or else other developed countries grab the market and control the export sales to the developing world. Clearly there are many reasons why the United States needs to capture the energy opportunity by creating a low-carbon economy. So, too, do the rest of the nations of the world. American leadership is paramount, both at home and abroad.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 54

LCFS SOLVES – CHINA MODEL
The plan is modeled by China, cutting Chinese CO2 emissions Richardson 2008 (Bill, New Mexico Governor, formerly director of the Department of Energy and UN ambassador, “Leading by Example, How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution” pg 88) China’s economic officials predict that China will build another large coal-based electric-generating unit every week for the next decade. (India is in a similar situation, trying to provide basic electrical service for its own huge population and fast-growing economy.) Why would China decide, on its own use, to use more expensive climatefriendly, carbon-clean coal technologies? Especially when it sees the United States refusing to adopt the carbon limits and expanding it sown carbon emissions every year, even though its economy is still relatively mature? Obviously, the answer is that China won’t make a unilateral commitment to the more expensive approach of doing it right. It needs international encouragement, financial assistance, and a commitment that it can grow and provide its people with basic services and resources to build the nation’s economy and quality of life. They are 1.3 billion people who are striving to achieve basic human comforts and conveniences of life (which we can sell them, if we get on it). We are 300 million people living in a more mature economy with much higher energy use per capita. Conservatives the United States who decry any U.S. commitment to cut global warming emissions are without a concomitant commitment by the Chinese are demagogues who don’t want to solve the problem. The Chinese will likely need to increase, not reduce. While we bring our emissions down, China’s emissions will rise. Our goal should be to keep those increases to a bare minimum that helps China join the international economy. That kind of stabilization will be good for the world economy and world climate.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 55

CELLULOSIC – DISPLACES CORN
Cellulosic ethanol solves global warming and will displace corn ethanol. Podesta, Stern and Batten 07 ("Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy: Part of Progressive Growth, CAP’s Economic Plan for the Next Administration" John - President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress. Todd - Senior Fellow at American Progress. Kit - Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Center for American Progress. November 27, 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/energy_chapter.html) The key for the United States to meet aggressive biofuel goals is to move from corn-based biofuels to cellulosic biofuels, the latter of which is produced from agricultural plant waste, such as rice straw or corn stover, or dedicated crops such as switchgrass, a fast-growing, drought-resistant perennial grass, or algae. Cellulosic feedstocks can potentially provide much greater quantities of biofuel with lower “lifecycle” CO2 emissions—meaning the amount of CO2 emitted during the production and transportation of the biofuel as well as during its use in automobiles— than corn-based ethanol. In addition, diversified sources of cellulosic ethanol would compete with corn-based ethanol in the marketplace, helping to stabilize the cost of corn as a key source of food and feed. Two early generation cellulosic ethanol plants are currently under construction in Georgia78 and Louisiana, signaling that this technology is making strides. A recent University of Minnesota study suggests that mixed grasses grown on marginal land without fertilizers or pesticides would produce 51 percent more energy per acre than corn grown on fertile land.80 And fewer greenhouse gases are emitted during the cultivation of dedicated energy crops for cellulosic biofuel production because less petroleum-based fuel is used than in the cultivation of traditional crops. Moreover, dedicated energy crops themselves can absorb CO2 emissions through photosynthesis; perennial grasses can absorb 14 times the CO2 that they produce after a decade of growth.81 Additionally, a portion of the waste products generated during the production of the biofuel can become the biomass fuel needed to power biorefineries, further reducing emissions compared with coal-based power generation. Nor is ethanol the only renewable biofuel. Cellulosic ethanol eliminates the negative environmental effects of corn-based ethanol. Conkey, 2007 (Michael, Ethanol Consultant, Personal Technology Enterprises, “Conventional Ethanol vs. Cellulosic Ethanol”) Cellulosic ethanol production prevents the danger that food cropping will turn into more lucrative fuel-cropping. The supply of raw material is also more abundant than corn-based ethanol production. The use of fertilizers and watering essential for corn for ethanol production is also not required to such an extent for cellulosic ethanol. Important as well is the fact that traditional ethanol uses fossil fuels as part of it manufacture, whereas cellulosic ethanol uses only lignin, which has energy content equal to coal. Lignin is a bi-product of the conversion process from bio-mass to ethanol, and does not need to be procured extra. Thus, no expensive fossil fuel is required for the cellulosic manufacturing process, and best of all, the amount of harmful CO2 produced while using the lignin is totally compensated by the absorption from the original plants in photosynthesis. The environment also does not have to suffer from the greenhouse emissions that are usual in the production of traditional ethanol.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 56

CELLULOSIC GOOD – FOOD PRICES
Current ethanol production is skyrocketing food prices – a switch to cellulosic ethanol prevents economic collapse, failed states, and billions from starving. Brown 07 (Lester, President of the Earth Policy Institute, June 17, 2007, “BIOFUELS BLUNDER: Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain to Fuel Cars is Raising World Food Prices, Risking Political Instability”, http://www.earth-policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07.htm) The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability. The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy. In six of the last seven years, total world grain production has fallen short of use. As a result, world carryover stocks of grain have been drawn down to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level in 34 years. (See data.) The last time they were this low wheat and rice prices doubled. Already corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense heat and severe drought this summer in the
Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory. The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas. Food prices are also rising in China, India, and the United States, countries that contain 40 percent of the world's people. While relatively little corn is eaten directly in these countries, vast quantities are consumed indirectly. The milk, eggs, cheese, chicken, ham, ground beef, ice cream, and yogurt in the typical refrigerator are all produced with corn. In effect, the refrigerator is filled with corn. And the price of every one of these items in the refrigerator is affected by the price of corn. Rising grain and soybean prices are driving up meat and egg prices in China. January pork prices were up 20 percent above a year earlier, eggs were up 16 percent, while beef, which is less dependent on grain, was up 6 percent. For China, which suffered the most massive famine in human history in 1959-61, these food price rises could be approaching a politically dangerous level. In India, the overall food price index in January 2007 was 10 percent higher than a year earlier. The price of wheat, the staple food in northern India, has jumped 11 percent, moving above the world market price. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the wholesale price of chicken in 2007 will be 10 percent higher on average than in 2006, the price of a dozen eggs will be up a whopping 21 percent, and milk will be 14 percent higher. And this is only the beginning. In the past, food price rises have usually been weather related and always temporary. This situation is different. As more and more

. The food and energy economies, historically separate, are now merging. In this new economy, if the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will move it into the energy economy. As the price of oil climbs so will the price of food. If oil jumps from $60 to $80 a barrel, you
fuel ethanol distilleries are built, world grain prices are starting to move up toward their oil-equivalent value in what appears to be the beginning of a long-term rise can bet that your supermarket bills will also go up. If oil climbs to $100, how much will you pay for a dozen eggs? From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank. The number of

The United Nations currently lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of these are considered failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since food aid programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half. Urban food protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political instability that would add to the growing list of failing states. At some point, spreading political instability could disrupt global economic progress. Against this backdrop, Washington is
hungry people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and the number began to rise. consumed with "ethanol euphoria." President Bush in his State of the Union address set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels, including grain-based and cellulosic ethanol, and fuel from coal. Given the current difficulties in producing cellulosic ethanol at a competitive cost and given the mounting public opposition to coal fuels, which are far more carbonintensive than gasoline, most of the fuel to meet this goal might well have to come from grain. This could take most of the U.S. grain harvest, leaving little grain to meet U.S. needs, much less those of the hundred or so countries that import grain. The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's 2 billion

millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising food prices drop their consumption below the survival level. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and Mexico. The resulting political instability could in turn disrupt the global economy, directly affecting all countries.
poorest people. The risk is that

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 57

CELLULOSIC GOOD – FOOD PRICES
Cellulosic biomass farms won’t trade-off with food. Dale 06 (Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at MSU, Bruce E. “Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy” http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F848DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf) Food versus Fuel Concerns—Some are worried that large scale production of ethanol from cellulose will reduce food supplies in a hungry world. However, the actual world situation seems quite different than this picture. Recent analysis suggests that population growth rates are declining and that world population will stabilize by mid-century. China and India, once large food importers, are now much more nearly food self sufficient. Per capita production of wheat more than tripled in China from 1960 to 2000 while rice production per capita nearly doubled. India achieved less, but still very significant, growth in per capita food production. Also, most agricultural production capacity in the developed world does not feed humans directly, but rather feeds our livestock and humans then consume the meat, milk, eggs, cheese, etc. that the animals produce. Finally, large cellulosic ethanol productions facilities (called “biorefineries”) will almost certainly coproduce animal feed just as biorefineries based on corn grain do now. Thus acreage devoted to cellulosic ethanol crops will probably produce both food and fuel.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 58

CELLULOSIC GOOD – ENVIRONMENT
Cellulosic ethanol better for the environment than corn. Food and Water Watch 07 (“The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels are Created Equal”, http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf) Given the limitations and negative impacts of corn-based ethanol, policy makers, investors, and researchers are focusing now on the second generation of biofuels— cellulosic ethanol, which comes from feedstocks like switchgrass, fast-growing trees, and agricultural residues. These cellulosic “energy crops” are superior to cornbased ethanol because they: Offer greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; Require far fewer inputs (farm equipment, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and water), thereby causing less environmental damage; Feature higher energy ratios than corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel; Have a wide range and tolerance for degraded soils, enabling them to grow on marginal lands not suitable for agricultural crops, thereby expanding the potential area for growing these plants relative to corn and soy. By extension, cellulosic crops have less potential to affect food supplies or the food economy; and Because a variety of raw materials can be used, smaller, specialized refineries will likely be built, which could in turn benefit rural economies. Cellulosic ethanol is efficient and environmentally friendly. Conkey, 2007 (Michael, Ethanol Consultant, Personal Technology Enterprises, “Conventional Ethanol vs. Cellulosic Ethanol”) The usage of the perennial switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol also bodes well for the environment and efficiency. This grass has a deep root system which helps prevents soil erosion and contributes toward soil fertility. Since it is a species native to the U.S., it is the best adapted to the climate and soils, using water efficiently and needing less pesticides and fertilizers. It can be grown in land which is unsuitable for any other sort of cash crops. New research is looking towards substituting soybeans with switchgrass for production of animal feed proteins, because one can grow more switchgrass per hectare than soybeans. This would make switchblade grass a popular option for farmers as it will have double value in terms of ethanol feedstock and affordable production of animal feed, because switchblade grass production is still to be incorporated into the U.S. agricultural system.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 59

CELLULOSIC GOOD - AG INDUSTRY
Cellulosic ethanol would be more profitable for farmers. Dale 06 (Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at MSU, Bruce E. “Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy” http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F848DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf) Background—Currently about 4 billion gallons of ethanol are derived from corn grain in the U.S. The corn ethanol industry is slated to grow rapidly under the renewable energy standard included in the 2005 energy legislation, nearly doubling from the current 4.0 billion gallons per year to approximately 7.5 billion gallons per year. Corn farmers and ethanol producers are naturally concerned about the effect of a transition to cellulosic ethanol on the profitability of their farms and ethanol plants. These worries may be ill-founded. It seems far more likely that corn farmers and corn ethanol producers will benefit much more from, rather than be harmed by a transition to cellulosic ethanol. SomeRelevantFactors—First, most farmers who produce corn for ethanol production can certainly grow biomass for cellulosic ethanol. High yielding, low input grass crops sold to the biorefinery at $50 per ton might well increase net farmer profit per acre compared with corn. Thus farmers need have no worry that they will not be able to participate in the supply side. Second, on the processing side, the existing capital investment in corn ethanol plants can probably be almost entirely recovered by converting such plants into cellulosic ethanol plants instead. Given their strategic location on rail lines, water transportation routes, etc., it is very easy to see corn ethanol plants becoming the nucleus of much larger cellulose ethanol biorefineries. One possibility is that corn ethanol plants would become the preferred location for converting solid cellulosic biomass to a liquid stream of concentrated sugars. This liquid stream would then be more easily shipped to much larger ethanol biorefineries. Cellulosic ethanol will be highly profitable for farmers. Dale 06 (Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at MSU, Bruce E. “Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy” http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F848DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf) Expanding the benefits to More Farmers—Overall, many more farmers in many more states can expect to profitably produce cellulosic biomass than can competitively grow corn for ethanol. The “grass belt” is much broader geographically than the Corn Belt. Modeling done by the University of Tennessee predicts that farmers paid $40 per ton for switchgrass would plant 28 million acres of
the crop and would produce 200 million dry tons. Obviously, they would produce even more at higher biomass prices. If farmers were to receive between $40 and $50 per ton for cellulosic biomass yielding around 8 to 10 tons per acre, their gross receipts per acre would be comparable to those for corn. These biomass yields and prices are aggressive but not unrealistic. Each $10

As cellulose ethanol processing technology matures and processing costs decline, a reasonable goal is that processing will cost about half as much as raw material, so the ethanol will cost about $0.75 per gallon to produce, or about $1.10 per gallon on an equivalent energy basis with gasoline. As farmers supply biomass for cellulosic ethanol the value of the remaining traditional crops would increase because reduced supply would generate better prices for these crop commodities. Total farmer net income would increase by well over $12 billion and these benefits would be distributed across the country with the largest increases occurring in the Plains states and the Corn Belt. Greater wealth and employment opportunities in rural America arising from cellulosic ethanol, both in crop production and the ethanol biorefineries, would benefit all farming communities, and the farmers who live there.
per ton paid for biomass translates to approximately $0.10 per gallon for the resulting ethanol so that $50 per ton for the raw material translates into $0.50 per gallon of ethanol produced.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 60

CELLULOSIC GOOD – SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE
Cellulosic ethanol solves oil dependency. Ratliff 2007 (Journalist for the New York Times, WIRED MAGAZINE: ISSUE 15.10, September, Evan, September 24, “One Molecule could Cure our Addiction to Oil”) On a blackboard, it looks so simple: Take a plant and extract the cellulose. Add some enzymes and convert the cellulose molecules into sugars. Ferment the sugar into alcohol. Then distill the alcohol into fuel. One, two, three, four — and we're powering our cars with lawn cuttings, wood chips, and prairie grasses instead of Middle East oil.
Unfortunately, passing chemistry class doesn't mean acing economics. Scientists have long known how to turn trees into ethanol, but doing it profitably is another matter. We can run our cars on lawn cuttings today; we just can't do it at a price people are willing to pay. The problem is cellulose. Found in plant cell walls, it's the most abundant naturally occurring organic molecule on the planet, a potentially limitless source of energy. But it's a tough molecule to break down. Bacteria and other microorganisms use specialized enzymes to do the job, scouring lawns, fields, and forest floors, hunting out cellulose and dining on it. Evolution has given other animals elegant ways to do the same: Cows, goats, and deer maintain a special stomach full of bugs to digest the molecule; termites harbor hundreds of unique microorganisms in their guts that help them process it. For scientists, though, figuring out how to convert cellulose into a usable form on a budget driven by gas-pump prices has been neither elegant nor easy. To tap that potential energy, they're harnessing nature's tools, tweaking them in the lab to make them work much faster than nature

While researchers work to bring down the costs of alternative energy sources, in the past two years policymakers have finally reached consensus that it's time to move past oil. The reasoning varies — reducing our dependence on unstable oilintended. producing regions, cutting greenhouse gases, avoiding ever-increasing prices — but it's clear that the US needs to replace billions of gallons of gasoline with alternative fuels, and fast. Even oil industry veteran George W. Bush has declared that "America is addicted to oil" and set a target of replacing 20 percent of the nation's annual gasoline consumption — 35 billion gallons — with renewable fuels by 2017. But how? Hydrogen is too far-out, and it's no easy task to power our cars with wind- or solar-generated electricity. The answer, then, is ethanol. Unfortunately, the ethanol we can make today — from corn kernels — is a mediocre fuel source. Corn ethanol is easier to produce than the cellulosic kind (convert the sugar to alcohol and you're basically done), but it generates at best 30 percent more energy than is required to grow and process the corn — hardly worth the trouble. Plus, the crop's fertilizer- intensive cultivation pollutes waterways, and increased demand drives up food costs (corn prices doubled last year). And anyway, the corn ethanol industry is projected to produce, at most, the equivalent of only 15 billion gallons of fuel by 2017. "We can't make 35 billion gallons' worth of gasoline out of ethanol from corn," says Dartmouth engineering and biology professor Lee Lynd, "and we probably don't want to."

Cellulosic ethanol, in theory, is a much better bet. Most of the plant species suitable for producing this kind of ethanol — like switchgrass, a fast- growing plant found throughout the Great Plains, and farmed poplar trees — aren't food crops. And according to a joint study by the US Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we can sustainably grow more than 1 billion tons of such biomass on available farmland, using minimal fertilizer. In fact, about two-thirds of what we throw into our landfills today contains cellulose and thus potential fuel. Better still: Cellulosic ethanol yields roughly 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 61

CELLULOSIC GOOD – SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE
Cellulosic ethanol insulates the U.S. from oil shocks. Dale 06 (Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at MSU, Bruce E. “Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy” http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F848DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf) As a full scale U. S. cellulosic ethanol industry takes hold and grows, it will transform our economy in at least two ways. First, the domestic fuels and chemicals industry will be revitalized, with many new jobs being created and new wealth generated. Given the wide distribution and bulky nature of biomass resources these new jobs and new wealth will largely be produced in rural America, rather than near oil production/importing sites on the coast. Second, the entire U. S. economy will benefit by a strengthened fuels and chemicals sector. We will be able to retain more of our fuel dollars at home and our economy will be much better insulated from shocks due to high petroleum prices and uncertain availability.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 62

CELLULOSIC GOOD – REDUCES EMISSIONS
Cellulosic ethanol is cheaper, produces fewer emissions and uses less land than other forms of ethanol. Technology Review 2007 (published by MIT, Feburary 26, Kevin Bullis, “Will Cellulosic Ethanol Take Off?” http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18227&a=) Cellulosic ethanol is attractive because the feedstock, which includes wheat straw, corn stover, grass, and wood chips, is cheap and abundant. Converting it into ethanol requires less fossil fuel, so it can have a bigger effect than corn ethanol on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Also, an acre of grasses or other crops grown specifically to make ethanol could produce more than two times the number of gallons of ethanol as an acre of corn, in part because the whole plant can be used instead of just the grain. That's good news because many experts estimate that corn-ethanol producers will run out of land, in part because of competing demand for corn-based food, limiting the total production to about 15 billion gallons of fuel. (Already, corn-ethanol plants--existing and planned, combined-have a capacity of about 11 billion gallons.) The greater productivity of cellulosic sources should eventually allow them to produce as much as 150 billion gallons of ethanol by 2050, according to a report by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That's the equivalent of more than two-thirds of the current gasoline consumption in the United States. Multiple studies prove that cellulosic ethanol reduces emissions substantially more than corn. Food and Water Watch 07 (“The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels are Created Equal”, http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf) Different studies have produced different figures, but corn-based ethanol consistently shows less impressive greenhouse gases emissions reductions than other biofuels. DOE numbers show that, compared to gasoline, cornbased ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent to 28 percent, while cellulosic ethanol offers a reduction of 87 percent. A 1999 report by the Argonne National Laboratory concluded that corn-based ethanol could only reduce emissions by up to 32 percent compared to gasoline, while cellulosic ethanol could attain up to 118 percent reductions. Cellulosic ethanol is easy to produce and creates substantially more energy than corn. O'Hanlon and Fales 07 (Michael and Steve, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy and Agronomist Associate Director of the Biorenewables Program, "Beyond Corn-Based Ethanol", Iowa State University, Brookings Institute, October 26, 2007, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1026_ethanol_ohanlon.aspx) Cellulosic ethanol is the real key. It is made from plant biomass — be it prairie grass (perhaps helping give Iowans their elusive third crop after corn and soybeans, as well
as permitting more arid states to contribute as well), poplar and other such soft woods, cornstalks, or even algae, depending largely on which part of the country is at issue, and its agricultural

cellulosic ethanol will require further advances in microbiology that have given rise to the kinds of enzymes needed to break down its complex structures into simpler molecules. That process is well under way. Advances will also be needed in increasing sustainable plant yields to supply enough biomass. Cellulosic ethanol may need subsidies to be economical for a time — it's a brand-new industry. But it will produce huge net benefits in terms of energy security eventually, quite likely going well beyond existing ethanol goals for 2017. Unlike its corn-based cousin, cellulosic ethanol is estimated to provide anywhere from 3 to 8 times as much as energy as is required to make it. And a great deal of land presently underutilized could be dedicated to this purpose. Materials for biofuels can be produced in virtually every region in the nation in one form or another. This will make it possible to create an industry with many players, and will foster energy security by distributing production and risk over a wide area.
advantages. To be economical, producing large amounts of

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 63

CELLOLOSIC GOOD - ECONOMY
Cellulosic ethanol will create jobs and help the economy Ostroff 08 (Jim, Associate Editor of Kiplinger Washington Editors, Kiplinger Business Forecasts, January 14, 2008, “New Energy Law Is Good For Business”, Lexis) The expansion of the cellulosic ethanol manufacturing industry should provide an economic boost to more than just those companies making the fuel. Over the next decade or so, around $100 billion will be needed to build around 200 cellulosic alcohol-making plants. The building boom will be a big plus for steel and concrete manufacturers, as well as for firms that supply the chemicals needed to turn farm wastes into fuels and the computer hardware and software that's needed to control fuel making processes. Ethanol plant construction will be a boon, too, for engineering firms such as Jaks LLC, B.G. Katz, Alico and others that will design a new generation of boilers, fermenters, distillers and other equipment. Businesses and communities should see benefits beyond the money spent to construct the new plants.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 64

CELLULOSIC GOOD - EMISSIONS
Only cellulosic ethanol can substantially reduce vehicle emissions The Washington Post 2008 (June 16, Vinod Khosla, “All Biofuels Are Not the Same”) Cellulosic biofuels offer a chance to have an environmentally meaningful impact on petroleum use while benefiting farmers, entrepreneurs and consumers. I have many investments in biofuels companies. Some say I believe in biofuels because I have invested in them. The truth is that I invest in biofuels because I believe they can help our environment, economy and national security. Just as the word "drug" can refer to aspirin or cocaine, "biofuel" refers to a variety of products that vary dramatically in their environmental impact and effects on food prices. For instance, biodiesel from food oils such as soybean or palm oil has traditionally created environmental negatives. But corn ethanol has been a stepping stone to cellulosic ethanol, a preferred alternative that is likely to achieve unsubsidized market competitiveness with oil within a few years. We face an energy crisis, an environmental crisis and a terrorism crisis all related to oil. High-cost options to reduce consumption, such as hybrid and electric cars, sound good but are unlikely to materially reduce carbon emissions. To have a meaningful impact, at least half of the next billion cars manufactured on this planet must be low-carbon. The only cost-effective option (measured in cost per ton of carbon emissions avoided or grams of carbon emissions per mile driven) likely to achieve broad market acceptance in the next 20 years is cellulosic-fuel cars.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 65

CELLULOSIC GOOD – POVERTY
Cellulosic biofuels solve food prices and poverty. The Washington Post 2008 (June 16, Vinod Khosla, “All Biofuels Are Not the Same”) For the urban poor, rising food prices are disastrous, but for the developing world's rural poor (about 67 percent of those who live on less than a dollar a day), food price increases can boost incomes as subsistence farms become more economic. That's why developing countries such as India and Brazil have pressed to reduce Western food subsidies and increase food prices -- so their farmers can generate income. Cellulosic biofuels, because of biomass's potential for raising rural incomes, may be among the most valuable poverty alleviation tools we have for Africa.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 66

CORN BAD – WATER
Corn-based ethanol destroys water resources and causes erosion – current expansion will displace 100 million acres of farmland. O'Hanlon and Fales 07 (Michael and Steve, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy and Agronomist Associate Director of the Biorenewables Program, "Beyond Corn-Based Ethanol", Iowa State University, Brookings Institute, October 26, 2007, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1026_ethanol_ohanlon.aspx) The concept of corn-based ethanol is sound — that is, up to a point. As several of the panelists, including Jerry Schnoor, Mani Subramanian, and Tonya Peeples of the University of Iowa's engineering schools, one of us, Steve Fales of Iowa State's agronomy department, and John Miranowski of Iowa State's economics department underscored, however, there are lots of downsides to pushing the corn-based ethanol concept too far. The gist of the panelists' remarks was that it should be viewed as a transitional biofuel and not the final objective in and of itself. It can help us create markets for biofuel, refineries to make it, infrastructure (like dedicated pipelines) to move it around the country, and demand for cars utilizing it. But the real breakthrough will have to be of a different type. As Jerry Schnoor emphasizes, when you put a gallon of Iowa ethanol in your flex-fuel vehicle, you're also effectively putting several pounds of Iowa topsoil into the Mississippi River and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. That is because plowing fields for annual crops inevitably creates substantial erosion — not to mention the usual pesticides and fertilizer runoff characteristic of intensive agriculture. Most of Iowa's potential farmland, about 23 million acres, is already devoted to corn and beans. The popularity of ethanol may, however, lead farmers to cultivate an additional 1 million acres now in the conservation reserve program, with associated environmental consequences. While growing corn for ethanol production in Iowa can be done without irrigation, doing so in the dryer Plains states cannot. Using modern methods, It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to grow a bushel of corn. The Plains states were already depleting their water tables unsustainably before America's recent ethanol trend took root, meaning they have little room for further expansion (in fact, they have no real capacity for expansion). Corn-based ethanol now produces more energy than is required to produce it. So its net effect on energy balances is positive and desirable. But it does require fossil energy to produce — in the form of fertilizers, diesel fuel for tractors, and more often than not the fuel to operate refineries. On average, corn ethanol only yields about 30 percent more energy than is consumed in production. This efficiency is improving all the time, but not enough to make corn ethanol the real biofuel of choice for the longer term. In addition, the United States has about 450 million acres of farmland of all types under cultivation today. Up to 100 million acres more would be needed to reach the president's goal using corn-based ethanol. It will be impractical to find that much new farmland; substantial amounts of food crops from existing farmland would have to be displaced to do so. The alternative is to use some other raw material.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 67

CORN BAD – FOOD PRICES
The current rise in corn-based ethanol production will devastate global food security. Runge and Senauer 07 (C. Ford and Benjamin, McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law and Director of the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota, Professor of Applied Economics and Co-director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/cford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html) Now, thanks to a combination of high oil prices and even more generous government subsidies, corn-based ethanol has become the rage. There were 110 ethanol refineries in operation in the United States at the end of 2006, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Many were being expanded, and another 73 were under construction. When these projects are completed, by the end of 2008, the United States' ethanol production capacity will reach an estimated 11.4 billion gallons per year. In his latest State of the Union address, President George W. Bush called on the country to produce 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year by 2017, nearly five times the level currently mandated. The push for ethanol and other biofuels has spawned an industry that depends on billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, and not only in the United States. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, of which Brazil produced 45.2 percent (from sugar cane) and the United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Global production of biodiesel (most of it in Europe), made from oilseeds, was almost one billion gallons. The industry's growth has meant that a larger and larger share of corn production is being used to feed the huge mills that produce ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol demand will bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer. The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops. This might sound like nirvana to corn producers, but it is hardly that for consumers, especially in poor developing countries, who will be hit with a double shock if both food prices and oil prices stay high. The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 68

CORN BAD – FOOD PRICES
Current uses of corn ethanol have spiked global food prices. McNulty, 2008 (June 20, Sheila, Financial Times, p.4, “US Producers Urge Ethanol Rethink”, US Energy Correspondent) US laws require that 9bn gallons of renewable fuels be blended into transport fuels in 2008. Most of this will be met using corn-based ethanol. However, the Environmental Protection Agency can waive these requirements, in whole or in part. Texas has asked for a 50 per cent waiver, citing high grain prices caused by the ethanol mandates and aggravated by recent flooding that is threatening corn production. Governor Rick Perry noted that corn prices rose 138 per cent globally over the past three years and that global food prices increased 83 per cent. "This misguided mandate is significantly affecting Texans' family food bill,'' Mr Perry said. The EPA must rule on the Texas request by July 24. In the meantime, food producers are urging the agency to consider relaxing the rules nationwide. "The beef industry has been able to hold off on increasing customer prices dramatically, but the cost of feed has now tripled and consumer prices cannot stay down forever,'' said James Herring, president and chief executive of Friona Industries, the world's fourth-largest cattle feeder. "One-third of America's corn crop is slated to become ethanol this year, but that corn could instead be used to feed people and animals and keep grocery bills from skyrocketing.'' Corn-based ethanol production strains the agricultural sector – prices are rising across the board. Runge and Senauer 07 (C. Ford and Benjamin, McKnight University Professors of Applied Economics and Law and Co-Directors of the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starvethe-poor.html) With the price of raw materials at such highs, the biofuel craze would place significant stress on other parts of the agricultural sector. In fact, it already does. In the United States, the growth of the biofuel industry has triggered increases not only in the prices of corn, oilseeds, and other grains but also in the prices of seemingly unrelated crops and products. The use of land to grow corn to feed the ethanol maw is reducing the acreage devoted to other crops. Food processors who use crops such as peas and sweet corn have been forced to pay higher prices to keep their supplies secure -- costs that will eventually be passed on to consumers. Rising feed prices are also hitting the livestock and poultry industries. According to Vernon Eidman, a professor emeritus of agribusiness management at the University of Minnesota, higher feed costs have caused returns to fall sharply, especially in the poultry and swine sectors. If returns continue to drop, production will decline, and the prices for chicken, turkey, pork, milk, and eggs will rise. A number of Iowa's pork producers could go out of business in the next few years as they are forced to compete with ethanol plants for corn supplies. Proponents of corn-based ethanol argue that acreage and yields can be increased to satisfy the rising demand for ethanol. But U.S. corn yields have been rising by a little less than two percent annually over the last ten years, and even a doubling of those gains could not meet current demand. As more acres are planted with corn, land will have to be pulled from other crops or environmentally fragile areas, such as those protected by the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program. In addition to these fundamental forces, speculative pressures have created what might be called a "biofuel mania": prices are rising because many buyers think they will. Hedge funds are making huge bets on corn and the bull market unleashed by ethanol. The biofuel mania is commandeering grain stocks with a disregard for the obvious consequences. It seems to unite powerful forces, including motorists' enthusiasm for large, fuel-inefficient vehicles and guilt over the ecological consequences of petroleum-based fuels. But even as ethanol has created opportunities for huge profits for agribusiness, speculators, and some farmers, it has upset the traditional flows of commodities and the patterns of trade and consumption both inside and outside of the agricultural sector.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 69

CORN BAD – FOOD PRICES
Biofuel increases causing a devastating rise in crop prices now. Runge and Senauer 07 (C. Ford and Benjamin, McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law and Director of the Center for International Food and
Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota, Professor of Applied Economics and Co-director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html)

The International Food Policy Research Institute, in Washington, D.C., has produced sobering estimates of the potential global impact of the rising demand for biofuels. Mark Rosegrant, an IFPRI division director, and his colleagues project that given continued high oil prices, the rapid increase in global biofuel production will push global corn prices up by 20 percent by 2010 and 41 percent by 2020. The prices of oilseeds, including soybeans, rapeseeds, and sunflower seeds, are projected to rise by 26 percent by 2010 and 76 percent by 2020, and wheat prices by 11 percent by 2010 and 30 percent by 2020. In the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where cassava is a staple, its price is expected to increase by 33 percent by 2010 and 135 percent by 2020. The projected price increases may be mitigated if crop yields increase substantially or ethanol production based on other raw materials (such as trees and grasses) becomes commercially viable. But unless biofuel policies change significantly, neither development is likely. Biofuels divert food and cause prices to skyrocket –plunging hundreds of millions into hunger. Runge and Senauer 08 (C. Ford and Benjamin, McKnight University Professors of Applied Economics and Law and Co-Directors of the Center for International Food and
Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota, "How Ethanol Fuels the Food Crisis", Foreign Affairs, May 28, 2008) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080528faupdate87376/c-ford-rungebenjamin-senauer/how-ethanol-fuels-the-food-crisis.html)

In the year since the publication of our article, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor" (May/June 2007), the average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent. What at first seemed alarmist has turned out to be an underestimate of the effects of biofuels on both commodity prices and the natural environment. These price increases are substantial threats to the welfare of consumers, especially in poor developing countries facing food deficits. They are especially burdensome to the rural landless and the urban poor, who produce no food at all. Josette Sheeran, the Executive Director of the World Food Program, calls this a global "tsunami of hunger." Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, estimates that there are 100 million newly poor and hungry people as a result of rising food prices. Although controversy remains over how much of the food price increase since 2006 can be attributed to biofuels, their effects cannot be overlooked. In 2008, 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol. Corn prices impact all food prices because they are a feedstock – without action, the problem will only get worse. Clayton 08 ("As global food costs rise, are biofuels to blame?" Mark - Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor. January 28, 2008 http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/01/28/as-globalfood-costs-rise-are-biofuels-to-blame/) Whatever the reason, prices for grains such as corn and soybeans are up. Despite a record US corn crop in fall 2007, corn prices are near a record high of about $5 a bushel in mid-January. Because corn is feedstock, higher corn prices can affect food prices. The average price of milk rose 29 percent last year, for instance, and eggs 36 percent. “More people are coming to the conclusion that there is a food-fuel link,” says Siwa Msangi of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a
Washington food-security research organization. “The historic pattern of the past, where food prices were in a long-term decline, could be at an end.” But the major reason grain prices are

biofuels play a role in higher grain prices, says Dr. Babcock. His findings are bolstered by a study last month in which Mr. Msangi’s IFPRI estimated that future biofuel expansion could increase international corn prices between 26 and 72 percent by 2020, depending on how aggressive the expansion turns out to be. Under two scenarios IFPRI examined, “the increase in crop prices resulting from expanded biofuel production was accompanied by a net decrease in the availability of … food” for the world’s poor, the study found. As prices rise, of course, producers worldwide have incentive to grow more corn or other crops, such as wheat, that might be in demand instead of corn. But that’s not happening
spiking, he and others note, is fast-rising demand for higher-quality food like meat, poultry, and dairy products by the increasingly affluent people of China and India. Still, yet. In an apparent effort to moderate food prices and quell social unrest “ which in turn curbs growers’ incentive to produce more – Russia this month is expected to place a 40 percent export tax on wheat. Argentina, too, has limited its wheat exports. “The price of corn, soybeans, and livestock feed is not going to go down,” Babcock says

. America’s new energy bill

“pretty much guarantees that feed costs and land rent are going to stay high.”

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 70

CORN BAD – FOOD PRICES
Rising food prices are devastating the third world – food riots are erupting. Curry 08 (Tom, MSNBC Political Correspondent and National Affairs Writer, March 14, 2008, “Why your food is costing more money: Wheat, corn and soybean prices are surging; is ethanol to blame?”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23632933/) Last week, in a speech to the European Parliament Development Committee, Josette Sheeran, the Executive Director of the UN World Food Program, said her agency now faces a $500 million shortfall “just due to soaring food and fuel costs — up more than 40 percent since (last) June — which will lead to ration cuts unless we receive additional help soon.” She added that “high food prices have created an urgent situation throughout many developing countries and have directly hit WFP’s ability to respond to those needs.” Sheeran noted that in some countries food was available, but cost too much for the poor to buy it, or, as she put it “markets full of food with scores of people simply unable to afford it. These conditions have triggered food riots from Cameroon to Burkina Faso to Indonesia to Mexico and beyond.” Food, she reminded the European Parliament, is a geostrategic issue, just as oil is. “This challenge may be one of the most critical peace and security issues of our time. Fragile democracies are feeling the pressure of food insecurity; food riots have erupted throughout the globe,” she said. Continued use of corn-based ethanol will cause food prices to skyrocket. Goldman 08 (David, CNNMoney staff writer, June 27, 2008, “Food Price Spike: Is Ethanol to Blame?”, http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/ethanol_food_prices/) Critics of the program argue that a corn shortage could be exacerbated by the government's demand for ethanol, thus raising food prices even further for consumers. "A lot depends on how badly this weather has devastated the corn crop," said Thomas Elam, an agricultural economist at Indiana University who was commissioned by the Balanced Food and Fuel Coalition to release a study on the matter. "A smaller crop will be devastating to meat, dairy, and poultry producers if the Renewable Fuels Standard is maintained, and consumers will suffer as food and fuel costs rise." About 5% of the world's corn supply goes to producing bio fuels - representing a whopping three years of growth in typical crop production, according to Elam. "Corn will have to go to at least $8 a bushel to squeeze out enough food use to keep up with corn for ethanol," he said. "Food prices will be significantly impacted by corn if RFS goes to 10.5 billion gallons for 2009." How significantly? Collins said food costs could rise 23% to 35% above the normal annual inflation rate of 2.5% over the next two to three years if the RFS mandates are not reduced. Elam said food price inflation rate could go as high as 7% without a mandate reduction. The USDA also maintains ethanol has an impact on food prices, even if it is an indirect link. "Higher ethanol production definitely and directly raises the price of corn," said USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag. "Higher corn prices have an impact on food prices on the retail level." By contrast, if the government were to reduce the RFS by just half, both Elam and Collins agree that corn prices would fall $2 a bushel, which could save more than $9 billion in feed and food costs.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 71

CORN BAD – UNSUSTAINABLE
Corn ethanol is not sustainable because of its high environmental costs. Pimental 2008 (Professor of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Entomology and Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, “Food, Energy, and Society” p317) Some of the economic and energy contributions of the by-products mentioned earlier are negated by the environmental pollution costs associated with ethanol production. These are estimated to be more than 6cents/L of ethanol produced (Pimentel, 2003). U.S. corn production causes more total soil erosion than any other U.S. crop (Pimentel et al., 1995; NAS, 2003). In addition, corn production uses more herbicides and insecticides than any other crop produced in the United States thereby causing more water pollution than any other crop (NAS, 2003). Further, corn production uses more nitrogen fertilizer than any crop produced and therefore is a major contributor to ground water and river water pollution (NAS, 2003). In some western irrigated corn acreage, for instance, in some regions of Arizona, ground water is being pumped 10 times faster than the natural recharge of aquifers (Pimentel et al. 2004b). All these factors suggest that the environmental system in which U.S. corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Further, it substantiates the conclusion that the U.S. corn production system is not environmentally sustainable now or for the future, unless major changes are made in the cultivation of this major food/feed crop. Corn is a raw material for ethanol production, but cannot be considered to provide a renewable energy source.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 72

CORN BAD - ENVIRONMENT
Corn-based ethanol is inefficient and causes massive environmental harm Cornell News, 2003 (“Cornell critic of subsidies for corn-based ethanol renews charges about high costs, inefficiency and environmental harm” http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug03/ethanol_subsidies.hrs.html August 1) Cornell Professor of Ecology David Pimentel makes the claim in the latest issue of the journal Natural Resources Research (Vol. 12, No. 2). The dubious economics of corn-based ethanol, Pimentel writes, are threefold: In general gasohol is priced higher at the pump than gasoline yet yields poorer mileage per gallon. Taxpayers are the source of $1.4 billion a year in subsidies that help make ethanol production profitable for agribusiness firms. In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, says Pimentel, consumers can be expected to pay significantly higher food prices in the market place. Why? He cites the National Center for Policy Analysis' 2002 estimate that ethanol production is adding more than $1 billion to the cost of beef production. This, he says, is because producing the required corn feedstock for ethanol reduces the overall corn supply, adding about 2 cents a bushel to the price farmers receive for their corn, by his calculation. "Because about 70 percent of the corn grain is fed to U.S. livestock, doubling or tripling ethanol production can be expected to increase corn prices further for beef and livestock production and ultimately increase costs for the consumer," Pimentel states. "Most of us wouldn't mind paying a premium for a homegrown fuel that's truly efficient, environmentally friendly and renewable," Pimentel said in an interview. "But ethanol from corn is none of those." Making a gallon of ethanol from corn, he calculates, requires about 29 percent more energy -- from fossil fuels -- than a gallon of ethanol can provide. At the same time, he said, ethanol has only two-thirds the energy content of the same volume of gasoline. Also, he noted, "Corn farming takes a terrible toll on the environment -- it causes more soil erosion and requires more insecticides, herbicides and nitrogen fertilizer than any other crop. And every gallon of ethanol produced results in 13 gallons of effluent pollution." Said Pimentel, "I can't call that renewable."

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 73

CORN BAD - BIODIVERSITY
Corn crowds out critical wildlife and causes soil erosion. Breining, 2007 (Greg, January 11, University of Minnesota Magazine, Jan-Feb issue, “Five Reasons Corn Ethanol Won’t Save the Planet”, Breining writes for several publications, including the New York Times, National Geographic Traveler, and Wildlife Conservation.) During the last half-century, agricultural fields have become bigger, obliterating the wetlands and biodiverse landscape that once characterized rural areas. As all but the rockiest, steepest, or wettest land was cultivated, 99 percent of our native prairie disappeared and all but a fraction of our original wetlands were drained. Many prairie species, especially birds, became rare or endangered. In Illinois, for example, seven species of grassland birds, including upland sandpipers, meadowlarks, and several species of sparrows, declined more than 90 percent between the late 1950s and the mid-1980s. Game species, such as ducks and pheasants, have also suffered. In recent decades, the federal government has rented land from farmers across the United States, especially highly erodible land, through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). These set-aside acres are planted with native grasses and trees and slowly restored. Since the program began, CRP lands have showed impressive increases in grassland birds such as bobolink and dickcissel. In one study in Iowa, the number of pheasants increased 13-fold on CRP lands. But as a burgeoning ethanol program boosts demand for corn, crop prices are predicted to rise. As they do, Tiffany says, farmers will be tempted to pull their acres out of CRP and put them back into production. In fact, the National Grain and Feed Association recently asked a U.S. House Agriculture Committee to alter CRP to free up more farmland to raise crops for a burgeoning biofuels industry.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 74

CORN BAD – KILLER FERTILIZERS
Corn production requires massive amounts of fertilizer, killing infants and fish. Breining, 2007 (Greg, January 11, University of Minnesota Magazine, Jan-Feb issue, “Five Reasons Corn Ethanol Won’t Save the Planet”, Breining writes for several publications, including the New York Times, National Geographic Traveler, and Wildlife Conservation.) Corn hungers for high-nitrogen fertilizers. It thirsts for water, including from ancient aquifers. And it’s addicted to chemicals. None of these conditions are good for the environment. Corn requires heavy doses of fertilizer—an average of 135 pounds of nitrogen spread on every acre—as well as phosphorus and phosphate. Corn accounts for nearly half of the crop nutrient use in the nation; nothing else comes close. Corn also requires heavy applications of herbicides and insecticides; corn makes up approximately a quarter of the acres of crops planted in the United States but accounts for nearly two-thirds of total herbicide use. Trouble is, these chemicals don’t stay put. Excess nitrogen leaches into the groundwater, posing potentially fatal hazards to infants. Pesticides pollute nearby lakes and streams, killing fish such as smallmouth bass. Runoff of soil and phosphorus causes algae blooms in nearby lakes. Nitrogen and phosphorus from the Midwest Farm Belt flow down the Mississippi River, feeding algae growth and decomposition that create “hypoxia”—an oxygen-depleted “dead zone” roughly the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 75

CORN BAD - EMISSIONS
Corn-based ethanol releases more CO2 than fossil fuels. Landrith, ’07 (George, President of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, “Ethanol Produces More Greenhouse Gases than Fossil Fuels!,” Frontiers of Freedom Institute, September 24, http://www.ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=67, Accessed 06-30-08) It is now almost universally accepted in some circles that bio-fuels such as ethanol are the answer to America’s energy woes. Additionally, many ethanol enthusiasts have said that use of ethanol rather than fossil fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions which global warming adherents believe may cause climate change. Yet, a new study conducted at University of Edinburgh concludes that ethanol actually produces substantially more greenhouse gas than fossil fuels. Nowhere is this trend towards ethanol as the answer more obvious than in the United States where policy makers have recently made a dramatic shift towards corn-based ethanol. They have mandated more ethanol and heavily subsidized its production at taxpayer expense -- on the assumption that it will reduce our need for oil and reduce greenhouse gases all at the same time. Just one problem -- it won’t reduce greenhouse gases, but rather increases them. And it is doubtful that corn-based ethanol is at this time an economically viable energy solution. If it were viable, it would not have required taxpayer subsidies for the past 30 years. The University of Edinburgh study concludes that ethanol made from corn produces up to 50 percent more green house gases than fossil fuels. And ethanol made from rapeseed produces up to 70 percent more green house gases than fossil fuels. (Rapeseed is also the source from which canola oil is made.) Both corn-based and rapeseed-based ethanol produced high levels of nitrous oxide, twice as much as previously believed, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide -- a gas naturally “exhaled” by plants and produced in combustion of fossil fuels.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 76

OIL BAD - AFRICAN MILITARIZATION
Oil dependence motivates imperialism in Africa and the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. Juhasz, June 17 (“AFRI(OIL)COM”, Foreign Policy in Focus, Antonia Juhasz, Foreign Policy In Focus policy analyst, Associate Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, and Fellow with Oil Change International, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5301, Accessed 06-23-08) In recognition of "the emerging strategic importance of Africa," in February 2007 President Bush ordered the creation of AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command. AFRICOM, like CENTCOM (Central Command) and EUCOM (European Command), centralizes all authority for the U.S. military operating in the African region under one command structure. AFRICOM also transfers many duties that previously belonged to nonmilitary US agencies – such as building schools and digging wells – to the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. While fighting terrorism in Africa is the primary reason given for the establishment of AFRICOM, oil appears to be the more pressing motivator. "A key mission for U.S. forces [in Africa] would be to insure that Nigeria’s oilfields, which in the future could account for as much as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure," explains General Charles Wald, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe in an interview with Wall Street Journal writer Greg Jaffe. To secure and maintain access to oil – if not for the nation, then most certainly for our oil companies – the Bush administration has increasingly turned toward the U.S. military. Author Kevin Phillips coined the term "petrolimperialism" to describe the Bush administration’s policies in this regard, "the key aspect of which is the U.S. military’s transformation into a global oil protection force." Under the rubric of the Global War on Terror, the Bush administration has implemented the greatest realignment of U.S. forces since the end of the Cold War. With a map of Big Oil’s overseas operations, the world’s remaining oil reserves, and oil transport routes, one can now track the realignment and predict future deployments of the U.S. military.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 77

OIL BAD - AFRICAN MILITARIZATION IMPACTS
African militarization causes backlash and destroys relations with African countries. Makinda, 07 (Samuel Makinda, CSIS Africa Policy Forum. “Why AFRICOM Has Not Won Over Africans” http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=72) Perhaps AFRICOM has a contribution to make in helping Africa achieve these objectives, but if so, this has not been explained by American officials. Rather than a clear vision, U.S. officials have painted a confusing picture of an organization that seemingly plans to mix economic development and governance promotion activities, heretofore the responsibility of civilian agencies, with military activities. Africans, given the history of military coups that once plagued the continent, tend to regard this militarization of civilian space with great misgivings. Yet spokespeople for AFRICOM continue to speak of the inclusion of experts from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other civilian agencies in AFRICOM as if it were a virtue. Why have U.S. officials insisted that the command’s role would include addressing such issues as political instability, human rights abuses, good governance, poverty alleviation, the building of health clinics and schools, and the digging of wells? These issues represent serious challenges in Africa, but a cross-section of people believe the military should be used to tackle them only in cases of emergency. Proposing them as long-term goals of the new combatant command has given the impression that the United States does not fully understand the concerns of Africans. It has also opened the way for critics to suggest that the American government’s good governance, development, and security rationales for a military command are a smokescreen intended to hide other and possibly nefarious objectives for AFRICOM. Africans know that the militarization of political and economic space by African military leaders has been one of the factors that has held Africa back for decades. While African states are trying to put the culture of military rule behind them, the United States appears determined to demonstrate that most civilian activities in Africa should be undertaken by armed forces. To some African policy makers, this suggests that the U.S. Government lacks sympathy for what Africans so deeply want today, namely democratic systems in which the armed forces remain in the barracks. Relations with African countries are key to hegemony. Pham, 07 (Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. J. Peter, “America in Africa: Securing U.S. Interests and Promoting a Continent’s Development”, http://www.jmu.edu/nelsoninstitute/America_in_Africa.pdf) U.S. foreign policy should acknowledge the importance of Africa in the realm of global multilateral diplomacy. On a bilateral, state-to-state level, and within the realm of intergovernmental organizations, African states are more crucial in generating support than ever. It is often forgotten that Sub-Saharan African states count for 41 votes in the UN General Assembly. The Republic of Congo, Ghana, and South Africa all currently hold temporary seats on the UN Security Council. In trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization African states count for a third of the votes. Such a pool of states provides diplomatic opportunities for the United States within the framework of these institutions. The African Union as an organization is growing and trying to expand its legitimacy, modeling many of its still forming institutions after aspects of the European Union. Yet in the AU the United States has a consolidated contact point for diplomatic initiatives for security and economic related programs. Taken into account at an international level, winning African support will be key for international support for U.S. global action in the future.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 78

OIL BAD – AMAZON DEFORESTATION
High oil prices lead to Amazonian deforestation in search of biofuels – the result is extinction. Brown 06 (Lester, President of the Earth Policy Institute, July-August 2006, The Futurist vol. 40, “Rescuing a Planet under Stress: The President of the Earth Policy Institute Explains How to Put the World Economy Back on a Stable Ecological Footing”, accessed on Questia) Aside from the prospective use of cellulose, current and planned ethanol-producing operations use food crops such as sugarcane, sugar beets, corn, wheat, and barley. The United States, for example, in 2004 used 32 million tons of corn to produce 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol. Although this is scarcely 12% of the huge U.S. corn crop, it is enough to feed 100 million people at average world grain-consumption levels. Governments support biofuel production because of concerns about climate change and a possible shrinkage in the flow of imported oil. Since substituting biofuels for gasoline reduces carbon emissions, governments see this as a way to meet their carbon-reduction goals. Biofuels also have a domestic economic appeal, partly because locally produced fuel creates jobs and keeps money within the country. The benefits of ethanol over conventional petroleum are numerous, but if allowed to develop unwisely, the burgeoning global ethanol industry could cause as much ecological disruption as it repairs. In an oilshort world, what will be the economic and environmental effects of agriculture's emergence as a producer of transport fuels? Agriculture's role in the global economy clearly will be strengthened as it faces a vast, virtually unlimited market for automotive fuel. Tropical and subtropical countries that can produce sugarcane or palm oil will be able to fully exploit their year-round growing conditions, giving them a strong advantage in the world market. With biofuel production spreading, the world price for oil will, in effect, become a support price for farm products. If food and feed crop prices are weak and oil prices are high, commodities will go to fuel producers. For example, vegetable oils trading on European markets on any given day may end up in either supermarkets or service stations. The risk is that economic pressures to clear land for expanding sugarcane production in the Brazilian cerrado and Amazon basin and for palm oil plantations in countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia will pose a major threat to plant and animal diversity. In the absence of governmental constraints, the rising price of oil could quickly become the leading threat to biodiversity, ensuring that the wave of extinctions now under way does indeed become the sixth great extinction.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 79

OIL BAD – MIDDLE EAST FAILURE
Switch to alternative energy is key- dependency on foreign oil means creates failed foreign policy in the Middle East. Parmley, 06 (Julia Parmley-writes for University of Delaware newspaper, April 6 2006, "U.S must end dependency on oil, experts say," http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/apr/global040606.html). Depending on volatile countries in the Middle East for oil poses a threat to national security, Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, said Wednesday evening, April 5, during a Global Agenda series lecture at UD. “The reality is most of the world's oil is concentrated in areas and countries that are unstable, corrupt, dictatorial and, in some cases, deeply resentful of the United States,” he said. “Seventy-one percent of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of Muslim countries at a time in which our relationship with the Muslim world is at an alltime low.” In his lecture, Luft said lack of oil in the U.S. increases its dependency on other countries. Although the U.S. possesses only 3 percent of the world's oil, it consumes 25 percent. Luft, co-chairperson of the Set America Free Coalition, said the U.S. is supporting terrorism by paying Middle Eastern countries for their oil. “We are funding those countries that are the richest proliferators of radical Islam,” he said. “We are fighting the war on terrorism, and we are paying for both sides of the war. On one hand, we are sending our troops and daughters all over the world to fight for freedom and democracy. At the same time, every time we arrive into a gas station, we end up sending dollars and cents to those who don't like us.” Luft: “Sixty percent of our oil is coming from abroad, and this figure is growing by the day.” Luft said the U.S. cannot win the war on terror while relying so heavily on the Middle East. “I do not think we can meet these goals as long as we are dependent on oil, to the degree that we are today,” he said. “Sixty percent of our oil is coming from abroad, and this figure is growing by the day.” Luft said terrorists are targeting the U.S. through oil pipeline sabotage. More than 1.5 billion barrels of oil have been lost as a result of sabotage. Luft also said the U.S. could be exhausting the reserve of cheap oil and that oil prices could rise in the next five years. The U.S. needs to find alternatives to oil, Luft said. Instead of gasoline, flexible fuels--such as ethanol, methane and electricity--can be used to power cars, he said. Noting that it could take 20 years to replace an oil-dependent economy, Luft said that it is critical to the country's safety and prosperity to begin the transformation now. “Everyday we delay the beginning of the process is one more day, in the future, we will have to be under severe adversity,” he said. Luft said the U.S. should take the lead in lessening its dependence on oil and that other countries will follow.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 80

OIL BAD – LOSE WAR TO CHINA
US freedom from oil dependence will give us a crucial edge in a confrontation with China. Howley, June 13, 2008 (John, energy policy consultant, “Oil Insecurity: America’s Choice” Dissent Magazine, http://dissentmag.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/oil-insecurity-americas-choice/) China is not only an emerging economic competitor to the U.S. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, only China has the potential to become a military rival of the U.S. With its growing technological capacity, large population, and rapid industrial growth, China eventually will have the potential to assert its power militarily in East Asia and to challenge U.S. military dominance there, if it chooses to do so. However, China has an “Achilles’ heel”: it does not have the large petroleum reserves it needs to fuel its rising economic power. In 2003, China imported 35 percent of its petroleum needs; by 2025, China’s overall demand for oil is expected to almost double, and it will need to import more than three-fourths of its needs (8.6 mb/d) Like the U.S., China is looking to the Middle East for its future supply while also scouring the world from Africa to the Caspian Basin to Russia. However, China’s dependence on imported oil will leave it strategically vulnerable in a military confrontation with the U.S.-a fact that is likely of key interest for military planners in both countries. The U.S. military currently dominates the sea lanes and skies.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 81

OIL BAD – HURTS US-SINO RELATIONS
Oil dependence hurts U.S.-Sino relations – competition over oil exacerbates differences on foreign policy issues. Downs, 2006 (“How Oil Fuels U.S.-Sino Fires,” The Brookings Institute, Erica S. Downs, China Energy Fellow at the Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0904china_downs.aspx, Accessed 06-23-08) The emergence of China over the past decade as a major importer of oil has catapulted energy toward the top of the list of issues -- up there with trade and Taiwan -- that are major sources of friction in Sino-American relations. China's rapidly rising demand for energy is stoking anxiety in Washington that there is not enough oil in the world to satisfy the appetites both of America's 300 million gas-guzzling citizens and of 1.3 billion Chinese. In turn, America's unease has raised concerns in Beijing that the U.S. might deny China access to the oil it needs for continued economic growth. Much has been made over this looming fight. Yet the real conflict brewing between the two powers isn't because of direct competition for physical barrels of crude, but rather because oil is inextricably linked to other foreign policy issues on which Beijing and Washington don't see eye to eye. Oil's increasing role in China's foreign policy reflects a surging demand. China is second only to the U.S. in world consumption, and it's No. 3 in imports, following the U.S. and Japan. Its demand has more than doubled in the past decade. China consumes 7 million barrels a day, one-third the U.S. level, and it imports 3.3 million bbl. a day, one-quarter the U.S. level. But the International Energy Agency projects Chinese demand in 2011 will be 9.1 million bbl. a day, with imports of 5.3 million bbl. China's growing domestic oil deficit has prompted it to follow in the footsteps of other major importers to ensure access to oil. China is diversifying its suppliers, encouraging its national oil companies to acquire assets abroad, and cultivating closer diplomatic relations with exporting nations. Although these are moves long employed by other countries, their adoption by China has sounded alarm bells in Washington. (Remember the furor over CNOOC's ill-fated bid for Unocal last year?) The two most prominent spots where China's search for oil collides with American interests are the Sudan (the largest source of foreign production for Chinese companies) and Iran (China's No. 3 supplier of crude imports). While Washington sees a major power using its permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council to frustrate efforts to halt genocide in Darfur and to slow international action to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, Beijing sees international policies of limited efficacy that might jeopardize its oil supply. So far, China has weighed its oil interests against the interests of the international community on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Sudan, the scales have tipped in favor of oil. Beijing weakened the language of at least one Security Council resolution to punish the Sudanese government for the atrocities in Darfur, but recently agreed to the deployment of U.N. forces there if supported by the African Union. In the case of Iran, which requires balancing competing interests such as oil, regional stability, and the Sino-American relationship, Beijing has sided with the international community to date. China voted as a member of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in February, under pressure from Washington, to report the Iran nuclear issue to the U.N. and supported the July 31 Security Council resolution threatening sanctions if Iran does not halt uranium enrichment. However, deeper energy ties to Iran (the No. 2 holder of global oil and gas reserves) might tempt Beijing to tip the scales in the other direction. Indeed, the risk for Washington is that China's growing dependence on imported oil will increasingly prompt Beijing to give higher priority to oil than to international issues such as the protection of human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and good governance. The perception of peak oil exacerbate tensions with great powers – like China. Yetiv, June 24, 2008 (Steve, The Virginian Pilot “Calculating Peak oil’s due date” Lexis) Fears about peak oil could also exacerbate tensions among great powers. For example, note China's obsessive concern about energy and Washington's growing concern about China's rising power. Imagine how tense Sino-U.S. relations could become against the backdrop of dwindling oil supplies or even the rising perception of such dwindling supplies.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 82

OIL BAD - CHINA IMPACTS
US-China relations key to prevent war over Taiwan. Kerr, 99 (Paul, research analyst at the Arms Control Association. “Taiwan: Maintain the Current Ambiguity,” CSIS Prospectus, Fall 1999. http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/99FallKerr.html) Stable U.S.-China relations can also help prevent Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. The bottom line is whether or not Beijing can be persuaded to accept the status quo between the two countries. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan inextricably links relations between Taipei and Beijing to the relationship between Beijing and Washington. If the PRC perceives other areas of its relationship with the United States to be strong, such as U.S.-China trade and negotiations over China's membership in the WTO, it has less incentive to disrupt the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Provocative U.S. actions may lead Beijing to believe that it has little to gain by maintaining peaceful relations with the United States. That causes global war and extinction. Straits Times, 00 (“No one gains in war over Taiwan.” 6-25-00. avail. Lexis) THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the
Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a

China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. MajorGeneral Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.
war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 83

OIL BAD - CHINA IMPACTS
US-Sino relations solve multiple scenarios for nuclear war and environmental destruction. Desperes, 01 (John Desperes, Fellow, RAND Corporation. “China, the United States, and the Global Economy.” p. 227-8 Indeed, U.S.-Chinese relations have been consistently driven by strong common interests in preventing mutually damaging wars in Asia that could involve nuclear weapons; in ensuring that Taiwan's relations with the mainland remain peaceful; in sustaining the growth of the U.S., China, and other Asian-Pacific economies; and, in preserving natural environments that sustain healthy and productive lives. What happens in China matters to Americans. It affects America's prosperity. China's growing economy is a valuable market to many workers, farmers, and businesses across America, not just to large multinational firms like Boeing, Microsoft, and Motorola, and it could become much more valuable by opening its markets further. China also affects America's security. It could either help to stabilize or destabilize currently peaceful but sometimes tense and dangerous situations in Korea, where U.S. troops are on the front line; in the Taiwan Straits, where U.S. democratic values and strategic credibility may be at stake; and in nuclear-armed South Asia, where renewed warfare could lead to terrible consequences. It also affects America's environment. Indeed, how China meets its rising energy needs and protects its dwindling habitats will affect the global atmosphere and currently endangered species. US-Sino cooperation solves proliferation, environmental destruction, and disease. American Assembly, 98 (“China - U.S. Relations in the Twenty-First Century - After Two Summits, Goals for the 21st Century: Phase III.” http://www.americanassembly.org/programs.dir/prog_display_ind_pg.php?this_filename_prefix=china_us_3&this_i nd_prog_pg_filename=report) China and the United States will be cooperating to resolve the serious global problems that increasingly threaten our planet, such as environmental degradation, inefficient energy use, spread of communicable diseases, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Still many difficulties must be overcome to achieve this vision. It will require constant and regular high-level dialogue, the gradual accumulation of trust between Beijing and Washington through greater transparency and frank discussion of differences, and enhanced sensitivity to each other's concerns. Cooperation on such diverse contemporary issues as Korea, nuclear proliferation, the Asian economic recession, U.S.-China trade imbalances, and environmental protection should be seen as building blocks in the formation of the larger objective. Addressing such issues together nurtures the requisite habits of cooperation. US-Sino relations solve terrorism, proliferation, disease, war, and the economy. Wenzhong, 04 (Zhou Wenzhong, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2-7-04. “Vigorously Pushing Forward the Constructive and Cooperative Relationship Between China and the United States,” http://chinajapan21.org/eng/zxxx/t64286.htm) China's development needs a peaceful international environment, particularly in its periphery. We will continue to play a constructive role in global and regional affairs and sincerely look forward to amicable coexistence and friendly cooperation with all other countries, the United States included. We will continue to push for goodneighborliness, friendship and partnership and dedicate ourselves to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Thus China's development will also mean stronger prospect of peace in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large. China and the US should, and can, work together for peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Given the highly
complementary nature of the two economies,China's reform, opening up and rising economic size have opened broad horizon for sustained China-US trade and economic cooperation. By deepening our commercial partnership, which has already delivered tangible benefits to the two peoples, we can do still more and also make greater contribution to global economic stability and

Terrorism, cross-boundary crime, proliferation of advanced weapons, and spread of deadly diseases pose a common threat to mankind. China and the US have extensive shared stake and common responsibility for meeting these challenges, maintaining world peace and security and addressing other major issues bearing on human survival and development. China is ready to keep up its coordination and cooperation in these areas with the US and the rest of the international community.
prosperity.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 84

OIL BAD – SUPPORTS CORRUPT REGIMES
America’s dependence on foreign oil promotes corrupt regimes. McCain, 08 ( John, Senator, Speech delivered in Huston, Texas, June 17, lexis) Even if our economy were somehow immune to this threat, the vast wealth we shift to the Middle East, Venezuela, Angola, and elsewhere would still have a third harmful and perverse effect. It would continue to enrich undemocratic, unjust, and often corrupt regimes. Some of the most oil-rich nations are also the most stagnant societies on earth. And among the many luxuries their oil wealth affords them is the luxury of ignoring their own people. In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere. We cannot allow the world's greatest democracy to be complicit in such corruption and injustice. America's most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power -- so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy. Oil dependence makes freedom impossible – petro-tyrannies oppress their citizens and the U.S. has increasingly curtained civil rights in the name of counterterrorism Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 251) The enemy's control of the global oil supply is a threat to the freedom of all people around the world. Indeed, the worst victims are the populations of the petrotyrannies themselves, for by giving their governments unlimited expense accounts, it endows the powerful with the ability to trample their subjects at will. Gifts make slaves. In European history, the acquisition of vast unearned New World treasure by Spain led to the degradation of the enterprising classes and caused the abortion of the development of representative institutions in that country. In contrast, the need of England to develop its sources of revenue through commerce and manufacturing forced the British monarchy to consult with Parliament and enact measures suitable for growing the productive powers of the nation. Similarly, in the Middle East today, those nations with the least oil have the most literacy, education, and freedom. The people of Arabia will never be free so long as their rulers have no need of their human capacities. The enemy control of oil also threatens our own freedom, in three different ways. On the one hand, there are those who would use the need to counter the oil cartel as a pretext to demand measures of economic strangulation, thereby furthering their quest to expand state power at the expense of the individual. On another, there are those who would respond to the perils posed by the terrorists funded by the enemy oil with ever more intrusive police actions. The Bush administration has already begun to enact measures along such lines, and more will certainly follow, regardless of who is in power, if the terror attacks are allowed to continue. It is an axiom of political science that liberty will not thrive in a state of siege.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 85

OIL BAD – UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
Dependence on foreign oil restricts foreign policy – fuels conflict and trades off with democracy promotion, human rights protection, and economic development. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 207-208) The most substantial U.S, responses to the economic costs and risks of foreign oil dependence have taken the form of foreign and military policies toward actual or potential oil producing regions and states. These policies have been intended to reduce the size and risk of potential oil supply disruptions and price shocks and, more generally, to ensure reliable access to foreign oil supplies at reasonable prices for the United States and its economic and security partners, Overall, these external policies appear to have enjoyed at least some success in helping to stabilize world oil supplies, Certainly, the last two [end page 207] and a half decades have seen nothing like the oil shocks of the 1970s, although this favorable record can also be attributed at least in part to changes in the global oil market. Nevertheless, these foreign and military policies have also imposed substantial costs, which are much larger than most people have realized. American diplomacy and various forms of military and economic assistance aimed at strengthening and influencing the policies of oil producing states have involved additional financial expenditures. Perhaps even more important, U.S. foreign policy has also entailed numerous intangible costs. These have included reduced freedom of action and a reluctance to pursue other valued foreign policy goals, such as the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights, good governance, and economic development, where they have conflicted with oil-related interests. The costs have also taken the form of increased entanglement, or risk thereof, in local and regional conflict. Such costs have been most prominent in the Persian Gulf, but they have been increasingly present in other regions, such as the Gulf of Guinea and the Caspian Sea (sec Chapter 6). United States oil dependence undermines democracy and supports oppressive regimes – oil wealth diffuses democratic pressure and secures military loyalty. Sandalow, 2008 (Freedom From Oil, David B. Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the Energy and Climate Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative, McGrawHill: New York, New York, 2008. p. 25) Fourth, oil dependence undermines democracy and good governance around the world. Oil wealth corrodes democratic institutions. This dynamic is not inevitable, but it is widespread. A growing body of scholarly work explores this topic, concluding that oil wealth is strongly associated with corruption and authoritarian rule." A few examples underscore this trend. Bahrain, the Persian Gulf country with the smallest oil reserves, was also the first to hold free elections. 14 As oil prices climbed in recent years, both Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez moved away from democratic institutions and toward more authoritarian rule. In Nigeria, oil abundance contributes to widespread corruption. Several explanations have been offered. Oil-rich leaders can diffuse democratic pressure with low taxes and generous payments. They can use wealth to command the loyalty of internal security forces, stifling any democratic pressures that emerge. Income generated by exporting oil appreciates a country's currency, pricing out other local goods on the international market and further deepening the country's reliance on the income from the natural resource. Meanwhile, exports of oil do not create the skills or social patterns that lead to a vibrant middle class and, in turn, to democracy. 15 Our dependence on oil, and in particular our consumption each year of more than 25% of global production, plays a central role in perpetuating these trends. Without the United States as a major consumer, prices for oil would drop and democratic pressures would grow in many countries around the world.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 86

OIL BAD – UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
Oil dependence undermines democracy and good governance worldwide. Sandalow, 2007 (David B., “Freedom from Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States’ Oil Addiction”, McGraw Hill, Sandalow is a Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute and former assistant secretary of state and senior director on the National Security Council staff) Oil wealth corrodes democratic institutions. This dynamic is not inevitable, but it is widespread. A growing body of scholarly work explores this topic, concluding that oil wealth is strongly associated with corruption and authoritarian rule. A few examples underscore this trend. Bahrain, the Persian Gulf country with the smallest oil reserves, was also the first to hold free elections. As oil prices climbed in recent years, both Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez moved away from democratic institutions and toward more authoritarian rule. In Nigeria, oil abundance contributes to widespread corruption. Several explanations have been offered. Oil-rich leaders can diffuse democratic pressure with low taxes and generous payments. They can use wealth to command the loyalty of internal security forces, stifling any democratic pressures that emerge. Income generated by exporting oil appreciates a country’s currency, pricing out other local goods on the international market and further deepening the country’s reliance on the income from the natural resource. Meanwhile, exports of oil do not create the skills or social patterns that lead to a vibrant middle class and, in turn, to democracy.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 87

OIL BAD – UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
High oil prices undermine democracy in oil producers – it allows the government to ignore public opinion Friedman, ’06 (Thomas L., columnist for the New York Times, “The First Law of Petropolitics,” Foreign Policy, May/June, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3426&print=1, 07-01-08) The First Law of Petropolitics posits the following: The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states. According to the First Law of Petropolitics, the higher the average global crude oil price rises, the more free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, and independent political parties are eroded. And these negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less petrolist leaders are sensitive to what the world thinks or says about them. Conversely, according to the First Law of Petropolitics, the lower the price of oil, the more petrolist countries are forced to move toward a political system and a society that is more transparent, more sensitive to opposition voices, and more focused on building the legal and educational structures that will maximize their people’s ability, both men’s and women’s, to compete, start new companies, and attract investments from abroad. The lower the price of crude oil falls, the more petrolist leaders are sensitive to what outside forces think of them. High oil prices prevent democratization in producer countries – it allows the government to pay off special interest groups and increase authoritarian security regimes Friedman, ’06 (Thomas L., columnist for the New York Times, “The First Law of Petropolitics,” Foreign Policy, May/June, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3426&print=1, 07-01-08) The second mechanism through which oil dampens democratization, argues Ross, is the “spending effect.” Oil wealth leads to greater patronage spending, which in turn dampens pressures for democratization. The third mechanism he cites is the “group formation effect.” When oil revenues provide an authoritarian state with a cash windfall, the government can use its newfound wealth to prevent independent social groups—precisely those most inclined to demand political rights—from forming. In addition, he argues, an overabundance of oil revenues can create a “repression effect,” because it allows governments to spend excessively on police, internal security, and intelligence forces that can be used to choke democratic movements. Finally, Ross sees a “modernization effect” at work. A massive influx of oil wealth can diminish social pressures for occupational specialization, urbanization, and the securing of higher levels of education—trends that normally accompany broad economic development and that also produce a public that is more articulate, better able to organize, bargain, and communicate, and endowed with economic power centers of its own. The First Law of Petropolitics tries to build on such arguments but to take the correlation between oil and politics one step further. What I am arguing in positing the First Law of Petropolitics is not only that an overdependence on crude oil can be a curse in general but also that one can actually correlate rises and falls in the price of oil with rises and falls in the pace of freedom in petrolist countries. The connection is very real. As these graphs demonstrate, the pace of freedom really starts to decline as the price of oil really starts to take off. The reason this connection between the price of oil and the pace of freedom is worth focusing on today is that we appear to be at the onset of a structural rise in global crude oil prices. If that is the case, this higher price level is almost certain to have a long-term effect on the character of politics in many weak or authoritarian states.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 88

OIL BAD – HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT
Human rights protections prevent billions of deaths and global poverty Hoffman, ’04 (Paul, Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International, “Human Rights and Terrorism,” Human Rights Quarterly, November 2004, p. 932-935. Project Muse, Accessed 07-01-08) For hundreds of millions of people in the world today, the most important source of insecurity is not a terrorist threat but grinding, extreme poverty. More than a billion of the world's six billion people live on less than one dollar a day. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the entire human rights framework is based on the indivisibility of human rights. This includes not only civil and political rights but also economic, social, and cultural rights. The discrepancy between these human rights promises and the reality of life for more than one-sixth of the world's people must be eliminated if terrorism is to be controlled. Every human being is entitled to a standard of living that allows for their health and wellbeing, including food, shelter, and medical care. Yet more than three thousand African children die of malaria
each day. Only a tiny percentage of the twenty-six million people infected with HIV/AIDS have access to the health care and medicine they need to survive. Many additional examples could be given. Many governments have adopted the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. The goals include targets for child and infant mortality, the availability of primary education for all children, halving the number of people without access to clean water along with many others. According to the World Bank, these goals will not be achieved, in part because the "war on terrorism" is shifting attention and resources away from long-term development issues. How can we eradicate violent challenges to the existing world order if education is not universal? Without education and peaceful exchanges between peoples, the "war on terrorism" will only succeed in creating new generations of warriors. Why is terrorism given more attention than the scourge of

, this problem is more widespread than terrorist violence and invariably makes women insecure as well as second-class citizens in every corner of the world. If some of the resources and attention devoted to the "war on terrorism" were diverted to the eradication of world poverty or eliminating violence against women, would the world be more secure? There is no easy answer to this question, but the "war on terrorism" seems to sideline any serious discussions, along with any serious action on the other pressing causes of human insecurity. True security depends on all of the world's peoples having a stake in the international system and receiving the basic rights promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, or any other status.
violence against women? Millions of women are terrorized in their daily lives, yet no "war" on violence against women is being waged. Clearly

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 89

OIL BAD – HURTS ECONOMY
Oil dependency will collapse the US economy. Gartenstein-Ross, May 20, 2008 (Daveed, vice president of Foundation for Defense of Democracies “The High Cost of Oil Dependence” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=686169) While economists debate whether the U.S. is officially in a recession, nobody can seriously dispute the country’s weakened economic situation. It is not difficult to recognize that high energy prices are a primary driver: indeed, it would be shocking if oil prices could rise from around $50 a barrel in early 2007 to over $125 a barrel today without a significant economic impact. The U.S. depends on long supply lines to transport agriculture and all other products to consumers. Prices have been universally pushed upward as oil prices have risen. Gal Luft, the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, noted in a March 20 op-ed for the Miami Herald that “the path to economic recovery will be compromised as long as America is dependent on imported oil to the degree that it is while oil continues to hover over $100 a barrel.” He explained: At current oil prices, this country sends overseas $460 billion per year to finance the daily buying of 12 million barrels of imported oil. This amount of money is about the size of our defense budget and three times the size of the “economic stimulus” package recently passed by Congress. But the real economic impact of oil dependence is hidden to most Americans. Energy economist Milton Copulos … calculated last year that the grand total of all external costs associated with foreign oil dependence— including the cost of oil-related defense expenditures, amortized cost of supply disruptions, and lost economic activity and tax revenues—stands at $825 billion per year. Oil dependence kills the economy and national security. Cohen, 2007 (Ariel, Senior Research Fellow in International Energy Security, “The National Security Consequences of Oil Dependency” http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl1021.cfm The Heritage Foundation, May 14) The United States is the largest oil importer in the world, bringing in 13.5 million barrels per day (mbd), which accounts for 63.5 percent of total U.S. daily consumption (20.6 mbd).[1] Oil from the Middle East--specifically, the Persian Gulf--accounts for 20 percent of U.S. oil imports, and this dependence is growing. By 2017, the U.S. will be importing approximately 68 percent of its oil needs. Oil consumption represents 40 percent of America's energy needs, primarily used in ground and air transportation. The dependence of the U.S. and the global economy on oil is growing, which can have dire consequences for the economic well-being of the United States, our national security, and the American way of life.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 90

OIL BAD – HURTS ECONOMY
Oil dependence tanks the economy – wealth transfer hurts domestic production and decreases the GDP by trillions. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 31-33). Every day, millions of barrels of crude oil and petroleum products arrive in the United States from abroad via tanker and pipeline. And every day, hundreds of millions of dollars flow out of the country to pay for those imports (see Figure 3.1) [end page 31] Since the early 1970s, crude oil and petroleum products have accounted for a substantial amount of total U.S. imports, reaching nearly one-third of the total in 1980. Although this share dropped to well below 10 percent in the late 1980s and again in the 1990s as a result of temporary declines in both oil prices and the level of imports, it has grown steadily in recent years, reaching 15 percent in 2005. Net oil imports have also represented a large fraction of the U.S. trade deficit, fluctuating between 20 and 42 percent during the past decade. In
2000, the bill for petroleum imports passed 1 percent of U.S. gross national product (GDP) for the first time since 1985 (Holdren 2004, 44). Altogether, according to one estimate, Americans sent 52.2 trillion abroad for oil between 1975 and 2003, (Lovins et al. 2004, 15). Wealth Transfers Abroad Some fraction of this steady outflow of dollars represents a net transfer of wealth abroad. If

, the world oil market is less than fully competitive. In many oil producing countries, governments rather than market forces determine the amount of oil produced. In addition, oil exporting states have often attempted to coordinate output levels in order to influence world price. This coordination has taken place primarily through the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), whose twelve current members include ten of the world's thirteen largest oil exporters. But it has sometimes also involved important non-OPEC exporters, such as Mexico and Russia. The net result is that world oil prices have typically been higher than they would have been in the presence (11' perfectly competitive oil markets. And to as long as U.S. oil prices are set by world markets and world prices are artificially high, consumers will transfer wealth producers, both at home and abroad. The size of the transfer to foreign producers, which is of primary concern here, is equal to the quantity of U.S. oil imports times the difference between the actual price and the competitive market price (Greene, Jones, and Leiby 1998, 60). Initially, this transfer takes the form of financial exchanges, but eventually, oil exporters may be expected to claim payment in real terms by purchasing goods and services from the United States. Thus more domestic output will have to go to exports, leaving fewer goods and services for consumption at home (Mork 1982, 119). The principal question is not whether oil prices have been higher than [end page 32] competitive levels, but just how big this difference has been. Estimates of the competitive market price rest heavily on a number of assumptions. As a result, economists haw disagreed over whether the difference is significant or minimal (Leiby et al. 1997, S-6,). Nevertheless, the lack of consensus has not prevented economists from attempting to measure it. A 1993 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) study chose $9.10 per barrel in 1990 dollars as a reasonable estimate for the period 1972-91. Using that figure, it calculated that the annual transfer of wealth to foreign suppliers during those two decades added up to $1.2 trillion, or a present value of $1.9 trillion, in 1990 dollars. Even if the competitive market price were assumed to have risen by 2 percent a year, the net
world oil prices were set by market forces alone, then the amount paid would closely reflect the marginal cost of producing and transporting the last barrel of oil. For several reasons, however wealth transfer would still have amounted to $1.0 trillion, or at present value of $1.76 trillion, in 1990 dollars (Greene and Leiby l990, 30, 35-37). A later Oak Ridge study, using three different indicators, produced a slightly lower but still substantial estimate. It put the competitive market value at $11.27 per barrel for the years 1970 and 1999 and estimated the total wealth transfer

Thus if these government studies arc reasonably accurate, U.S. consumers have transferred significantly more than $1 trillion to foreign oil producers so far, and the figure is still growing. Loss of Potential Gross Domestic Product The overall economic effect of chronic foreign oil dependence, as a consequence of both higher than competitive prices and the transfer of wealth abroad, is a decrease in potential total economic output, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP).
abroad over that period at $1.16 trillion in 1998 dollars (Greene and Tishchishvna 2001, 17, 24).

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 91

OIL BAD – HURTS ECONOMY
Oil shocks decrease economic output and increase unemployment for years. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 41-42) As Philip Verleger has pointed out, with market mechanisms, the fundamental problem of disruptions is not physical shortages but price increases and their economic consequences (Verleger 1994, 7). Thus, broadly speaking, oil shocks can haw three negative effects. First, they may result, at least temporarily, in increased outlays for oil imports. Oil consumption and oil production are relatively unresponsive (inelastic) to price hikes in the short run. Thus sudden reductions in supply can cause prices to rise dramatically, and it can take a while before higher prices result in significantly lower demand and greater levels of domestic supply. One reason for this lack of responsiveness is that increased oil production [end page 41] and the replacement of oil burning machinery with substitutes that are more efficient or use other energy sources require large capital investments and long lead times. In the meantime, consumers must pay inflated prices for the oil they continue to import, which effectively reduces their income and purchasing power. The country must export more goods and services to pay for each barrel of imported oil (Leiby et al. 1997, 5-7; Bohi and Toman 1996, 74; Huntington 2005, 4).Second, oil shocks may reduce over the longer term a country's potential economic output, assuming that prices remain at an elevated level. In response to higher energy prices, firms may use less energy, which reduces the amount of output that can be produced with a given amount of capital and labor. As a result, the productivity of both labor and capital declines (GAO 1996, 32). In a sense, this effect is no different from that of a more gradual price increase. Thus the most distinctive cost of oil shocks is how they may temporarily cause economic output to fall below even the now diminished full potential, or what are called macroeconomic adjustment costs. As one study explains: In the short run, the economy must adjust by re-balancing outputs and inputs of labor, materials, energy, and capital in ways that may end up costing more than is necessary in the long-run if more than the loss of potential GDP. Wages and prices do not adjust immediately to the new price of oil for reasons such as cost-of-living provisions in labor contracts and entitlement programs. Substitution of other energy sources and other factors of production for oil take time because of the durability of ... energy-using equipment. The GNP level that can be reached in the short-run is necessarily lower than that which could be reached if the economy were able to adjust to the long-run, optimal, prices and wages. (Leiby et al. 1997, S-8) The magnitude of these costs depends on the size of the oil price increase as well as the vulnerability of the economy to adjustment losses for a price shock of a given size (Leiby et al. 1997, S-9). Because these costs result from the economy’s inability to respond quickly, they are temporary and are believed to dissipate within three to five years (Greene and Tishchishyna 2001, 16). In the meantime, however, the economy will experience inflationary pressures and increased unemployment (OT A 1991, 106).

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 92

OIL BAD – HURTS DOLLAR
America’s dependence on foreign oil decreases the value of the dollar. McCain, 08 ( John, Senator, Speech delivered in Huston, Texas, June 17, lexis) Along with the harm that America's dependence on foreign oil has inflicted on our economy, there remain other costs that are even greater and harder to count. The massive wealth we have spent over the years on foreign oil is not flowing to the most upstanding citizens of the world. When trillions of dollars are transferred to other nations in exchange for oil, the consequences are serious and pervasive. But they can be understood in three simple ways. The first takes the form of a current accounts deficit that has drained vast sums out of the American economy. We are borrowing from foreign lenders to buy oil from foreign producers. In the world's capital markets, often we are even borrowing Saudi money for Saudi oil. For them, the happy result is that they are both supplier and creditor to the most productive economy on earth. For us, the result is both dependency and debt. Over time, in interest payments, we lose trillions of dollars that could have been better invested in American enterprises. And we lose value in the dollar itself, as our debt portfolio undermines confidence in the American economy.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 93

OIL BAD – HURTS STOCK MARKET
High fuel costs causing lower stock prices. The Wall Street Journal, 08 (The Wall Street Journal, Tom Lauricella-staff reporter, June 22 2008, “Oil Prices Gush, Stock Market Slides,” http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121408113748494515.html?mod=sunday_journal_primary_hs) In years past, whenever oil prices pushed higher, a debate would ensue over whether the latest increase would cut into economic growth. And for years, pessimists were wrong. Higher fuel costs were absorbed by consumers and businesses without much of a blip. But in 2008, it increasingly appears that the energy price rise will slice a meaningful amount off the already weak pace of economic growth and further batter corporate profits -- bad news for stock prices. The stock market has certainly taken a hit from the latest surge in oil prices. Starting in mid-March, the market began a strong rebound thanks to the Federal Reserve's efforts to stabilize the financial markets following the collapse of Bear Stearns. By early May, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had rallied 11% from its 2008 low. Giving Back Gains But since then, oil prices hit a record close of $138.54 a barrel on June 6 and the Dow industrials have fallen back by 9.3%. Last week, the Dow fell 3.8% -- back below 12000 -- bringing its year-to-date decline to 10.7%. It's down 16.4% from its all-time high last October. Why is oil having such a big impact this time around? A big reason is the speed of the rise. At $134.62 a barrel Friday, oil is up 40% this year and up a staggering 97% -- or nearly double -- from a year ago. In contrast, over the preceding two and half years, through mid-June 2007, oil prices rose 57%. A slow, steady rise can be gradually absorbed by businesses or passed on to customers. But in this case, businesses will be hard pressed to pass on more than a fraction of the increase in energy costs. Making matters worse, prices have also leapt on a wide variety of commodities, ranging from steel and copper to corn and wheat. Coming at a time when many companies are already experiencing slowing sales thanks to the weakening economy, the end result is shrinking profit margins and ultimately thinner profits. Meanwhile, as any car owner knows, with gasoline over $4 a gallon, household budgets that are already feeling the pinch of falling home prices and a weakening job market are under increasing strain. "It's real money," says Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, of the squeeze caused by higher gasoline prices. Back in 2002, Americans spent an average of about 4% of their budgets on energy; now it's up to 6.5%. For households in the bottom quarter of incomes, 11.6% now goes to energy costs. "People have to make hard choices -- do I fill up my gas tank or go out to dinner or do I make my mortgage payment," Mr. Zandi says. Economists say that the overall toll on the economy will be to subtract one third to one half of a percentage point from growth in gross domestic product. GDP is expected to rise an anemic 1.2% for 2008. "One third of a percentage point doesn't sound huge, but it's noticeable," says Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs. Safe Havens? Just about the only stocks that have done well
this year are those that profit from the global boom in energy and other commodities. Jumping on board those kind of winners is a bet -- which might pay off -- that prices will stay high or go higher. But given the steep rise in energy and commodities shares, many professionals fret they could fall equally dramatically. Meanwhile, because the ripples from higher petroleum prices -along with those for other commodities -- spread so widely throughout the economy, it's a challenge for investors to find parts of the market that won't feel the bite. Many Wall Street strategists favor technology stocks, in part because higher energy prices don't have a direct impact on production or on decisions by clients to buy new tech gear. The risk, however, is that the overall

. Tech stocks have fallen about 7% so far this year. Similarly, health-care stocks aren't directly affected by energy prices. But there are election-year worries about the potential for policy changes that could hurt the bottom line of many health-care companies; that could keep those stock prices depressed as well.
sluggishness of the economy dampens technology profits

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 94

OIL BAD – FOOD PRICES
Oil dependency causes high food prices. Gartenstein-Ross, May 20, 2008 (Daveed, vice president of Foundation for Defense of Democracies “The High Cost of Oil Dependence” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=686169) While many factors have caused these rising food prices (including increased demand in China and India, among other countries), the spike in oil prices has made a palpable contribution. As Time notes, high oil prices have “pushed up fertilizer prices, as well as the cost of trucking food from farms to local markets and shipping it abroad.” Some commentators claim that increased production of biofuels like ethanol is driving the rise in food prices. Trying to put this into perspective, White House economic advisers recently estimated that corn-based ethanol has accounted for “just 2-3 percent of the overall increase in global food prices.” In contrast, rising oil prices appear to be a much larger factor. Then-acting agriculture secretary Charles F. Conner noted in October 2007 (even before oil hit $100 a barrel) that the rising price of oil “translates into higher packaging costs, higher transportation costs, all the things that go into taking a product from the farm to the grocery shelf.” Moreover, oil is used to plant and harvest agricultural crops. Thus, Conner concluded that the price of oil “is having a much, much greater impact than higher grain prices as a result of ethanol.” Certainly there is no inherent conflict between food prices and biofuel production. Biofuels (including ethanol and methanol) can be made from substances other than food crops— including from coal, natural gas, plants, crop residue, and even municipal waste. As policymakers attempt to fashion a solution to the energy crisis, they must bear in mind how their proposals will affect the food needs of the most vulnerable. But food prices would be rising with or without biofuels—and the situation will only grow worse if we remain so dependent on oil.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 95

OIL BAD – LESS SOFT POWER
Foreign oil dependence devastates U.S. military credibility and fosters anti-Americanism – the military becomes an oil protection service that intervenes globally and props up corrupt political leaders. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 211-212) The most costly U.S. policy responses to foreign oil dependence have taken the form of foreign and military policies toward actual and potential oil producing regions. What these policies – and their costs – will be even just a few years out is extremely difficult to predict. As recently as 2000, who would have anticipated that, in less than three years, the United States would embark on an expensive military campaign in Iraq that can be attributed in no small part to U.S. foreign oil dependence? Nevertheless, barring a drastic change in U.S. policies, one can also expect with some confidence these costs to remain high and possibly to rise. The trend of the past two decades has been one of growing American involvement and intervention in distant oil producing regions, including the Persian Gulf, the Caspain Sea, and the Gulf of Guinea. To maintain our access to oil, Michael Klare has argued, “We will have to crawl into bed with some of the world’s most corrupt and despotic leaders – plying them with ever more arms, military training, technical assistance, diplomatic support, and White House access while ignoring their contempt for democracy and their egregious human rights violations” (Klare 2004a, 183). Likewise, as more and more oil comes from unstable regions and countries, it seems reasonable to expect that American armed forces will be used increasingly to protect foreign oil fields and supply routes. In Klare’s provocative words, the U.S. military is becoming a “global oil-protection service” (Klare 2004a, 6-7). Yet U.S. support for unpopular authoritarian regimes and, in some places, an American military presence will continue to engender hostility toward the United States and, especially in the Persian Gulf, to inspire terrorist attacks against American targets.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 96

OIL BAD – LESS SOFT POWER, LESS HEG
Oil generates foreign opposition to US policy, declining soft power, economic crises and military overstretch. Deutch and Schlesinger 06 (John and James R – part a joint task force assigned by the Council on Foreign Relaations,” National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency,” http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf) First, the control over enormous oil revenues gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose U.S. interests and values. Iran proceeds with a program that appears to be headed toward acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Russia is able to ignore Western attitudes as it has moved to authoritarian policies in part because huge revenues from oil and gas exports are available to finance that style of government. Venezuela has the resources from its oil exports to invite realignment in Latin American political relationships and to fund changes such as Argentina’s exit from its International Monetary Fund (IMF) standby agreement and Bolivia’s recent decision to nationalize its oil and gas resources. Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer countries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests inimical to our national security. Second, oil dependence causes political realignments that constrain the ability of the United States to form partnerships to achieve common objectives. Perhaps the most pervasive effect arises as countries dependent on imports subtly modify their policies to be more congenial to suppliers. For example, China is aligning its
relationships in the Middle East (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia) and Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Sudan) because of its desire to secure oil supplies. France and Germany, and with them much of the European Union, are more reluctant to confront difficult issues with Russia and Iran because of their dependence on imported oil and gas as well as the desire to pursue business opportunities in

These new realignments have further diminished U.S. leverage, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. For example, Chinese interest in securing oil and gas supplies challenges U.S. influence in central Asia, notably in Kazakhstan. And Russia’s influence is likely to grow as it exports oil and (within perhaps a decade) large amounts of natural gas to Japan and China. All
those countries. consuming countries, including the United States, are more constrained in dealing with producing states when oil markets are tight. To cite one current example, concern about losing Iran’s 2.5

. Third, high prices and seemingly scarce supplies create fears especially evident in Beijing and New Delhi, as well as in European capitals and in Washington—that the current system of open markets is unable to ensure secure supply. The present competition has resulted in oil and gas deals that include political arrangements in addition to commercial terms. Highly publicized Chinese oil
million barrels per day of world oil exports will cause importing states to be reluctant to take action against Iran’s nuclear program investments in Africa have included funding for infrastructure projects such as an airport, a railroad, and a telecommunications system, in addition to the agreement that the oil be shipped to China. Many more of these investments also include equity stakes for state-controlled Chinese companies. Another example is Chinese firms taking a position in Saudi Arabia, along with several Western firms, in developing Saudi Arabia’s gas infrastructure. At present, these arrangements have little effect on world oil and gas markets because the volumes affected are small. However, such arrangements are spreading. These arrangements are worrisome because they lead to special political relationships that pose difficulties for the United States. And they allow importers to believe that they obtain security through links to particular suppliers rather than from the proper functioning of a global market. We note that the United States, in the past, has also taken decisions to restrict markets partly due to similar concerns about energy security. For example, when the trans-Alaska pipeline opened, it included a prohibition against exporting the oil. The hostility toward proposals by the Chinese National Overseas Oil Company (CNOOC) to purchase Union Oil of California is seen by some as denying investment opportunity in the U.S. market in a similar manner to what the United States decries about other nations’ conduct. The Task Force believes that foreign entities should be able to purchase U.S. assets provided that the acquisitions meet the criteria established by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).12 Opening a dialogue with rapidly growing consumers, notably China and India, can help those consumers gain confidence that will lead to a greater willingness to allow markets to operate. (We return to this policy recommendation later.) The United States and other

. Fourth, revenues from oil and gas exports can undermine local governance. The United States has an interest in promoting good governance both for its own sake and because it encourages investment that can increase the level and security of supply. States that are politically unstable and poorly governed often struggle with the task of responsibly managing the large revenues that come from their oil and gas exports. The elements of good governance include democratic accountability, low corruption, and fiscal transparency. Production in fragile
consuming countries have a tremendous interest in maintaining the present open market oil commodity trading rules democracies, such as in Nigeria, can be undermined when politicians or local warlords focus on ways to seize oil and gas rents rather than on the longer-term task of governance. Totalitarian

. When markets are tight, large oil consumers have tended to become especially focused on securing supply and ignore the effects of their investments on corruption and mismanagement.
governments that have control over those revenue flows can entrench their rule In Sudan, for example, despite civil war and widespread human rights abuses, the Chinese government and its oil enterprises are funding extensive oil supply and infrastructure projects. China has used its threat of a veto in the UN Security Council to thwart collective efforts by other countries to manage the Darfur crisis in Sudan. Similarly, China, India, and several Western European

Fifth, a significant interruption in oil supply will have adverse political and economic consequences in the United States and in other importing countries. When such a disruption occurs, it upends all ongoing policy activity in a frantic effort to return to normal conditions. Inevitably, those efforts include matters of foreign policy, such as coordination with other countries to find measures that will mitigate the consequences of the supply disruption. Some of these responses may be preplanned, such as the coordinated release of strategic reserves, but other responses will be hurried, ineffectual, or even counterproductive. Sixth, some observers see a direct relationship between the dependence of the United States on oil, especially from the Persian Gulf, and the size of the U.S. defense budget. Such a relationship invites the inference that if it were not dependent on this oil, the United States and its allies would have no interest in the region, and hence it would be possible to achieve significant reductions in the U.S. military posture. I
countries continue to invest in Iran despite the need to contain its nuclear aspirations.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 97

OIL BAD – KILLS READINESS
Oil dependence undermines military readiness and effectiveness. Sandalow, 2008 (Freedom From Oil, David B. Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the Energy and Climate Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative, McGrawHill: New York, New York, 2008. p. 24-25) Third, oil dependence endangers our men and women in uniform. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, many U.S. military fatalities took place as part of fuel convoys. A high percentage of road-bound convoys were dedicated to fuel movement. Dependence on oil jeopardizes the safety of our troops. Fuel convoys are often highly vulnerable to ambush, as the Iraq experience demonstrates. Diesel generators display a heat signature easily detected by some enemies. In many battlefield environments, the need to ship oil to the fight exposes our soldiers to considerable danger. Oil dependence also threatens mission success. Attacks on rear logistics assets can quickly shut down a combat system if oil supply lines are compromised. High casualty rates of the kinds associated with fuel convoys can erode public support for many missions. In July 2006, General Richard Zilmer, commander of coalition forces in western Iraq, made a "Priority 1" request for renewable energy systems at outlying bases. Maj. Gen. Zilmer noted the need for "frequent logistic resupply convoys," in particular for petroleum and the threat those convoys pose to U.S. military personnel. Zilmer wrote that without renewable energy systems: " ... personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate. Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success." In many Army deployments, oil makes up a staggering 70% of the tonnage transported to the front lines. II The cost of this fuel is high, with every $10 per barrel increase adding roughly $1.3 billion to Pentagon operating costs." Transportation the backbone of economic and military strength. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p. 24) Nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and solar power have all been offered as solutions to the energy problem. These all have various issues associated with them. However, the bottom line is that discussion of these technologies misses the point. It is true that, to the extent they can be done economically, these technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal or natural gas for electricity generation. But the central issue of energy independence is not electricity. The United States has plenty of coal, and if necessary it could generate all of its electric power in this way. No, the key issue in energy independence concerns the availability of liquid fuels to power cars, trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes. These systems are not merely conveniences that have become dear to our way of life; they are the sinews of the economy and the fundamental instruments of military strength. During World War II, when the fuel supplies of the Axis nations collapsed, so did their war efforts. A modern war cannot be run-a modern economy cannot be sustained-without liquid fuels. There is no prospect whatsoever of the large-scale economic generation of liquid fuels from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, or solar power sources in the near future. Thus the discussion of these technologies is largely irrelevant to the immediate strategic problem we face. In the long run, however, when combined with the switch to alcohol fuels, they can play a key role in enabling an open human future of worldwide economic development and rising living standards, without the threat of global warming. This will be discussed in chapters 10 and 11.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 98

OIL BAD - HEGEMONY
High energy prices undermine U.S leadership, increase Russian expansionism, tank the U.S. economy, hurt democracy, and spur Iranian proliferation Bloomberg, 06 (Brendan Murray, "Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil Prices Rise" 5-1-06 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news) AMK May 1 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, already weakened at home by the soaring cost of oil, is finding that it's also eroding his ability to achieve his foreign-policy goals. ``It's a geopolitical nightmare,'' says William Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary under President Bill Clinton who is now chairman of the Cohen Group, a Washington-based consulting firm. Such nations as Iran, Russia and China ``don't see us as the colossus that can cause them any harm, either by our economy or by our prestige.'' Record-high energy prices are weakening Bush's prospects of assembling an international coalition to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions. They are diminishing his chances of influencing energy-rich nations such as Russia and isolating troublesome ones including Venezuela and Sudan. And they are straining U.S. economic and diplomatic ties with China, whose oil needs are skyrocketing. Prices show no signs of abating in the last two-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency, with oil futures hovering near $72 a barrel through the November 2008 presidential election. That's creating a windfall for oil-producing nations that may thwart Bush's goal of promoting democracy and free markets from Asia to the Middle East and halting the spread of nuclear arms. Bush acknowledged last week that high oil prices have decreased the U.S.'s power to sway events. ``Some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments or agendas that are hostile to the United States,'' he said in an April 25 speech to ethanol producers in Washington. ``These countries know we need their oil, and that reduces our influence.'' Security Concern Bush called the U.S. dependence on imports a ``national- security concern,'' saying the nation now gets about 60 percent of its oil from overseas, up from 25 percent two decades
ago. An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 74 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling gasoline prices, while 23 percent approve. The poll, conducted April 6-9,

, energy- producing countries that view oil as political and diplomatic currency are emboldened, recognizing that the American economy depends largely on them. `Tied Bush's Hands' ``The high crude prices have tied Bush's hands,'' says David Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn International Strategies, a Washington-based consulting firm, and an assistant energy secretary during the Clinton administration. ``These very high prices really empower other leaders to act with impunity.'' It isn't only oil producers that are ignoring U.S. wishes. China, the world's second-largest consumer of petroleum products behind the U.S., is seeking energy
also showed Bush's overall approval rating fell to a record-low 38 percent. While his weakened standing with Americans limits his ability to marshal support for his policies at home resources wherever it can find them. That includes negotiating for investments in nations such as Iran, Nigeria and Sudan, where Bush is seeking to improve human rights and push democracy. Chinese President Hu Jintao followed his April 20 visit to the U.S. with a trip to Nigeria, Africa's biggest oil producer, to seek drilling rights. China has accounted for more than 40 percent of the

Putin has frustrated the Bush administration by rolling back democratic rights in his country and seeking to dominate former Soviet republics. Putin has also been reluctant to pressure North Korea and Iran to not develop nuclear weapons. He has resisted U.S. efforts to impose sanctions on Iran, as has China. Difficulty With Russia The Bush administration is having difficulty with Russia even though the U.S. buys little
growth in global oil demand during the past four years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Russian President Vladimir oil or natural gas from the country, says Jim Goldgeier, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University in Washington. ``It's not so much our dependence,'' Goldgeier says. ``The bigger impact has been the effect of Russia's energy development on its own assertiveness in foreign policy. There's a real sense that they don't need us very much, so they don't need to

In Iran, the world's secondlargest holder of oil and gas reserves, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected a UN deadline to suspend the nuclear program. On April 28, the UN's nuclear agency told the Security Council that Iran has enriched uranium and is stonewalling efforts to determine whether the program is intended for the production of nuclear weapons. Oil Earnings Iran earned $45 billion in oil revenue in the year ended March 20, almost 50 percent more than it generated a year earlier, the government says. That income helps keep society calm and reformers at bay. ``High oil prices help the people who are in power to stay in power,'' says Michael Mussa, a senior economist at the Washington-based Institute for International Economics. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says rising oil prices reflect U.S.-led global economic growth that has benefited many developing nations. She also says increasing oil revenue has benefited some governments that are hostile to the U.S. ``High prices have supported some regimes that do not share our values,'' Perino says.
listen to us.'' Last year, Russia earned $117 billion from exports of oil and oil products, and another $32 billion from gas, government figures show.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 99

OIL BAD - HEGEMONY IMPACT
Heg is good. Khalilzad, 95 (Zalmay, 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.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 100

OIL BAD – CIVIL WARS
High oil prices cause conflict and secession in producer states Ross, June, ’08 (Michael L., associate professor of political science at the University of California, “Blood Barrels: Why Oil Wealth Fuels Conflict,” Foreign Affairs, May/June, lexis nexis, 07-01-08) OIL ON FIRE For new oil and gas producers, the gravest danger is the possibility of armed conflict. Among developing countries, an oil-producing country is twice as likely to suffer internal rebellion as a non-oil-producing one. The conflicts range in magnitude from low-level secessionist struggles, such as those occurring in the Niger Delta and southern Thailand, to full-blown civil wars, such as in Algeria, Colombia, Sudan, and, of course, Iraq. Oil wealth can trigger conflict in three ways. First, it can cause economic instability, which then leads to political instability. When people lose their jobs, they become more frustrated with their government and more vulnerable to being recruited by rebel armies that challenge the cash-starved government. A sudden drop in income can result in internal strife in any country, but because oil prices are unusually volatile, oil-producing countries tend to be battered by cycles of booms and busts. And the more dependent a government is on its oil revenues, the more likely it is to face turmoil when prices go south. Second, oil wealth often helps support insurgencies. Rebellions in many countries fail when their instigators run out of funds. But raising money in petroleum-rich countries is relatively easy: insurgents can steal oil and sell it on the black market (as has happened in Iraq and Nigeria), extort money from oil companies working in remote areas (as in Colombia and Sudan), or find business partners to fund them in exchange for future consideration in the event they seize power (as in Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of the Congo). Third, oil wealth encourages separatism. Oil and gas are usually produced in self-contained economic enclaves that yield a lot of revenue for the central government but provide few jobs for locals -- who also often bear the costs of petroleum development, such as lost property rights and environmental damage. To reverse the imbalance, some locals seek autonomy from the central government, as have the people in the petroleum-rich regions of Bolivia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Sudan. This is not to say that petroleum is the only source of such conflicts or that it inevitably breeds violence. In fact, almost half of all the states that have produced oil since 1970 have been conflict-free. Oil alone cannot create conflict, but it both exacerbates latent tensions and gives governments and their more militant opponents the means to fight them out. Governments that limit corruption and put their windfalls to good use rarely face unrest. Unfortunately, oil production is now rising precisely in those countries where wise leadership is often in short supply.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 101

OIL BAD – LEADS TO OIL SHOCKS
Oil dependence leads to oil shocks. Podesta, Stern and Batten 07 ("Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy: Part of Progressive Growth, CAP’s Economic Plan for the Next Administration" John - President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress. Todd - Senior Fellow at American Progress. Kit - Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Center for American Progress. November 27, 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/energy_chapter.html) The United States uses over 20 million barrels of oil a day, importing nearly 13 million of these barrels.25 Our economy’s dependence on oil, independent of whether it is domestic or imported, contributes significantly not just to global warming but also to our vulnerability to price shocks. If oil prices spike because of events in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Venezuela, they will spike for oil pumped in West Texas or off the Louisiana coast as well as for oil pumped in an Arabian desert. The oil market upheavals of the last 30 years (such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo) have cost the U.S. economy some $8 trillion.26 Then there are the economic consequences of our nation’s rising dependence on imported oil. In 2006, the U.S. petroleum deficit reached $270.9 billion, an 18 percent increase over 2005, comprising 33 percent of our overall trade deficit.27 In addition, nearly 40 percent of oil imports come from potentially hostile or unstable regimes and 92 percent of conventional oil reserves are in these nations.29 Oil and gas price volatility can hit lowand middle-income families and small businesses especially hard. Over 79 percent of American workers drive themselves to work, and most of these people cannot switch jobs, telecommute, or buy a new more fuel-efficient car to handle a spike in gas prices.30 Americans with the lowest incomes spend at least 9 percent of their total income on gasoline.31 Price volatility makes it impossible for many families to plan accurately for future expenditures. The combination of oil imported from a number of potentially unstable countries and rising demand, especially from China, makes the prospect of future price shocks all too real. The so-called “reference projection” of the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency for 2030 shows world oil consumption rising from 83 million barrels a day in 2004 to 118 million barrels a day in 2030, with North America and the developing nations of Asia, including China and India, accounting for the largest increases in consumption over this time period.32

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 102

OIL BAD – PRICES HIGH LONG TERM
The EIA has slashed predictions for world oil output by 2010-increasing demand will create a dangerous situation. Hook, 2008 (Mikael, June 25, The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (peakoil.net), ASPO is a network of scientists and others, having an interest in determining the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world's production of oil and gas, due to resource constraints, “EIA slashes forecast for world output by 2010”) The US Energy Information Administration said crude oil production from non-Opec countries will not be able to keep up with growing global demand in the next few years, forcing oil consuming nations to rely more on Opec for supplies. In its long-term energy forecast, the EIA lowered its estimate of non-Opec oil production in 2010 to 51.8 million barrels per day, down 1.1 million bpd from last year's forecast. For the same period, Opec oil output was cut by just 400,000 bpd to 37.4 million. Meanwhile, world oil demand in 2010 will be 1.5 million bpd less than previously thought at 89.2 million bpd, due to higher oil prices, the EIA said. China will account for almost half the lower oil consumption, with the country's oil use cut 600,000 bpd to 8.8 million bpd, said Reuters. The EIA said its forecast for India's oil demand in 2010 was unchanged at 2.7 million bpd. Overall, world energy consumption is forecast to grow 50% by 2030, with demand from developing countries rising 85% compared with a 19% increase in industrialised countries, the EIA said. OPEC prices will not come down in the near future. Hook, 2008 (Mikael, June 24, The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (peakoil.net), ASPO is a network of scientists and others, having an interest in determining the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world's production of oil and gas, due to resource constraints, “OPEC Oil Prices Won’t Come Down”) Oil prices "will not come down," OPEC president Chakib Khelil said Tuesday, assuring that the oil cartel has already done what it can on the matter."OPEC has already done what OPEC can do and prices will not come down," Khelil told journalists as he arrived for a meeting with EU energy officials in Brussels.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 103

OIL BAD – TERRORISM
Oil dependency forces the US to justify oppression, spurs anti-Americanism and funds terrorism. Scire, 2008 (John, Adjunct Professor of Political Science at University of Nevada, Reno, “Oil dependency, national security” http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244 feb 10) Oil dependency forces the U.S. to support oil regimes that oppress their citizens. As a result, other states and the citizens of oppressive oil regimes see the U.S. as their real enemy. It isn't surprising that Osama bin Laden's first Fatwah was against the U.S. for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oppressive Saudi Royal Family. U.S. oil dependency also strengthens worldwide Islamist terror campaigns as funding for these groups comes primarily from Middle Eastern Islamic charities, located primarily in Saudi Arabia. Because of oil dependency, we both motivate the terrorists and provide the money to fund their attacks on us. American oil dependency also strengthens other states opposed to American foreign policy interests, such as Venezuela and Russia. Foreign policy options are further reduced when other oil importing countries, such as China, block our UN Security Council resolutions targeted at their sources of oil. This has already occurred in regard to Sudan and Myanmar. Policies to secure oil access ignite anti-Americanism and terrorism. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 209) It is also important to include in any comprehensive cost accounting the many unintended consequences of these external policies. They have sometimes weakened regimes, notably in Iran under the shah and in Saudi Arabia, on which the United States has relied to protect American oil interests. They have fomented anti-Americanism in Iran, Arabia, and the broader Islamic world, helping to turn onetime partners such as Iran into implacable foes. And, in at least a few cases, they have enhanced the ability of actual or [end page 208] potential adversaries, notably Iraq and Islamic jihadists, to threaten the United States and its interests. The overall effect has been to increase the magnitude of the threats to U.S. interests, oil and otherwise, and to reduce the security of the United States itself (see Chapter 7).

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 104

OIL BAD – TERRORISM
A major terrorist attack on oil supplies would crash the world economy and gut US military missions. Gartenstein-Ross, May 20, 2008 (Daveed, vice president of Foundation for Defense of Democracies “The High Cost of Oil Dependence” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=686169) Actual terrorist targeting has made clear that this is not empty rhetoric. After a September 2005 shootout between militants and Saudi police in the seaport of al-Dammam, police found forged documents that would have provided the terrorists access to some of the country’s key oil and gas facilities. Saudi interior minister Prince Nayef told the daily newspaper Okaz that the cell had planned to attack these facilities. In April 2007, Saudi Arabia announced that “it foiled an al Qaeda-linked plot to attack oil facilities and military bases.” Indeed, former CIA agent Robert Baer warned back in 2003 that tactics in which al-Qaeda already had a demonstrated proficiency could succeed in taking a great deal of Saudi oil off the market instantaneously. He stated that “a single jumbo jet with a suicide bomber at the controls . . . would be enough to bring the world’s oil-addicted economies to their knees” if crashed into a major offshore loading facility. Following such an attack, the substantially reduced worldwide supply of oil would be joined by an inflated risk premium. While it is difficult to determine the ceiling for oil prices if such a scenario unfolded, Sawt al-Jihad may have been correct: diminished access to the military’s lifeblood could spell doom for the U.S. ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Failed energy policies mean that we are losing the war on terror. Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 2007. p 11) America is losing the war on terror. For the past thirty-five years, we have allowed the enemy's power to grow, and as a result, a cult that was once an anachronistic curiosity has now become a worldwide menace. Saudi Arabia is the primary global financier of the Islamist terror cult. In 1972, Saudi foreign exchange earnings were $2.7 billion. In 2006 they topped $200 billion. Over the same period, the United States' dependency upon foreign oil grew from 30 percent to 60 percent and our annual oil import bill grew from less than $4 billion to more than $260 billion. As a result of our failure to enact a competent energy policy, our country is being looted, and the enemy's power has been fabulously multiplied. We are financing a war against ourselves. And with the rapid industrialization of China and India increasing global demand for oil, prices are set to soar even further. Unless action is taken, things are about to get much worse.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 105

OIL BAD - TERRORISM
Oil dependence fuels terrorists, raises food prices and spurs economic downturns – Iran and Saudi Arabia use US money to fund terrorist organizations – a terrorist attack on oil supplies would be devastating to US interests. Gartenstein-Ross, May 20, 2008 (Daveed, vice president of Foundation for Defense of Democracies “The High Cost of Oil Dependence” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=686169) With the price of oil over $125 a barrel and U.S. gasoline prices hovering around $4 a gallon, our nation’s energy dependence has been a top news headline. Although the economic effect of these surging prices has been most prominent, the high cost of oil dependence extends far beyond that. As former CIA director R. James Woolsey and Institute for the Analysis of Global Security co-director Anne Korin have noted, our oil dependence means that we are essentially “paying for both sides in the War on Terror.” The vulnerability of our energy supply to a terrorist attack also creates an obvious Achilles’ heel. And other visible problems that the world is currently confronting, such as rising food prices, are intimately linked to the skyrocketing price of oil. Woolsey and Korin are correct that the U.S.’s oil dependence causes it to fund both sides of the terror war. This can be seen in the purchasing power that petroleum gives to oil-rich Middle Eastern states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran’s oil sector accounts for 85% of its government revenues. One thing Iran has done with this money is provide weapons, training, funding, and safe haven to a variety of terrorist groups. Iranian support for anti-U.S. violence has been particularly problematic in Iraq: Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker made this clear in April 8 Senate testimony, where he stated that “Iran continues to undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government to establish a stable, secure state through the authority and training of criminal militia elements engaged in violence against Iraqi security forces, coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.” One weapon that Iran has been responsible for providing to insurgents in Iraq is the explosively formed projectile (EFP), which has been described as uniquely dangerous because “when it detonates, the concave end blows outward and melts into a bullet-shaped fragment that slices through armor and flesh.” Iran provides as much as $200 million a year to Hizballah—as well as tens of millions of dollars and militant training to anti-Israel Palestinian terrorist groups. The connection between oil revenues and terrorist funding is less direct for Saudi Arabia. Its most prominent contribution to the terrorist threat has been ideological—through the funding of charities, mosques, and preachers who propagate an extreme form of Islam. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, former New York Times Middle East correspondent Youssef M. Ibrahim
wrote in the Washington Post: “The money that brought Wahhabis to power throughout the Arab world ... financed networks of fundamentalist schools from Sudan to northern Pakistan.” These networks have perceptibly tilted the practice of Islam in a more violent and anti-social direction in many places beyond those mentioned by Ibrahim, including the Balkans, the former Soviet republics, Southeast Asia, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Saudi-funded institutions that promote an extremist form of Islam have also been active in Europe and even America—as I have written about in my book My Year Inside Radical Islam, which documents my time inside a Saudi-funded charity in Oregon that the U.S. Treasury Department has named a specially-designated

Beyond the Saudi state, financiers and charities from that country have been significant sources of funds for the insurgency in Iraq and Palestinian terrorist groups. Though the U.S.’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is complex and it would be overly simplistic to declare the two countries enemies, a significant portion of the oil revenue that flows into Saudi Arabia clearly works against U.S. strategic interests. But the impact of oil dependence on terrorism extends beyond the financial windfall it entails for terrorist groups and the ideology that drives them: terrorists also understand that our oil dependence is our greatest strategic vulnerability. Although Osama bin Laden initially declared
global terrorist entity. Saudi Arabia’s oil resources off limits as a military target because they were “a great Islamic wealth,” his thinking on the matter shifted as he came to understand how much the U.S.’s fortunes were tied to its access to cheap oil. In a mid-December 2004 audiotape, he instructed al-Qaeda operatives: One of the main causes for our enemies’ gaining hegemony over our country is their stealing our oil; therefore, you should make every effort in your power to stop the greatest theft in history of the natural resources of both present and future generations, which is being carried

. . Focus your operations on it [oil production], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this [lack of oil] will cause them to die off [on their own].
out through collaboration between foreigners and [native] agents. .

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 106

OIL BAD – TERRORISM
Middle Eastern oil fuels terrorism – U.S. presence breeds resentment and monetary flows finance terrorist networks. Sandlow, May 22, 2008 (“Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security,” The Brookings Institute, David B. Sandlow, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute in Foreign Policy, http://www.brookings.edu/experts/sandalowd.aspx, Accessed 06-23-08) First, oil dependence strengthens Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists. The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will last for generations. Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a central role in the struggle. For more than 50 years, the need to protect oil flows has shaped U.S. policy and relationships in the Persian Gulf. During the Cold War, we supported the Shah of Iran in part to keep oil flowing from the region. In 1980, President Carter declared that attempts by outside forces to gain control of the Persian Gulf would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In 1991, with Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush told Congress that war was necessary because “[v]ital economic interests are at risk…Iraq itself controls some 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment. These steps to secure oil flows have come at a cost. By making us central players in a region torn by ancient rivalries, oil dependence has exposed us to resentment, vulnerability and attack. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment tool for Islamic fundamentalists. Yet the United States faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil and the world’s only spare production capacity, the Persian Gulf will remain an indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To protect oil flows, the U.S. policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel Islamic terrorists. Compounding these problems, the huge money flows into the Persian Gulf from oil purchases help finance terrorist networks. Al Qaeda raises funds from an extensive global network, with Islamic charities and NGOs playing an important role. Saudi money provides critical support for madrassas with virulent anti-American views.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 107

OIL BAD – TERRORISM
Oil dependence force foreign policy decisions that fuel terrorism. Sandalow, 2007 (David B., “Freedom from Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States’ Oil Addiction”, McGraw Hill, Sandalow is a Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute and former assistant secretary of state and senior director on the National Security Council staff) The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will last for generations. Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a central role in the struggle. For more than 50 years, the need to protect oil flows has shaped U.S. policy and relationships in the Persian Gulf. During the Cold War, we supported the Shah of Iran and other unpopular leaders in part to keep oil flowing from the region. In 1980, with the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf would be considered “an assault on the vital interests of the United states” and be “Repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In 1991, with Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush told Congress that war was necessary because “[v]ital economic interests are at risk…Iraq itself controls some 10% of the worlds proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that.” Later, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft explained that “…what gave enormous urgency to [Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait] was the issue of oil.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, US troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment. These steps to secure oil flows have come at a cost. By making us central players in a region torn by ancient rivalries, oil dependence has exposed us to resentment, vulnerability, and attack. Osama Bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” Today, deep resentment of the US role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment took for jihadists. That resentment grows not just from the war in Iraq, but form the US relationship with the House of Saud, the presence of US forces through the region and a long legacy of perceived betrayals. Yet the US faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half of the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil and the world’s only spare production capacity, the Persian Gulf will remain and indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To protect oil flows, the US policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel the jihadist movement. Dependence on foreign oil finances terrorist organizations. McCain, 08 ( John, Senator, Speech delivered in Huston, Texas, June 17, lexis) As bad as all that is, the second consequence is worse by far. Oil revenues are enriching the enemies of the United States, and potentially limiting our own options in containing the threat they present. Iran alone receives more than 66 billion dollars a year from oil sales, even as that regime finances terrorists, threatens Israel, and endangers the peace of the world with its designs on nuclear weapons. Moreover, by relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror -- we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on -- and Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are. Osama bin Laden has been quite explicit in directing terrorists to attack the oil facilities on which so much of America's economy depends. They have come close more than once. And we are one successful at tack away from an economic crisis of monumental proportions.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 108

OIL BAD - TERRORISM IMPACTS
Even a small terrorist attack causes the US to lash out, resulting in global war Schwartz-Morgan, 01 (Nicole, Assistant Prof Politics and Econ – Royal Military College of Canada, Wild Globalization and Terrorism, http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm) The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying
its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has

Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and
become emotionally volatile. ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic

, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy.
becomes a clear and present danger

Terrorism causes extinction. Alexander, 03 (Yonah Alexander, Director, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies. Article in the Jersualem Post. 825-03. avail. Lexis) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically the international community's failure, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threat to the survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather
than as a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned to witness the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al-Qaida terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military centers. Likewise Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Accords of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack. Why are the US and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism, continually shocked by terrorist surprises? There are several reasons: * A misunderstanding of the manifold factors contributing to the expansion of terrorism, such as the absence of a universal definition of terrorism; * The religionization of politics; * Double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of

The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear that we have entered an Age of Super-Terrorism - biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear, and cyber - with its serious implications for national, regional, and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an
conventional and unconventional threats and impact. effective counterterrorism strategy can be developed; for example, strengthening international cooperation. THE FIRST illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social, and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism used by "oppressed" people seeking to achieve their goals is justified. Consequently, the argument advanced by so-called freedom fighters - "give me liberty and I will give you death" - is tolerated, if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals the fact that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinian religious movements, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and secular entities, such as Fatah's Tanzim and the Aksa Martyrs Brigade, wish not only to resolve national grievances such as settlements, the right of return, and Jerusalem, but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq; its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that initiating strong action against the terrorist infrastructure - leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control - will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law enforcement efforts and military retaliation will inevitably fuel more brutal revenge acts of violence. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, the danger is that such thinking will paralyze governments into inaction, thereby encouraging further terrorist attacks. Past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic strategy. The prudent application of force has demonstrated that it is an effective tool in deterring terrorism in the short and long terms. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a ticking bomb. The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab, a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem, disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the US military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a

. Thus it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory there is no survival."
state sponsor of terror

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 109

OIL BAD - TERRORISM IMPACTS
Terrorism causes global nuclear war Speice, 06 (Patrick Speice, JD candidate. William and Mary Law Review. avail. Lexis] Disorder within Russia and the resulting strains within the military could easily cause a lapse or a breakdown in the Russian military's guardianship of nuclear weapons. 38 Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 53

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 110

OIL BAD – GREAT POWER WARS
Oil shocks will collapse developing countries and lead to great power wars. Elhefnawy, April 1, 2008 (Nadar, Visiting Assistant Professor of Literature at the University of Miami, “The Impending Oil Shock,” Informaworld, ProQuest, Accessed 06-30-08) Some states, particularly in the underdeveloped world, may not even be able to obtain sufficient energy resources to keep their economies functioning. Less-developed nations differ widely in the energy-intensiveness of their economies as well, but given the relatively low resource productivity of many; their obsolete, poorly maintained or otherwise inadequate infrastructure; and their obligation to pay for high-priced oil in hard currency; low-income oil importers will be in an especially poor position. In contrast to developed states enjoying more developed institutions and better access to capital and technology, less-developed nations have fewer of the resources needed to adapt to new circumstances, and any price shock would weaken such resources as they do have.71 Indeed, with adequate supplies of energy priced out of the reach of consumers, businesses and government, basic services might fail and states cease to be viable, even as developed nations continue to get by. Any price shock would come in an environment already favouring state failure: recent years have seen stagnating growth in Latin America and Africa; the removal of a great deal of foreign support for weak governments (a process that started with the Cold War’s end); and continued population growth in the poorest regions, putting pressure on infrastructure and resource bases. Many of these problems will get worse rather than better, particularly the relationship between population size and natural resources such as water and arable land. The salinated and damaged farmland on which a third of the world’s crops are presently grown is a case in point.72 Aside from the expensive repairs such lands require, drip-irrigation and other methods needed to keep them productive are much more energy intensive than current practices. Not having access to the required energy may mean disaster. Moreover, there will be spillover effects, such as refugee flows and the emergence of havens for terrorism and organised crime, as in Afghanistan and Somalia. There is also the danger that where one state fails, another may move in, either formally or informally. These interventions may be motivated by a sense of threat (guerrillas using the territory of failed states as a base of refuge), or the sighting of an opportunity to grab territory and resources – both of which were factors in the numerous invasions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by its neighbours
since the mid 1990s.73 The heightened risk of state failure will drive inreasingly desperate efforts to avoid it, especially given the lower efficacy of market-driven solutions in impoverished countries.74 Weak states may make ‘neo-feudal’ arrangements with sub-state actors like warlords, private militias and private corporations to shore up their positions. Alternatively, they may become more centralised and controlling, even totalitarian, and other, stronger nations may feel compelled to prop them up, despite the unsavoury character of their regimes.75 There may also be

76 The problem could become still more severe, not only because of more numerous crises, but because the lopsided conventional wars the major powers are most likely to fight require relatively few ‘boots on the ground’, while nation-building in the ever more populous and urbanised developing world requires larger numbers. Smaller countries are not the only ones at risk. The failure of large but economically fragile states on the model of the Soviet collapse is conceivable, and even more problematic at the global level, given that their size compounds their problems, making them more difficult
an increased demand for peacekeeping missions, demand that will likely overwhelm the ability of the major military powers to deliver; indeed, they have already been overwhelmed. to bail out or prop up, and introducing problems that are not a consideration with smaller states, such as the proliferation of sophisticated weaponry. The moment before a large nation collapses is especially fraught with peril.77 The Soviet Union made surprisingly little effort to resist dissolution in 1991, but there is no certainty that the next great power to go this way will not flail about

. Great-power conflict is not out of the question; it may even be the most likely cause of conflict in the future, particularly if crises bring radical ideologies to the fore.78
dangerously prior to collapse

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 111

OIL BAD – SHOCKS = NUCLEAR WAR
Major oil shocks would plunge the world into nuclear war. Lauria 08 – (Joe - New York-based investigative journalist. A freelance member of the Sunday Times of London Insight team, he has also worked on investigations for the Boston Globe and Bloomberg News., The Huffington Post, April 14, “The Coming War with Iran: It’s About the Oil, Stupid,” http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8282/) The Saudis would not mind seeing the Iranian regime go. But the Saudis may also be on the list. The US may have to destabilize and control Saudi Arabia some day too. The Wall Street Journal a few years ago revealed that in the 1970s under Nixon, Kissinger had plans drawn up for the US invasion and occupation of the Saudi oil fields. Those plans can be dusted off. The American oil wars are being launched out of weakness, not strength. The American economy is teetering and without control of the remaining oil it will collapse. There will be massive chaos in any case, when only enough oil remains for the American elite and whomever they choose to share it with. That will leave an oil-starved China and India, both with nuclear weapons, with no alternative but to bow to America or go to war. It’s not about greed any more. It’s about survival. Because the leadership of this country was initially too greedy to switch from oil to solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable alternatives, it may now be too late. Had the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the invasion and occupation of Iraq been put into alternative energy the world might have had a fighting chance. Now that is far from certain. What is certain is that these wars are not about democracy. They are not about WMD. The coming one will not even be about Iran’s nuclear weapons project. It’s about the oil, stupid.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 112

OIL BAD – RESOURCE WARS
Oil demand will soon outpace production, causing resource wars Mouawad, 08 ("If you think the oil situation is bad, worse is to come." Jad - a staff reporter for The New York Times covering the energy industry. The New York Times. April 26, 2008. http://business.theage.com.au/if-youthink-the-oil-situation-is-bad-worse-is-to-come-20080425-28ma.html) OIL prices nearly broke through $US120 a barrel this week, setting another record for the world's most indispensable energy commodity. What was striking was what did not happen: there was no shortage of oil, no sudden embargo, no exporter turning off its spigot. Some attacks on oil pipelines in Nigeria was all it took. The weak US dollar, worries about terrorism and speculation on commodity markets certainly played a role. But, of course, so did demand. Producers are struggling to pump as much as they can to quench the thirst not only of the developed world, but fast-growing developing nations such as China and India, the two most populous countries. To many experts, the steadily rising price underscored longer-term fears about a system that has supplied cheap oil for more than a century. "This is the market signaling there is a problem, that there is a growing difficulty to meet demand with new supplies," said UBS global oil economist Jan Stuart. Today's tensions are only likely to worsen in coming years. Consider a few numbers. The planet's population is expected to grow by 50% to 9 billion by the middle of the century. The number of cars and trucks is projected to double in 30 years — to more than 2 billion — as developing nations rapidly modernise. And twice as many passenger planes, more than 36,000, will in all likelihood be flying in 20 years. All of that will require a lot more oil — enough that global oil consumption will jump by 35% by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency, a leading global energy forecaster for the US and other developed nations. Producers will have to find and pump an additional 11 billion barrels every year. And that's only 22 years away, a heartbeat for the petroleum industry, where the pace of finding and tapping supplies is measured in decades. The pursuit of oil will be just part of the energy challenge. The world's energy demand — including oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, as well as renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro power — is set to rise by 65% over the next two decades, according to the IEA. But petroleum, the dominant fuel of the 20th century, will remain the top energy source. It accounts for more than a third of energy needs, ahead of coal and natural gas. Refined into petrol, kerosene or diesel fuel, oil has no viable substitute as a transport fuel, and that is not likely to change much in the next 30 years. The problem is that no one can say for sure where all this oil is going to come from. That might not sound like such a bad thing for those concerned about carbon emissions and climate change. High prices might force people to conserve and encourage development of alternatives. But the energy crunch might also result in a global scramble for resources, energy wars, and much higher energy prices.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 113

OIL BAD – AIR POLLUTION
Oil use causes urban pollution that poses serious health risks and undermines individuals’ quality of life. Sandalow, 2008 (Freedom From Oil, David B. Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the Energy and Climate Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative, McGrawHill: New York, New York, 2008. p. 31-32) Air quality is unhealthy in dozens of cities around the United States The worst problems are particulate matter (commonly known as soot), ground-level ozone (the main component of smog), and carbon monoxide. Oil causes more than half this pollution. Vehicles produce 45% of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 36% of volatile organic compounds (VOC), which combine to make ground-level ozone. They also produce 77% of the carbon monoxide. 14 The health consequences of this pollution are serious. Particulates trigger asthma, coughs and other respiratory problems. Ozone causes shortness of breath, wheezing and coughing. Carbon monoxide reduces oxygen delivery to organs and tissues, with especial impacts on those with cardiovascular conditions." Since passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, urban air quality has improved dramatically in the United States. Pollution from vehicles has dropped sharply.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 114

OIL BAD – WARMING
Oil use for transportation is the leading cause of global emissions. Sandalow, 2008 (Freedom From Oil, David B. Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the Energy and Climate Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative, McGrawHill: New York, New York, 2008. p. 30-31) Oil is a leading cause of global warming. Worldwide, 40% of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions come from oil, roughly the same as from coal." This problem could get much worse. Today there are roughly 800 million cars and trucks on the road worldwide. This is projected to grow to more than 2 billion by 2030.11 If most or all those vehicles run on oil, the global warming impacts would be extremely serious. Oil is the single largest source of heattrapping gases in the United States. In the U.S., carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles increased from 1.2 billion tons in 1980 to 1.8 billion tons in 2003. At current rates of increase, emissions would easily reach 2.5 billion tons by 2020.12 A gallon of gasoline, when burned, produces almost 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Just over 5 pounds of carbon dioxide, on average, are emitted in [end page 30] producing and refining the fuel, so the average gallon of gasoline creates roughly 25 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means the average car in the United States puts roughly 6 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. 13 There are no pollution control devices that can separate carbon dioxide from a car's exhaust. (In this way, carbon dioxide is different than many other pollutants, such as particulates or carbon monoxide.) The only ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles are to improve fuel efficiency, substitute cleaner fuels or drive less. Vehicle fuel efficiency has been roughly constant in the United States for the past 20 years.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 115

OIL BAD – CIVIL WARS & STATE COLLAPSE
High oil prices cause civil wars and state collapse in producer states Ross, June, ’08 (Michael L., associate professor of political science at the University of California, “Blood Barrels: Why Oil Wealth Fuels Conflict,” Foreign Affairs, May/June, lexis nexis, 07-01-08) The world is far more peaceful today than it was 15 years ago. There were 17 major civil wars -- with "major" meaning the kind that kill more than a thousand people a year -- going on at the end of the Cold War; by 2006, there were just five. During that period, the number of smaller conflicts also fell, from 33 to 27. Despite this trend, there has been no drop in the number of wars in countries that produce oil. The main reason is that oil wealth often wreaks havoc on a country's economy and politics, makes it easier for insurgents to fund their rebellions, and aggravates ethnic grievances. Today, with violence falling in general, oil-producing states make up a growing fraction of the world's conflict-ridden countries. They now host about a third of the world's civil wars, both large and small, up from one-fifth in 1992. According to some, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq shows that oil breeds conflict between countries, but the more widespread problem is that it breeds conflict within them. The number of oil-producer-based conflicts is likely to grow in the future as stratospheric prices of crude oil push more countries in the developing world to produce oil and gas. In 2001, the Bush administration's energy task force hailed the emergence of new producers as a chance for the United States to diversify the sources of its energy imports and reduce its reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf. More than a dozen countries in Africa, the Caspian basin, and Southeast Asia have recently become, or will soon become, significant oil and gas exporters. Some of these countries, including Chad, East Timor, and Myanmar, have already suffered internal strife. Most of the rest are poor, undemocratic, and badly governed, which means that they are likely to experience violence as well. On top of that, record oil prices will yield the kind of economic windfalls that typically produce further unrest. Oil is not unique; diamonds and other minerals produce similar problems. But as the world's most sought-after commodity, and with more countries dependent on it than on gold, copper, or any other resource, oil has an impact more pronounced and more widespread.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 116

OIL BAD – FAILED STATES IMPACT
Failed states cause weapons proliferation and terrorism Krasner and Pascual ’05 (Stephen D., professor at Stanford University , and Carlos, director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute, “Addressing State Failure,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, lexis nexis, 07-01-08) In today's increasingly interconnected world, weak and failed states pose an acute risk to U.S. and global security. Indeed, they present one of the most important foreign policy challenges of the contemporary era. States are most vulnerable to collapse in the time immediately before, during, and after conflict. When chaos prevails, terrorism, narcotics trade, weapons proliferation, and other forms of organized crime can flourish. Left in dire straits, subject to depredation, and denied access to basic services, people become susceptible to the exhortations of demagogues and hatemongers. It was in such circumstances that in 2001 one of the poorest countries in the world, Afghanistan, became the base for the deadliest attack ever on the U.S. homeland, graphically and tragically illustrating that the problems of other countries often do not affect them alone. The international community is not, however, adequately organized to deal with governance failures. The United States and the rest of the world need to develop the tools to both prevent conflict and manage its aftermath when it does occur. Such efforts will entail not just peacekeeping measures, but also influencing the choices that troubled countries make about their economies, their political systems, the rule of law, and their internal security. Weak countries are unable to take advantage of the global economy not just because of a lack of resources, but also because they lack strong, capable institutions. To promote sustainable peace, Washington and its partners must thus commit to making long-term investments of money, energy, and expertise. Failed states cause terrorist safe-havens – only strong governance solves Krasner and Pascual ’05 (Stephen D., professor at Stanford University, and Carlos, director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute, “Addressing State Failure,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, lexis nexis, 07-01-08) Further complicating matters, modern conflicts are far more likely to be internal, civil matters than to be clashes between opposing countries. "State death" as a result of external invasion, common before World War II, has almost disappeared since 1945. The lack of good governance in weak states means they often do not have the ability to deal with disaffected or criminal groups within their own borders. Recent scholarship suggests that civil strife is no more likely in ethnically or religiously divided countries than it is in homogeneous ones. Internal discord is more likely to arise in countries suffering from poverty, a highly unequal income distribution, recent decolonization, weak institutions, ineffective police and counterinsurgency forces, and difficult terrain -- conditions that allow small guerrilla bands to thrive. Valuable raw materials, such as diamonds or oil, also tend to spark conflict among competitors who want to seize control of the wealth. Warring groups generally have easy access to weapons and may even control territory, giving them a base for launching attacks on the state, its citizens, or its neighbors. Other nonstate actors, including transnational terrorist organizations, can also take root in such environments, posing a threat to global security. These elements of state weakness constitute structural threats akin to dead leaves that accumulate in a forest. No one knows what spark will ignite them, or when. Over the long run, the only real way to create lasting peace is to promote better governance.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 117

ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP KEY TO HEG
Environmental leadership is key to US soft power and leadership. Rubin 2008 (James, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, “Building a New Atlantic Alliance: Restoring America’s Partnership with Europe”, Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2008, Vol. 87, Iss. 4; pg. 99, 12 pgs) Reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, "waterboarding," and CIA renditions and "black sites" have been even more devastating to the United States' image in Europe. Europeans across the political spectrum used to have a strong sense of shared values with Americans. Recent revelations have broken that bond. The growing values gap is also apparent when it comes to environmental policy. It is not just the Green Party in Germany that regards climate change as a planetary peril. From the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom to the Christian Democratic parties on the continent, thinking green has taken hold regardless of political ideology. With Washington now seen as dragging its feet in the face of such an awesome danger, the average European has come to doubt whether the United States is a responsible member of the international community. This perception is an unprecedented threat to the United States' role as a global leader. One notable exception was Washington's reaction to the 2005 Asian tsunami, which demonstrated that a dramatic U.S. response can have a real effect on world opinion and, crucially, on the attitudes of moderate Muslims.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 118

PEAK OIL NOW
We’ve reached peak oil now – global suppliers, the IEA, and OPEC are only forecasting decline in oil supply. The Guardian, June 19, 2008 (“Oil output outside OPEC at risk of no growth in 2008” Reuters, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7596372) LONDON, June 19 (Reuters) - Oil supply from countries outside OPEC, source of three in every five barrels, is stalling this year and may even decline, keeping the heat under record-high oil prices. The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. government have cut forecasts for supply growth in 2008, in part due to delays at new fields and declining output at existing ones. "There is a risk of zero non-OPEC growth," said Mike Wittner, oil analyst at Societe Generale, who forecasts non-OPEC supply will expand by 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year. "As far as our forecast is concerned, there is definitely downside to our numbers." Struggling supply outside OPEC has helped fuel the surge in oil prices to a record near $140 a barrel, adding a strain to the world economy. It also increases reliance on OPEC oil exporters to meet rising demand. Signs that oil supply is faltering in parts of the world are leading to growing interest in peak oil, the view that production is nearing a high point and will then fall. Influential forecasters such as the IEA, adviser to 27 industrialised countries, have been lowering forecasts for supply from non-OPEC countries, but still predict an expansion. Output from non-OPEC will grow by 460,000 bpd in 2008 from 2007, the IEA said in a monthly report on June 10, down from growth of 680,000 bpd previously forecast. Others say even that may prove optimistic. Analysts at investment bank Barclays Capital expect nonOPEC supply to decline by 40,000 bpd this year, while Credit Suisse sees non-OPEC supply as flat or negative through 2012 or longer. Another bank, Citigroup, said on June 9 that non-OPEC supply was at risk of posting no growth this year. There are several reasons why supply from non-OPEC has fallen short of forecasts in recent years. Delays at new fields, faster-than-expected declines at existing ones and unforeseen events such as hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico have meant production came in lower than first thought. Oilfields in places such as the North Sea and Mexico are seeing declines while output in Russia, the world's second-largest exporter and the engine of growth outside OPEC in recent years, has faltered. Russian oil supply in May averaged 9.95 million bpd, the fifth straight month of decline from a year ago, according to the IEA. It expects Russian supply to be largely flat in 2008 at 10.1 million bpd. Barclays questions if the IEA's prediction of a surge in non-OPEC supply in the last few months of 2008 will materialise, saying that the IEA's figures show a second-quarter drop of 500,000 bpd year-onyear. "We believe that the IEA is significantly overstating the short-term ability of non-OPEC supply to bounce back and moderate the current situation," the bank said. Some in the industry are more pessimistic about supply. Billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens said on Tuesday that he believed world crude production has topped out at 85 million bpd. Peak oil has its detractors, such as BP Plc Chief Executive Tony Hayward. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is still expected by the IEA and others to expand its supply capacity this year. Others avoid the term but still see non-OPEC output levelling off. "The rate of year-on-year decline in Russia and Mexico has been surprising and it doesn't show any sign of letting up," Wittner said. "Non-OPEC output is certainly hitting a plateau." (Editing by William Hardy).

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 119

PEAK OIL NOW
Peak oil is here- population and demand increases and production plateaus prove. Davis, 2008 (Daniel L., May 5, Washington Times, Staff Writer, “The Coming Crisis”) The issue is not simply a concern that we will have to pay outrageous prices for a gallon of gas. If that were the worst of it, the situation would be difficult but manageable. The reality, however, goes deeper and is much more troubling. There are multiple problems affecting the world that are having a decidedly negative net effect: a global rise in demand for crude oil, the plateau in the production of crude oil (which may indicate the peak has already been reached) and continued global population growth. Together, these three factors are serving to shove the world into a crisis that has ominous possibilities. When there isn't enough oil to satisfy global demand, the price obviously rises. Perhaps less obvious, however, is the effect this price increase has on the world's ability to produce food. Every stage of the food production cycle is affected by petroleum and a rise in the price of a barrel of oil has compounding effects: It costs more to run the farm machinery, more to buy the fertilizer, more to take it to market and more for processing. In the United States, this results in raised eyebrows at the grocery store. In parts of the world where upwards of 75 percent of a family's income goes to buying food, it results in social unrest and riots. The United Nations estimates that global population is growing at the rate of 78 million people a year — roughly the equivalent of adding the population of Germany to the world every year. According to Energy Information Administration data released earlier this month, global petroleum production has been on a relatively level plateau for the past 44 consecutive months. But at the same time, the economies of China and India have continued growing, which accelerates the consumption of petroleum-related products and increases the amount and quality of food each person eats. These three facts have conspired to produce a global shortage of crude oil which has exacerbated the world's inability to feed itself. If the world cannot produce significantly more barrels of oil per day, while at the same time the developing world's appetite continues to increase and the global population continues its climb, there won't be enough oil to go around or enough food for everyone to eat. In just the past two weeks we have been given a foretaste of what that might mean as news organizations have reported rioting and social unrest in developing countries around the world as a result of food shortages; Canadian Bank analyst Jeff Rubin predicted oil prices will "soar to $225 a barrel by 2012." Many experts expect these twin afflictions to remain for the foreseeable future. This is not the time for more talk and half-measures. Facts on the ground demand urgent, robust and sustained action at the highest levels of government.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 120

PEAK OIL NOW
We are on the verge of a severe oil crisis. Aleklett, 2008 (May 19, Kjell, Financial Times, Commentary, “The market sets high oil prices to tell us what to do”, professor at Uppsala University, Sweden, and President of ASPO – International) “Global supplies of crude oil will peak as early as 2010 and then start to decline, ushering in an era of soaring energy prices and economic upheaval – or so said an international group of petroleum specialists meeting Friday”. This quote was a result of the first meeting of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) in May 2002 in Uppsala, Sweden. In response to press inquiries ASPO claimed: “The world oil depletion curve is based on all available information on oil reserves and estimates of the amounts yet-to-find, and indicates that world oil production will reach a peak (87 million barrels per day) around 2010 and decline thereafter.” Remarkably, this forecast seems today to still be on target. At the 2007 ASPO conference former US Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger said:”…and therefore to the peakists I say, you can declare victory. You are no longer the beleaguered small minority of voices crying in the wilderness. You are now the mainstream. You must learn to take yes for an answer and be gracious in victory.” But the concept of peak oil relates to the fact that oil is a finite resource and that at some point, world oil production will reach a maximum and go into decline. Because oil is a life-blood of economies worldwide, the decline of world oil production is certain to result in severe negative consequences, particularly for oil importers. The world can be divided into those countries that import oil and those countries that are oil exporters. Current daily export volumes are around 50 million barrels per day, Mbpd, with the rest of the 85 Mbpd produced every day consumed by the oil producing nations. The top five oil importers are USA, Japan, China, Germany and South Korea, who rely on exports from the top five exporters of oil, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Nigeria and Venezuela.The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that the US will need an additional 7 Mbpd by 2030. By that time production within the US will have declined by around 2 Mbpd, requiring an increase in imports of 9 Mbpd. Production within China appears to be near a maximum now and will also decline in the near future. With a strong increase in consumption, China will want to increase imports by the same order as the US. Summing import expectations from all of the importing countries an increase in import demand of the order of 30 million barrels per day seems to be required by 2030, but that cannot happen if world oil production soon peaks and then goes into decline.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 121

PEAK OIL NOW
Peak oil is now- production has been steadily decreasing. Energy Watch Group, 2007 (October, “Crude Oil: The Supply Outlook”, The Energy Watch Group consists of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global energy supply, http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf) Indications of an imminent peak are discussed in this chapter. But let it be said that the question of the exact timing of peak oil is less important than many people think. There is sufficient certainty that world oil production is not going to rise significantly anymore and that world oil production soon will definitely start to decline. Production in countries outside OPEC and Former Soviet Union (FSU) On a global level, the development of different oil regions took place at different times and at varying speeds. Therefore, today we are able to identify production regions being in different maturity stages and with this empirical evidence we can validate with many examples the simple considerations which were described in the previous paragraph. Looking at the countries outside of the Former Soviet Union and OPEC, it can be noticed that their total production increased until about the year 2000, but since then total production has been declining. A detailed analysis of the individual countries within this group shows that most of them have already reached their production peaks and that only a very limited number of countries will still be able to expand production, particularly Brazil and Angola. Responsible for the stagnation of the oil production in this group of countries was the peaking of the oil production in the North Sea which occurred in 2000 (1999 in Great Britain, 2001 in Norway). Global onshore oil production had reached a plateau much
earlier and has been declining since the mid 1990ies. This decline could be balanced by the fast development of offshore fields which now account for almost 50% of the production of all countries in this group. The North Sea alone has a share of almost 40% of the total offshore production within this group. The peaking of the North Sea was decisive because the production decline could not be compensated anymore by a timely connection of new fields in the remaining regions – it was only possible to maintain the plateau for a few years. There is a growing supply gap developing in coming years in the countries outside OPEC and the FSU. This gap will have to be compensated by a rising supply coming from OPEC and/or the FSU. The chances of this

Also, a steady degradation of the quality of the oil produced can be observed in almost all regions having passed peak and poses an additional challenge for the existing downstream infrastructures: refineries have to operate with oil of decreasing quality. The share of lesser oil qualities is steadily increasing – this will additionally drive upwards the prices for the remaining good oil grades.
happening are marginal. This will be discussed in the following analysis and in the chapter describing supply scenarios for world regions.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 122

PEAK OIL NOW
Global oil output is at its peak. Kennett, 2007 (October 19, “Global Oil Output has already peaked, Pickens says”, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajMgRIfZrNVk) Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- World oil output has already peaked, and prices that have surged to record highs above $90 a barrel are a sign of things to come, said investor Boone Pickens, chairman of Dallas-based BP Capital LLC. Global production has peaked at 85 million barrels a day, Pickens, 79, said in an interview today at a Houston conference sponsored by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, a non-profit think tank. Oil will rise to $100 a barrel before falling to $80 again, he said. Earlier this week, he said crude would reach $100 by year's end. ``As this unfolds, you're going to have to find alternatives that are going to do the job that oil is doing,'' Pickens said. ``Everyone is going to have to come to grips with this in the next two or three years. People are going to have to figure it out.'' Peak oil is the theory that world production has reached or is about to reach its zenith, after which it will begin an unstoppable decline. Critics say it's impossible to know when petroleum output has peaked, given uncertainties estimating global reserves. Previous efforts to peg a date for peak output have been wrong, they say. Investors such as Pickens and analysts like Matthew Simmons of Houston investment bank Simmons & Co. International support the peak oil theory. Executives from companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. have downplayed the possibility. ``They talked like $50 was going to be difficult, and $60 and $70. We went through those like a knife through hot butter,'' Pickens said. Last month, Pickens predicted that oil would reach $100 a barrel after falling to $78. Futures in New York dropped as low as $78.35 on Oct. 8, and touched a record high of $90.07 today. The consensus of experts supports that we have reached peak oil. Our economy is poised for total devastation and resource wars. Savinar 2007 (Matt – an attorney and scholar on Peak Oil who has appeared frequently in the House, Fortune Magazine, and the Wall Street Journal, "Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left,” google: refineries key to US economy collapse, < http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/>) In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode. The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of
Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-

, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't have to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty. The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%. Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary. The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3-6% per year, every year. Almost all independent estimates from now disinterested scientists indicate global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years.
15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him. In a similar sense

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 123

PEAK OIL NOW
Oil peak is here – prices are going to remain high and oil production is on the decline. The North Platte Telegraph, June 25, 2008, (Mark Young, “Outlook bleak oil prices” http://www.nptelegraph.com/articles/2008/06/25/news/60000388.txt) The strain on your wallet that happens every time you pull into the gas station will see brief moments of ease, but according to some experts, the glory days of cheap fuel are not only gone, but the situation will get steadily worse. Dr. Robert Kaufmann, a professor at Boston University and considered to be an expert on world oil supply presented his cause and effect presentation to reporters around the country Tuesday afternoon via telephone and the picture he paints is not pleasant. Kaufmann said that both Republicans and Democrats are not thinking far enough ahead to fend off a potential crisis that will confront the world in another one to three decades."The bottom line is that oil is a wonderful fuel and easy to get out of the ground," said Kaufmann. "When we look back at this 100 to 150 years from now, we'll be known as the petroleum age just as ancestors were known as the stone age or the bronze age. Kaufmann said that oil is a finite source and that many experts are predicting a peak in oil production within the next few years up to another three decades, but all agree that the peak is coming and when it does, "That's when the real shortages and price hikes are going to happen," he said. He said that there is going to be room for oil prices to drop in the short term, but that we will never likely see a barrel of oil less than $60 again and will probably not get close to that. "The argument is that oil prices won't collapse and in reality, the fundamentals of supply and demand will keep prices high," he said. Oil production is already on the decline and Kaufmann said offshore drilling and opening up the Alaska Wildlife National Refuge is not going to help. Oil peak coming soon – demand is rising but production is leveling off – prefer our evidence it sites the IEA, OPEC, and leaders of oil companies. Financial Times 2007 (Javier Blas, “World will face oil crunch ‘in five years’” July 9, http://www.thepeakist.com/world-will-face-oil-crunch-%E2%80%98in-five-years%E2%80%99/) The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel Opec, the industrialised countries’ energy watchdog has warned. In its starkest warning yet on the world’s fuel outlook, the International Energy Agency said “oil looks extremely tight in five years time” and there are “prospects of even tighter natural gas markets at the turn of the decade”. The IEA said that supply was falling faster than expected in mature areas, such as the North Sea or Mexico, while projects in new provinces such as the Russian Far East, faced long delays. Meanwhile consumption is accelerating on strong economic growth in emerging countries.The problem is exacerbated by the fact that supply from non-members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will increase at an annual pace of 1 per cent, or less than half the rate of the demand rise. The widening gap between rising consumption and lagging non-Opec supply will force Opec to sharply increase its production in the next five years. Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA’s oil market division, told the Financial Times: “If we
get to the point were there is insufficient supply, the only way to balance the market will be through higher prices and a drop in demand.” The IEA Medium Term Oil Market Report came as oil is approaching last year’s record high. Brent crude oil on Monday rose 72 cents to a 11-month high of $76.34 a barrel. Refineries are already paying record high prices as producing countries have cut the discount at which they sell their oil relative to Brent, according to an analysis by the FT. Most of the discounts had been reduced to levels not seen since 2004 and some even to six-years

Oil demand will grow at an annual rate of 2.2 per cent during the next five years, up from a previous estimate of 2 per cent, to reach 95.8m barrels a day in 2012. China, the Middle East and other emerging countries will lead the increase. Rex Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, said recently that he thought non-Opec oil production was close to levelling off. He told the FT: “We still see capacity for a little more growth, but pretty modest, and then in our own energy outlook it begins to plateau. And that results then in this call on Opec.”
lows.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 124

PEAK OIL NOW
Peak oil now – OPEC, oil companies and the IEA said oil production has slowed Yetiv 2008 (Steve, June 24, The Virginian Pilot “Calculating Peak oil’s due date” Lexis) WITH OIL prices skyrocketing, Americans are feeling serious pain at the pump and are trying to figure out why. Part of the answer may be that we are approaching peak oil sooner than many people would have expected. "Peak oil" refers to a key turning point when global oil production peaks, signaling a future of slowly decreasing world oil production. No one can say when it will arrive, but one fact at least suggests that it may come sooner rather than later: Until recently, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries barely tried to stem the rise of oil prices from $50 per barrel in February 2007 to more than $130 per barrel today. In the past, OPEC, and especially Saudi Arabia, have often increased oil production to try to prevent prices from rising high enough to trigger alternative energy exploration; a Western political backlash; and the ire of the gendarme of the Persian Gulf -- the United States. When I visited OPEC headquarters in May 2003, OPEC researchers underscored how the organization was keeping the price of the OPEC oil basket around $22-$28 per barrel (roughly $25-$31 on the New York Mercantile Exchange). OPEC succeeded in doing so more than 80 percent from June 2001 to June 2003. Recently, the Saudis announced that they will boost daily oil production by 200,000 barrels per day by the end of July, though most of this oil will probably not be sweet crude, which the world most needs. Moreover, Saudi Arabia reiterated that it has a $50 billion plan to increase production by another 30 percent in the coming years. But, even so, how can we explain the lack of any action until now, as prices have spiked dramatically? The answer is multipronged, but peak oil may be a factor. OPEC behavior may be a signal that it cannot easily meet long-run global oil demand, on demand. Even if the Saudis reach 12.5 million barrels per day, that would still be well short of meeting such demand, unless they can boost production further. The International Energy Agency recently underscored its concern that future global oil demand will outstrip oil supply. The U.S. Energy Information Administration significantly scaled back how many barrels of oil it expected the Saudis to produce in 2010. Peak oil now – even oil executives are starting to admit the truth. Fanney 2008 (Robert, former defense analyst, June 12, “OPEC Member Libya – Peak Oil Coming Soon” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/818095/opec_member_libya_peak_oil_coming_soon.html?page=2&cat=7 5) Over the past few years we have seen an incessant rise in oil prices. At the same time, members of OPEC have been in denial of any kind of trouble. Word from OPEC blamed speculators, the dollar, increasing demand -- anything but supply. Well it seems things are starting to change. According to a news report from Reuters, Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation, is coming out of the closet on the issue of peak oil. When asked in a press interview if supply was part of the issue in relation to prices he stated "It will be, in the future. Speculation is playing an important role but it is not the only factor. It is the erosion of the dollar, it is geopolitics, is refinery bottlenecks, it is the increase in demand, it is peak oil getting soon." Peak oil is coming soon. Never before has a member of OPEC so much as mentioned the issue of peak oil. The admission is tantamount to stating that OPEC is no longer sitting at the helm of world oil production. In short, it is an invalidation of the cartel's power to control prices on the downside. For such an admission to come from even a minor member of OPEC is sign of a sea change in the reality facing oil producers around the world. Excuses, false figures and industry denial has all served to create the sense that the oil industry and national oil companies were in control and that the world could trust them to continue to supply energy for the foreseeable future. Now, it seems a growing minority in both the oil industry and now in OPEC are starting to tell the truth.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 125

PEAK OIL – DESTROYS AGRICULTURE
Peak oil will devastate agriculture – food production is entirely dependent on oil. Heinberg, 2007 (Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines, Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, Canada, 2007. p 48) The first factor has to with looming fuel shortages. This is a subject I have written about extensively elsewhere, so I shall not repeat myself in any detail. Suffice it to say that the era of cheap oil and natural gas is coming to a crashing end, with global oil production projected to peak around the year 2010 and North American natural gas extraction rates already in decline. These events will have enormous implications for America's petroleum-dependent food system. Modern industrial agriculture has been described as a method of using soil to turn petroleum and gas into food. We use natural gas to make fertilizer. We use oil to fuel farm machinery and power irrigation pumps, as a feedstock for pesticides and herbicides, in the maintenance of animal operations, in crop storage and drying, and for transportation of farm inputs and outputs. Agriculture accounts for about 17 percent of the US annual energy budget; it is the single largest consumer of petroleum products as compared to other industries. By comparison, the US military, in all of its operations, uses less than half that amount. About 350 gallons (1,500 liters) of oil equivalents are required to feed each American each year, and every calorie of food produced requires, on average, ten calories of fossil-fuel inputs. This is a food system profoundly vulnerable, at every level, to fuel shortages and skyrocketing prices. And both are inevitable.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 126

PEAK OIL - EXTINCTION
Oil peak will cause extinction. The Gazette, June 8, 2008, (Jason Subik, “Forum Sees Oil Peak as World Crisis – American Way of Life may Change” http://dissentmag.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/forum-sees-oil-peak-as-world-crisis-american-way-of-lifemay-change/) CAPITAL REGION — Paul Swartz, a former scientist for General Electric and local business leader, says he believes worldwide oil production either has, or soon will, reach peak production, which he thinks will probably mean the end of modern western civilization generally and the collapse of the American way of life specifically. He doesn’t think it will take long for this to happen. “There is a growing insufficiency [of oil] and it’s going to undermine civilization as we know it. Not tomorrow, not in the next year or two, but in the next five to 10 years,” Swartz said. And he’s not alone. Swartz is the chairman of the steering committee of the Capital Region Energy Forum, known as CREF, a group he says is made up of scientists, business leaders and concerned citizens who meet regularly to listen to speakers and discuss energy issues. “When the group [was] founded it wasn’t with the intention of founding a group,” Swartz said. He said the initial membership of CREF was inspired by Saratogabased author James Howard Kunstler and his book “The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century,” much of which is available free online using a Google book search.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 127

PEAK OIL – MILITARISM
Peak oil will engender a cycle of increased militarism and economic disruptions. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 211-212) Thus far, this analysis has assumed that global oil production will continue to grow in tandem with rising demand, even if higher prices are required to stimulate the necessary further investment. But this may not be the case. A growing chorus of voices has argued that total world oil output may soon reach its historic peak and then begin to decline, even as the need for energy, especially in developing countries, accelerates (for example, Deffeyes 2001; Roberts 2004; Goodstein 2004). If this contention is true, then the various costs of foreign oil dependence are sure to be only greater. Prices will rise faster and higher than have been projected. As the supply of oil begins to dry up, moreover, the competition for what remains will intensify, resulting in an [end page 211] increased likelihood of disruptions and higher price volatility (Klare 2004a, 185). In turn, we might expect to see an even greater imperative to use U.S. foreign and military policy instruments to prevent disruptions and to guarantee access to oil supplies and a further rise in their attendant costs.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 128

PEAK OIL – WAR
Peak oil will collapse the world economy and oil shortages will cause war. Christian Science Monitor, 2007 (“Why ‘Peak Oil’ May Soon Pique Your Interest” http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p15s01-wmgn.html?page=2 August 6) In two years or so, world concern over crude oils supplies should be so great that a Google search on that subject probably will top that of global warming, predicts Matthew Simmons, chairman of Houston-based Simmons & Company International, an investment banking firm for the energy industry. Peak oil refers to the time when production of crude oil in the world (or in a country or in an oil field) reaches its peak and starts to slide. It doesn't mean the world has run out of oil – only that the supply of oil isn't rising to meet growing demand. That change could be reflected in even higher prices, if the demand for oil doesn't stall or fall. Last Tuesday, the price of oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange set a record, rising as high as $78.40. That exceeded the previous high of $77.03 set in July 2006 at the onset of Israel's war in Lebanon. The world output of oil actually already peaked in May 2005 at 74.2 million barrels a day, says Mr. Simmons. Since then, production has fallen about 1 million barrels a day (MB/D). If that trend continues, the results for the world economy will be "so real, so devastating" that peak oil concerns will overwhelm slower-moving global warming in grabbing world attention. That's because today's civilization hangs heavily on an adequate supply of oil. It, for instance, fuels most vehicles, heats many homes and businesses, and is used in many chemicals and plastics. Oil and natural gas now meets some 60 percent of the world's primary energy needs. Oil shortages, warns Simmons, could lead to war.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 129

PEAK OIL – AT: PRICE HIKES TEMPORARY
Oil prices will remain high – key producers are cutting production. Mouawad 08 ("If you think the oil situation is bad, worse is to come." Jad - a staff reporter for The New York Times covering the energy industry. The New York Times. April 26, 2008. http://business.theage.com.au/if-you-think-theoil-situation-is-bad-worse-is-to-come-20080425-28ma.html) The world's oil supplies are already stretched. Countries outside the OPEC cartel — which have been the main source of discoveries and production since the 1970s — have said they expect little to no growth in production this year. The North Sea and Alaska are slowly running out, and producers there are struggling to keep production from falling. Russia's phenomenal oil surge is coming to an end. A top executive of Lukoil, the country's second-largest oil group, said last week that Russia's production was unlikely to increase much. Nigeria is battling a violent militancy. And Mexico, the third most important supplier of crude to the US, has been stuck in a crippling political debate over keeping out foreign investors while witnessing a dramatic production drop that some analysts say may be irreversible. What about OPEC? The 13 members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries account for three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves. But for various reasons, most of those countries are making it harder, if not impossible, for foreign oil companies to invest within their borders. With energy prices rising, OPEC producers are reaping record revenue, which has reduced the incentive to dip into their supplies by boosting production. At the same time, major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron are finding it harder to compete worldwide, as national oil companies erode their once-dominant positions. Fourteen of the top 20 oil companies are state-owned giants, such as Saudi Aramco and Russia's Gazprom. That leaves Western oil companies in control of less than 10% of oil and gas reserves. Facing higher costs, these companies are also having greater difficulty finding new oil deposits. Despite spending more than $US100 billion on exploration last year, the five largest international oil companies found less oil last year than they pumped.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 130

PEAK OIL – DESTROYS ECONOMY
Without alternative energies, peak oil will hurl the U.S. economy into a permanent recession. GAO Report, 2007 (“Crude Oil: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production,” United States Government Accountability Office, February, The Honorable Bart Gordon, Congressman, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:d07283.pdf, Accessed 06-23-08) Because development and widespread adoption of technologies to displace oil will take time and effort, an imminent peak and sharp decline in oil production could have severe consequences. The technologies we examined currently supply the equivalent of only about 1 percent of U.S. annual consumption of petroleum products, and DOE projects that even under optimistic scenarios, these technologies could displace only the equivalent of about 4 percent of annual projected U.S. consumption by around 2015. If the decline in oil production exceeded the ability of alternative technologies to displace oil, energy consumption would be constricted, and as consumers competed for increasingly scarce oil resources, oil prices would sharply increase. In this respect, the consequences could initially resemble those of past oil supply shocks, which have been associated with significant economic damage. For example, disruptions in oil supply associated with the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 and the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 caused unprecedented increases in oil prices and were associated with worldwide recessions. In addition, a number of studies we reviewed indicate that most of the U.S. recessions in the post-World War II era were preceded by oil supply shocks and the associated sudden rise in oil prices. Ultimately, however, the consequences of a peak and permanent decline in oil production could be even more prolonged and severe than those of past oil supply shocks. Because the decline would be neither temporary nor reversible, the effects would continue until alternative transportation technologies to displace oil became available in sufficient quantities at comparable costs. Peak oil and US dependency will crush the economy and spur wars – switching to renewable is key. Howley, June 13, 2008 (John, energy policy consultant, “Oil Insecurity: America’s Choice” Dissent Magazine, http://dissentmag.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/oil-insecurity-americas-choice/) Our nation’s economic well-being today depends on maintaining secure access to petroleum supplies at stable prices. If domestic oil production continues to decline and demand continues to grow, the U.S. increasingly will have to look for foreign oil to meet its needs. Two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the politically volatile Middle East where wars have already been fought over the control of oil, where the U.S. is currently occupying by force the country with the second largest proven reserves, and where U.S. foreign and military policies increasingly are condemned. The vast majority of proven oil reserves around the world are controlled by authoritarian, undemocratic governments with poor records of advancing human rights or human development for their citizens. Within these trends are the seeds for further violence and suffering. Today, we in the U.S. face a choice: continue to increase our dependence on imported oil using any means necessary to secure access to it, including war and threats of war, or, undertake a sustained, national mobilization to free us from oil dependence by reducing consumption and investing in energy efficiency, renewable fuels, and public and alternative transportation. By reducing our reliance on petroleum, and helping other countries (both the oil-rich and the oilpoor) do the same, we can make our country safer, our economy stronger, and our world less vulnerable to economic crises and war.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 131

PEAK OIL – DESTROYS ECONOMY
Peak oil will collapse the economy and enable fascists to destroy civilization. Leggett, ’05 (Jeremy, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board, The Empty Tank, Random House, New York. p.191-192) The crisis will play out in television images around the world. Frantic oil traders will scream at each other on trading floors, eyes wild and hair akimbo. These will hardly be scenes conducive to calm in other markets, and share prices will begin to slide. "Oil Running Out:' the headlines will read. It won't be. It will merely be half gone, and so becoming very, very expensive-very, very quickly. Leaders of the Consumer States and the Producer States will get together for a crisis summit, looking appropriately grim in their suits and flowing robes, respectively. They will be able to think of nothing much to say that will ease the panic. And so it will spread further. Producer Number One has allowed a mountain of consumer debt to pile up, most of-it in houses. The price of houses will collapse. Stock markets will crash. Within a short period, human wealth-little more than a pile of paper at the best of times, even with confidence about the future high among traders will shrivel. The inescapable consequences of the crisis will then roll out in slow motion. Companies will go bankrupt by the hundreds and then thousands. Workers will fall into unemployment by the hundreds of thousands and then millions. Once affluent cities with street cafes will have queues at soup kitchens and armies of beggars on the streets. The crime rate will soar. The Earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox. It has happened before. We can sense, in the months and years after October 1929, what is likely to happen this time. Then, the economic depression had nothing to do with oil, just a general catastrophic collapse of confidence by traders. It has taken us many years to dig ourselves out of the mess since. In the aftermath of the stock market crash at that time, the problems were compounded by the emergence of a further category of Fundamentalist, the Fascists. The Fascists believed in having one powerful leader and a big secret police force with well equipped torture chambers. Democracy and Cosmopolitan Tolerance were most definitely not on the agenda of these guys, although they tended to pretend otherwise until they got into power. They fed on the anger of the newly unemployed poor. They whipped up hate against a [end page 191] third category of religious human, people who follow neither Christ nor Muhammad, and believe that the son of their version of God has yet to visit the Earth. These people have often been traders, then and now. In the years after 1929, they were often residually rich among all the general hardship. The Fascists of the time burned their homes, then herded them into trains and sent them to concentration camps. In the worst of the many examples of genocide in human history, the Fascists then began systematically to exterminate these people by the millions. Nobody came to their rescue because by this time the Fascists of the day had plunged the Earth into a planet-wide war. Now, around 2010 years after Christ's birth, it will start to look as though the whole bloody business might be beginning all over again. Fascists once more will crawl out of the woodwork and get to work on the poor. This will happen in many nationstates. In the wake of the incident with the passenger jets and the iconic buildings, Consumer Number One has fanned a state of fear among its populace. In that environment, it has put in place many state instruments of repression. Emergency laws permit incarceration without trial. Special prison camps have been set up. Laws on torture have been relaxed and this gruesome business has been outsourced to nation-states friendly to Consumer Number One but with even more lax laws concerning torture chambers.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 132

PEAK OIL – DESTROYS ECONOMY
High oil prices cause a global recession. Cooper 08 ("Facing up to the reality of a new oil crisis" Peter J. - Consultant editor of AME. May 15, 2008. http://www.ameinfo.com/39571.html) Every major recession in the United States since 1971 has been preceded by an oil crisis. Today oil prices are at a 21-year high. For all the present optimism about global growth, perhaps a recession is just around the corner. This has happened so many times before that market professionals should be getting used to it. But they are getting younger and may need a backgrounder in economic history to appreciate market reality rather than unjustified optimism. Let us turn the clock back. In 1980 crude oil prices shot up to $78 per barrel (adjusted to 2002 price levels) in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution; a US recession followed. In 1990 oil prices hit $41 in the wake of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; the US suffered an economic slowdown and the UK had its worst post-war recession. Today industry experts see very little prospect of a fall in oil prices over the summer. The International Energy Agency says the demand for oil has risen by more than five per cent over the past year of which more than a third has come from the overheating Chinese economy. The rest of excess demand is down to global economic recovery fuelled by very low US interest rates. On the supply side, there does appear to be a serious issue, despite official denials from Opec members. Last week Russia signaled that it was now pumping oil at full capacity of 9.3 million barrels per day, and could manage no more. There was also a brief interruption to supplies in Iraq due to sabotage of a major oil pipeline. Meanwhile, refining capacity in the US is insufficient to meet current demand levels. In such an environment the revelations about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the public relations fall-out, have helped to push world oil prices to a 21-year high. It is fair to point out that if adjusted for inflation, oil prices are less than they were 13 years ago, but we probably have not seen the 2004 highs yet. The reason that oil crises quickly turn into economic recessions for the oil consumer nations is that higher oil prices lead to consumer and asset price inflation that has to be tackled with higher interest rates. The alternative of leaving inflation to spiral out of control would be even more damaging. Now the higher oil prices go, the higher interest rates will have to rise to bring down inflation. And the higher interest rates go, the deeper will be the business slowdown or recession. Equities and bonds, which tend to overshoot on the downside, could be in for a very rough ride indeed. Oil crises and stock market crashes go together like birds of a feather.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 133

PEAK OIL – AT: ENOUGH RESERVES
We don’t need to win peak oil will occur now – the oil industry lacks the infrastructure to meet the rising demand. Leggett, ’05 (Jeremy, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board, The Empty Tank, Random House, New York. p. 57-59) Let us suppose for a moment that the late toppers are correct. The topping point, as defined by reserves available in principle, is off in the 2020s or 2030s, and we can look forward to growing-supplies of relatively cheap oil for a decade or more. There is another aspect of the problem: whether or not the production capacity is sufficient. Oil industry analyst Michael Smith, who took his Ph.D. in geology just after me-sitting in the same chair as I did in the research lab-is an expert in this subject. He has spent most of his vocational life as an oil industry geologist working around the world, particularly in the Middle East. "Reserves are largely irrelevant to the peak;' he says. "Production capacity is the important thing-how quickly you can get it out. It is an engineering problem, not a geological problem." Of the eleven countries in the Middle East, only five are significant oil producers: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, known sometimes [end page 57] as the Middle East 5. They produce around 20 million barrels a day today, a quarter of the global total. If global demand rises at the average rate of the last thirty years, 1.5 percent per year, these five countries will have to meet around two thirds of the demand, Smith calculates. Let us assume they can do what they say they can, no more, no less. Where does that leave us? Saudi Arabia says it can lift production from 9.5 million barrels per day today to 12 million barrels by 2016 and 15 million barrels beyond that. This despite 50 percent of the oil coming from the Ghawar field, where a water cut is already reported. Smith adds up all the reported capacities in the Middle East 5 and finds that if the rate of demand growth continues at 1.5 percent they will fail to meet global demand by as soon as 2011. If it rises to 2.5 percent the demand gap appears in 2008. If it is 3.5 percent-the rates in China and the U.S. of late-the gap is already here. "What's more," Smith adds, referring back wryly to the starting assumption, "I do not truly believe the claims of the Middle East 5. Although I don't believe Saudi and Iranian claims in particular, I think their politicians do believe them. I don't think there is a conspiracy, more a division of labor such that no one knows the whole story, each part of which has wide error bars. The summed result is inevitably the most positive conclusion which goes to the politicians. I've seen this in all the oil companies I have worked for. At the November 2004 conference on oil depletion at the Energy Institute, Michael Smith showed a slide at the end of his presentation that gave a pictorial summary of his views. It showed a group of firemen posing for the camera outside a burning house." The investment bank Goldman Sachs drew attention to the problem of access to oil on a global scale in a much quoted 2004 report. "The industry is not running out of oil-reserves are large and continue to grow;' it asserts-though failing to offer evidence of this analysis." What the industry is running out of is the ability to access this oil:' Two decades of chronic underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s are responsible. During this time the industry has been feasting on reserves discovered in the 1960s and earlier with infrastructure capitalized in the 1970s, after the first oil shock. Global oil demand is now closing fast on tanker capacity and refining capacity. The peak year for tanker capacity was way back in 1981. So too was the peak for refinery capacity.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 134

PEAK OIL – AT: ENOUGH RESERVES
Even if there is more oil, we cannot afford to release the carbon. Leggett, ’05 (Jeremy, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board, The Empty Tank, Random House, New York. p. 86) How does this compare against the available "resource" of oil, gas, and coal? Again, we are forced to revise our view of fossil fuels as "resources" in the strict sense. They could easily be a means of committing economic and environmental suicide, if overused. Let us assume for the moment, however, that the late toppers are right and that there are a trillion barrels in oil reserves, and another trillion left to find, in round numbers. This amounts to a total "resource" of more than some 270 billion metric tons of carbon. On top of this, the IPCC accounts 440 billion metric tons of "resource" in conventional oil, making more than 700 in all. Then comes SOO-plus billion metric tons of carbon in gas, excluding any methane hydrates. On top of the 1,200-plus billion metric tons of oil and gas comes coal, where the total exceeds 3,SOO billion metric tons. The implication is clear: we cannot afford to burn all the oil, much of the gas must remain belowground, and the great majority of the coal shouldn't even be considered. Unless, that is, we want to see what business-as-usual buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will do to our civilization, and find out whether the comparisons to weapons of mass destruction apply. We’ve hit peak oil – there are no more large undiscovered reserves. Klare, June 26, (Michael T., professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “End of the Petroleum Age?” Foreign Policy in Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5326, Accessed 06-30-08) Only one giant field has been discovered in the past 25 years – Kashagan in Kazakhstan’s sector of the Caspian Sea – and it has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. With estimated reserves of 7-13 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids, Kashagan was originally expected to come on line in 2005 at a cost of $50 billion. As a result of environmental hazards, government intervention, and disputes among members of the consortium established to operate the field, it is now scheduled to begin pumping oil in 2011 at the earliest at a minimum cost of $135 billion. Recently the Brazilian state firm Petrobras has announced an equally large discovery in the deep waters of the Atlantic, some 150 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Although very promising, the Tupi field will take many years to develop and will require the use of more costly and advanced technology than any now in widespread use. These new discoveries may add one or two million barrels of oil per day to existing output in 2015 and beyond, but by that point output from existing fields is likely to be considerably lower than it is today. Nobody can predict exactly where combined worldwide production will stand at that time. But more and more analysts are coming to the conclusion that the output of conventional (i.e., liquid) petroleum will peak at about 95 million barrels per day in the 2010-2012 time-frame and then begin an irreversible decline. The addition of a few million added barrels from Kashagan or Tupi will not alter this trend.
There is, of course, much talk about other, “unconventional” sources of oil: untapped reserves in Alaskan wilderness areas and America’s outer continental shelf, Canadian tar sands, Rocky Mountain shale rock. True, these various prospects – if brought to fruition and putting aside the massive costs and environmental risks involved – could add anywhere from a 750,000 barrels a day (in the case of Alaskan oil) to a few million barrels (in the case of the others) to global energy supplies in the years ahead. But

, when all is said and done, none of

this can stop the inevitable closing of the Petroleum Age.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 135

PEAK OIL – AT: ENOUGH RESERVES
Even if there is enough oil, legal barriers prevent an increase in production. The Guardian, 08 (The Guardian, Terry Macalister-industrial corespondent, June 11 2008, "World has enough oil reserves, say BP boss," http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/11/commodities.bp) The world is not running out of oil and can continue to produce hydrocarbons for the next 40 years provided restrictions are lifted on where companies can operate, the head of BP said today. The Arctic and currently closed areas off the coast of America should be considered for exploration if rising global energy demand is to be met in future, said chief executive Tony Hayward. He insisted that all other forms of energy, whether clean-tech or otherwise, also need to be developed simultaneously while rising carbon emissions could still be curbed. "Declining oil production in the OECD highlights the fact that, while resources are not a constraint globally, the resources within reach of private investment by companies like BP are limited," said Hayward. "Political factors, barriers to entry, and high taxes all play a role here. In other words when it comes to producing more oil, the problems are above ground, not below it. They are not geological, but political," he added. Some of the difficulties of access were in nations such as Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East which have adopted clear policies of resource nationalism where the state has grabbed assets previously in the hands of independent oil companies, but Hayward also noted the 92% of the US is off-limits and the Arctic needed opening up.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 136

PEAK OIL - AT: ANWR SOLVES
ANWR drilling won’t increase US energy security. AP, 04 (“Study: ANWR oil would have little impact” 3-16-04. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/) Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department. The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025. But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market. At the same time, the report said new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declined significantly. But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes. ANWR drilling would reduce oil prices by less than a dollar per barrel. WSJ, 08 (Wall Street Journal Market Watch. “ANWR drilling could cut 75 cents from oil prices, DOE says” 5-2208. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/anwr-drilling-could-cut-75/story.aspx?guid=%7B26229D0C-EC534FF1-BC12-6CE405A403AC%7D&dist=msr_4) Producing oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska could cut crude oil prices by about 75 cents per barrel by 2025, the Energy Department said Thursday in a special analysis prepared for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. The price decline would be about 0.6% of the current spot price. Under federal law, no drilling is now allowed in ANWR. Under the most likely case, production would begin in 2018 and peak in 2027 at 780,000 barrels per day, with total production of 2.6 billion barrels.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 137

PEAK OIL - AT: NEW SOURCES SOLVE
Advanced recovery is not stopping the crunch—oil is simply running out. Leggett, ’05 (Jeremy, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board, The Empty Tank, Random House, New York. p. 40-41) A comprehensive survey of the sustainability of higher oil prices by investment bank Goldman Sachs in June 2004 took the following view: "The result [of investment in enhanced recovery] is that existing basins are declining much faster than in the past, requiring more capital just to keep production flat ... we estimate that the average age of the producing fields is thirty-six years and they are all concentrated around infrastructure that was built in the 'bubble era' of the 1970s."40 The editor of Petroleum Review, Chris Skrebowski, puts the same argument more graphically: "Nobody sets out to develop an oilfield badly. The idea that there are lots of badly developed oilfields around the world awaiting American technology [to enhance their production] is a fantasy"?' Kenneth Deffeyes, an ex-Shell geologist and former colleague of Hubbert's, explains. He points to all the research that was done in the 1980s, after the second oil shock, when billions of dollars went into enhanced recovery research, and much of the work proved successful by the 1990s. His conclusion? "That makes it difficult to ask today for new technology. Most of those wheels have already been invented." Such views are also found in OPEC countries. A. M. Samsam Bakhtiari of the National Iranian Oil company, mentioned earlier, reports primary recoverability in Iranian oil wells of 10-35 percent, and professes: "Seasoned Iranian experts seriously doubt anything near 50 percent could be achievable on most fields, even with all the technological paraphernalia." So what to make of the late toppers' faith in reserves addition by enhanced recovery? Early toppers I have spoken with about this tend to [end page 40] view Thomas Ahlbrandt's assertion as the USGS repeating its track record of overoptimistic pandering to what governmental paymasters would like to think. Enhanced recovery has made precious little difference to the inexorable decline of U.S. oil production, and it will be no different globally. Worse than this, Matthew Simmons argues, enhanced recovery has actually created a "monster ball of depletion" that is accelerating the very problem others think it can help solve. Enhanced production in old fields today merely steepens the downward arc of the global production curve tomorrow." Tech can’t save peak oil- empirically proven. Hirsch, 2005 (Robert, December 7, Testimony on Peak Oil, Before the House Committee on Energy and Air Quality, Hirsch is a Senior Energy Program Advisor for SAIC. Previous employment included executive positions at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, he has a Ph.D. in engineering and physics from the University of Illinois) Exploration for and production of petroleum has been an increasingly more technological enterprise, benefiting from more sophisticated engineering capabilities, advanced geological understanding, improved instrumentation, greatly expanded computing power, more durable materials, etc. Today’s technology allows oil fields to be more readily discovered and better understood sooner than heretofore. Some economists expect improved technologies and higher oil prices will provide ever-increasing oil production for the foreseeable future. To gain some insight into the effects of higher oil prices and
improved technology on oil production, consider the history of the U.S. Lower 48 states. This region was one of the world’s richest, most geologically varied, and most productive up until 1970, when production peaked and started into decline. Figure 2 shows Lower 48 historical oil production with oil prices and technology trends superimposed. In constant dollars, oil prices increased

the 1980s and 1990s were a golden age of oil field technology development, including practical 3-D seismic, economic horizontal drilling, dramatically improved geological understanding, etc. Nevertheless, as Figure 2 shows, Lower 48 oil production still trended downward, showing no pronounced response to either price or technology. In light of this experience, there is no reason to expect that the worldwide situation will be different: Higher prices and improved technology are unlikely to yield dramatically higher conventional oil production.
by roughly a factor of three in 1973-74 and another factor of two in 1979-80. In addition to these huge oil price increases,

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 138

PEAK OIL - AT: NEW SOURCES SOLVE
Tech and drilling can’t solve the peak oil problem—it’s only going to get worse. Hirsch, 2008 (Dr. Robert, May 20, author of Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, senior advisor at Management Information Services, the following is a CNBC transcript of an interview with Dr. Hirsch, transcript accessed from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019) Peak oil--the idea is that it would hit a sharp peak and then production in the world would hit a sharp peak then drop off. And what's happened is that we hit plateau in world oil production, and that plateau has been ongoing since about the middle of 2004. HOST: Dr. Hirsch, there are a lot of people when we talk about peak oil who say there are going to be technologies that are always developed. There will be new ways to get oil, whether it's from coal, whether it's from the oil shales, and they say that means we will never actually hit peak oil. What do you say to those people? HIRSCH: They're incorrect, and the reason that they're incorrect is that they don't understand the magnitude of the problem and how long it's going to take to bring substitute liquid fuels on and to introduce energy efficiency on a massive scale. That's something that we analyzed and it takes decades. And the reason, simply, is that the magnitude of the problem is enormous. [McTeer says we should drill more.] HOST: Dr. Hirsch, what do you say to that--the idea that we should be drilling in places like ANWR and drilling offshore. Would that solve this problem of a plateau in oil production? HIRSCH: There's no single thing that's going to solve this problem because it's as massive as one can possibly imagine. And the prices that we're paying at the pump today I think are going to be the good old days because others who watch this very closely forecast that we are going to be hitting $12 and $15 per gallon. Even if new oil resources exist, they will take a decade or more to produce. We need fuel sooner. Mouawad 08 ("If you think the oil situation is bad, worse is to come." Jad - a staff reporter for The New York Times covering the energy industry. The New York Times. April 26, 2008. http://business.theage.com.au/if-you-think-theoil-situation-is-bad-worse-is-to-come-20080425-28ma.html) The problem is that in many corners of the world, geopolitics, more than geology, has removed much of those reserves from the reach of independent oil companies. "There are plenty of resources in the globe," Exxon chairman Rex Tillerson recently told an investor conference. The difficulty, he said, was "just continuing to have access to all of the opportunities". Over the past century, the world burned through a trillion barrels of oil. Another 1.2 trillion barrels of known conventional reserves wait to be tapped, according to BP, one of the world's biggest oil companies. It sounds a lot. But given the growth in demand, a trillion of those barrels will be used up in less than 30 years. What then? Many analysts estimate another trillion barrels of yet-to-be-found oil remains, but in remote places such as the Arctic Ocean, where it will be expensive to extract, or in countries that might restrict access. The big companies have been in a global dash to find and pump more oil. But it takes time, sometimes a decade, before the first barrels from a new field are pumped and sold. What of the alternatives? Corn ethanol, which was sold as a quick fix to the US's dependency on oil imports, is an imperfect substitute. It is now blamed for driving up food prices while emitting more carbon dioxide and providing a third less energy per gallon than petrol.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 139

PEAK OIL - AT: DEEP WATER WILL SAVE US
Deep water drilling fails – recovery rates are expected to peak by 2014. Leggett, ’05 (Jeremy, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board, The Empty Tank, Random House, New York. p. 38-39) All very optimistic and soothing, no doubt, to institutional investors' ears. But fast-forward to July 2004. A Merrill Lynch oil analyst, Ivan Sandrea, summarizes the state of play on deepwater oil In the Oil & Gas Journal. "Deepwater oil discovery rate may have peaked. The concludes. Since the mid-1970s, over 1,800 deepwater wells have been drilled in seventy areas worldwide. As of the end of 2002, 47 billion barrels of oil had been discovered. The peak of discovery was in 1996, at 5.8 billion barrels. Half of the discovered oil was in four areas: Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Angola, and Nigeria, which analysts call the Big 4. The U.S. Geological Survey, true to form, estimates ultimate reserves potential in excess of 100 billion barrels in deep water. Merrill Lynch's Sandrea thinks not. "There is no indication to suggest that three times the amount of oil discovered to date in the Big Four will be found again in these provinces, and outside the Big Four there is limited potential." Where does that leave us? "Global exploration potential looks more limited than ever;' he concludes." BP's Francis Harper agrees. "It is unlikely that another province the size of, say, deep-water Campos [Brazil] I the Niger delta will emerge;' he says." ASPO estimates only 70 billion barrels of recoverable deepwater oil, and a peak of production of around 7.5 million barrels per day in 2014. Sandrea estimates the peak at 6.2-6.4 million barrels per day in 2011-2013. A big geological reason for the oil industry's disappointing, results in deep water involves poor source rocks. Much of the sedimentary material deposited on the Atlantic continental slopes is lean in organic matter, and the organic matter is prone to be of the type that generates gas, not oil.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 140

PEAK OIL - AT: LIQUID COAL WILL SAVE US
Liquid coal causes global warming and environmental destruction. NRDC, 07 (Natural Resources Defense Council, a national organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. “Controversial Oil Substitutes Sharply Increase Emissions, Devour Landscapes” 6-11-07. http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070611.asp) Liquid coal poses disastrous consequences for global warming and local environments, according to the report. The energy required in the production stage of liquid coal would mean twice as much global warming pollution as ordinary gasoline. Mining would tear through natural habitats and contribute to air pollution. Displacing just 10 percent of our total oil demand with liquid coal would require a doubling in coal mining and the construction of hundreds of costly new production facilities – each with its own emissions issues.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 141

FOOD PRICES IMPACTS
Small hikes in food prices will drive millions into starvation Brown 08 ("Why Ethanol Production Will Drive World Food Prices Even Higher in 2008." Lester R. - President of the Earth Policy Institute. January 24, 2008 http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm) Historically the food and energy economies have been largely separate, but now with the construction of so many fuel ethanol distilleries, they are merging. If the food value of grain is less than its fuel value, the market will move the grain into the energy economy. Thus as the price of oil rises, the price of grain follows it upward. A University of Illinois economics team calculates that with oil at $50 a barrel, it is profitable—with the ethanol subsidy of 51¢ a gallon (equal to $1.43 per bushel of corn)—to convert corn into ethanol as long as the price is below $4 a bushel. But with oil at $100 a barrel, distillers can pay more than $7 a bushel for corn and still break even. If oil climbs to $140, distillers can pay $10 a bushel for corn—double the early 2008 price of $5 per bushel. The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off. Projections by Professors C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota four years ago showed the number of hungry and malnourished people decreasing from over 800 million to 625 million by 2025. But in early 2007 their update of these projections, taking into account the biofuel effect on world food prices, showed the number of hungry people climbing to 1.2 billion by 2025. That climb is already under way. Since the budgets of international food aid agencies are set well in advance, a rise in food prices shrinks food assistance. The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), which is now supplying emergency food aid to 37 countries, is cutting shipments as prices soar. The WFP reports that 18,000 children are dying each day from hunger and related illnesses.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 142

FOOD PRICES IMPACTS
A further increase in food prices kills 10 million in Asia alone. Timmer, 08 (Peter Timmer, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development. “Asian Rice Crisis Puts 10 Million or More at Risk: Q&A with Peter Timmer” 4-21-08. http://cgdev.org/content/opinion/detail/15820/) This is the most serious problem facing the world food economy since 1973-74, when a million people in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh alone died prematurely as a result of a rice crisis. World Bank president Zoellick suggested last week that high food prices risked pushing 100 million people back below the poverty line, wiping out seven years of progress. In my view, the situation is actually much worse than that. Unless some way can be found to stop the explosive rise in food prices generally, and rice prices in particular, we will see sharply higher mortality. Most of these deaths will be in Asia because of the huge numbers of poor, hungry people there who are dependent on rice for their daily subsistence.This will not be mass starvation, with people dying in the streets, but it will be sharply higher infant and child mortality and weakened adults succumbing prematurely to infectious diseases. If current rice prices in world markets are actually transmitted into most Asian countries--and this is not yet a reality, but it becomes more likely every day the world price stays this high--then even conservative calculations suggest that upwards of 10 million people will die prematurely. Higher food prices cause massive starvation and a worldwide health crisis – the impact is linear. Reuters, 08 (“Food crisis threatens health and economy” 6-3-08. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_65332.html) More than 20 countries already have serious problems of malnutrition and stunted growth as a result of the food crisis that has set back anti-poverty efforts by years, the World Health Organisation head said on Tuesday. In an interview in Rome, where world leaders are meeting to discuss global food shortages, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said soaring commodity prices stood to threaten the lives of sick people, pregnant women, and children. "We are already beginning to see signs that the world has close to one billion people who are suffering from hunger," she told Reuters, adding that more people will die from "different types of morbidity" if the problem worsens. People with HIV/AIDS and other immune-destroying diseases need good nutrition to remain healthy, and those made weak by diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria and measles would become sicker or die if they cannot eat well, the United Nations agency chief said. Adequate food is also key to keeping pregnant and lactating women and their babies alive, and necessary to ward off malnutrition that can stunt the growth of children, she warned. "Their conditions will be further exacerbated because of malnutrition," she said. "For healthy people like you and me, the food crisis hit our pockets. But for the poor people, it means less food. The quantity and the quality of their meals will suffer," she said. "If food prices go up, it means they have less money for health services, because in many of these countries these people depend on out-of-pocket expenditure for health services."

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 143

FOOD PRICES IMPACTS
High food prices cause domestic instability and interstate conflict Heard 08 ("Rising food prices? Let them eat biofuel." Linda S. - British specialist writer on Middle East affairs and Online Journal Contributing Writer. Mar 13, 2008 http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3059.shtml) The ethics of pursuing biofuel in a world that is threatened by massive flooding caused by climate change -- if we are to believe the doom and gloom merchants -- are questionable, and presents a dilemma to government strategists. The chasm between the haves and have-nots is broadening, so can it be right for developed nations to deny those less fortunate a right to life itself just so their fat-cat citizens can fill their gas-guzzling tanks? Setting aside the moral issue, there is also a political argument. Hungry people, who feel they have little to lose, will topple governments and turn to more extremist leaderships that would be incompatible with the West as allies. We’ve heard about water wars. We may also be looking at food wars. Finally, how’s this for a glaring obscenity? According to Susie Mesure, writing in the Independent, “Britons throw away half of the food produced each year . . . enough to meet half of Africa’s food import needs.” Consumers, supermarkets and restaurants are all major culprits in the chucking out of a “£20bn food mountain while at the same time the WFP warns it is dangerously running out of resources." The only way to solve these problems is for the world to come together under the auspices of the United Nations to come up with real solutions. The UN has already begun talks with Eastern European countries in an endeavor to persuade them to free up agricultural land to grow essential crops. Investment in desalination plants that would enable some countries to become less dependent on rain is something else that should be considered. It seems to me that biofuels are not the way forward given that death rates are dropping and the world’s population is due to explode to some 9.3 billion by 2050. If enough people are forced to choose between consuming ethanol and bread, of course, that prediction is likely to be proved wrong. Food price hikes kill billions. Power, 96 (Paul Power, staff writer. “Grain shortage growing problem,” 1-20-96. avail. Lexis) During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less."

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 144

POLLUTION IMPACTS—3 MILLION/YR
Pollution from automobile emissions kills 3 million people a year. Roberts '02 (Bernie, “Air Pollution Fatalities Now Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 3 to 1,” Earth Policy Institute, 9-17, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm, Accessed 06-26-08) The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in 2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions. In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people. Governments go to great lengths to reduce traffic accidents by fining those who drive at dangerous speeds, arresting those who drive under the influence of alcohol, and even sometimes revoking drivers' licenses. But they pay much less attention to the deaths people cause by simply driving the cars. While deaths from heart disease and respiratory illness from breathing polluted air may lack the drama of deaths from an automobile crash, with flashing lights and sirens, they are no less real. Air pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These pollutants come primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, principally coal-fired power plants and gasolinepowered automobiles. Nitrogen oxides can lead to the formation of ground-level ozone. Particulates are emitted from a variety of sources, primarily diesel engines. "Smog"-a hybrid word used to describe the mixture of smoke and fog that blankets some cities-is primarily composed of ozone and particulates.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 145

POLLUTION IMPACTS—EXTINCTION
Air pollution will destroy the ecosystem and cause extinction. Drisen ’03 ((David, Prof Law – Syracuse, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, Fall, 2002/Spring '03, lexis nexis, Accessed 06-26-08) Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs [*27] that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." n3 While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. n4 Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 146

ENVT LEADERSHIP – KEY SOFT POWER
Without a more substantive role on the environment, American soft power will decline. Walter 2002 (Norbert, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Group, “The American Abdication”, August 28, New York Times) At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues. No one can expect the United States to provide
any quick fixes, but one would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with other countries, to address global environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts. The first is at home in the United States, through more environmentally friendly policies, for example greater fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a more cooperative approach to multilateral attempts at safeguarding the environment. Simply rejecting international treaties (like the Kyoto Protocol) then failing to offer a better proposal cannot be an acceptable option for American policymakers. Much of the world has come together to help the United States in the fight against terrorism, out of

, to get out of its oversized, gas-guzzling S.U.V. -- and join the rest of the world in doing more to combat global warming and protecting the planet.
the realization that a common threat can only be beaten through a cooperative effort. It is high time for the United States, metaphorically speaking

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 147

AT: BUSINESS CONFIDENCE DA
Low carbon biofuels increase business confidence. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007 (“Biofuels: an important part of a low-carbon diet” http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/ucs-biofuels-report.pdf November) Though private and public investment in conventional biofuel expansion has created and will continue to create opportunities for economic development, the growth of new lower-carbon biofuels will open the door to significantly larger markets. Farmers and renewable fuel providers stand to reap the benefits once the United States develops a national climate change strategy and lower-carbon products are appropriately valued. Policies that promote low-carbon biofuels should therefore provide incentives and regulatory certainty for the developing biofuels industry, which in turn will give investors confidence that a market for advanced biofuels will exist. In addition, policies should focus on the desired performance of a fuel (i.e., its reductions in carbon intensity) rather than “picking winners” by predetermining which alternative fuels or feedstocks will prevail in the marketplace. By allowing companies to compete with one another to produce the lowest-carbon fuels, both the public and the environment benefit because price and performance determine the eventual winners. Consistent regulatory rules will increase investor confidence. Western Governor’s Association, 2008 (“Transportation fuels for the future” http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/TransFuels08.pdf February) The oil and gas industry is moving at a cautious pace to invest in alternative fuel infrastructure and retail outlets. There is good reason for their caution. Substantial investments are required, the best locations for those investments may be unclear and which alternative fuels will succeed best in the marketplace remains unknown. The correct prescription under these circumstances is for the government to step in and provide financial incentives that will overcome many barriers that have impeded the development of alternative fuels. These financial incentives must be of sufficient term to demonstrate a commitment to build out a sector or at least fully test its viability. The on-again, off-again, short-term nature of many governmental financial incentives leave investors guessing about the government’s policies and, therefore, are unwilling to make sustained financial commitments. In addition, investors are seeking to have regulatory rules established and kept consistent, predictable and transparent. Establishing regulatory rules will increase investors’ confidence that their financial analysis has properly accounted for regulatory costs and risks.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 148

AT: BUSINESS CONFIDENCE DA
LCFS will create market competition and spur investment. Crane and Prusnek, 2007 (David AND Brian, top Schwarzenegger advisor AND deputy cabinet secretary for Schwarzenegger, “The Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protecting Our Economy” http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/5155/ January 8) Regulatory certainty promotes development of low carbon fuels and new energy industries. The LCFS provide certainty to the growing clean energy market that sustainable markets for their products will exist but does so in a manner that does not select which alternative fuels will prevail in the marketplace. Technology and other companies then compete with one another to sell into that market, allowing price and quality considerations to determine eventual winners. Reducing risk through regulatory certainty is also a benefit to energy companies.5 Expands consumer choice. The LCFS will communicate to producers and consumers that the GHG reduction requirements of AB32 will be met by expanding rather than limiting consumer choice. Because consumers will continue to seek the lowest prices for their transportation fuels and the new standard will allow fuel providers to meet its requirements in a flexible and consumer-responsive manner, the LCFS will inspire competition among creators and suppliers of lowcarbon products seeking to sell their products to fuel providers needing to meet the new standard.6

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 149

AT: SPENDING DA
Military expenditures to protect oil constitute a large portion of the federal budget. Duffield, 2008 (Over a Barrel: The Cost of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence, John S. Duffield, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, p. 208) U.S. military policies undertaken in response to foreign oil dependence have made an even larger dent in the federal budget. The United States has spent on the order of several billions of dollars per year on additional military capabilities and routine peacetime operations that have been directly, and often exclusively, associated with the defense of American oil interests in the Persian Gulf. To these marginal costs must be added a share of the cost of the U.S.-based general purpose forces and strategic lift, the maintenance and augmentation of which has been increasingly justified in terms of Persian Gulf contingencies. These additional costs amounted to roughly $28-36 billion per year in the 1980s and $30-51 billion per year in the 1990s and early 2000s (in 2006 dollars). Not to be overlooked arc the escalating costs of major U.S. combat operations in the region since the 1980s, which have culminated in the ongoing war in Iraq (see Chapter 6). Plan doesn’t spend money. State of California, 07 (Press release from the Governor’s Office. “Governor Schwarzenegger Calls for National Low Carbon Standard for Transportation Fuels” http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/5464/) This past January, by Executive Order, Governor Schwarzenegger established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which will reduce the carbon intensity of California's passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. This first-of-its kind standard supports AB 32 emissions targets as part of California's overall strategy to fight global warming. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 13 million metric tons a year, the equivalent of taking three million cars off the road. A national Low Carbon Fuel Standard would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and America’s dependence on foreign oil without requiring new government spending. Like California, the nation is dependent on a single, unstable energy supply and diversifying our energy supply is critical to national security.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 150

AT: VOLUNTARY CP
Private action is not enough – government action is needed. Johnson 08 ("Low-carbon fuels important to stem transportation sector’s emissions." Senator Tim - member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Hill. 1/30/08 http://thehill.com/op-eds/low-carbon-fuelsimportant-to-stem-transportation-sectors-emissions-2008-01-30.html) It is important to recognize that we are already moving toward a low-carbon fuel policy. The recently passed energy bill includes a requirement that ethanol derived from corn in conventional ethanol facilities must achieve a 20 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in order to count toward the annual renewable fuel standard. Even more significantly, advanced biofuels derived from materials other than cornstarch must achieve a 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction requirement, with cellulosic biofuels achieving a 60 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirement. The challenge now facing policymakers is that the market will need to do a lot more if a low-carbon fuel standard is to be a viable national fuels policy. That type of transformative change is not rewarded through quick returns on investment and, therefore, government has a role to play.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 151

AT: REGULATION CP – UNIFORM REGS FAIL
A mandates approach fails – it is less efficient and requires an impossible level of coordination. Farrell, 2007, (Alexander E., Energy and Resources Group Director, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.041807.Farrell-testimony.pdf, April 18) In an idealized case, an economy-wide approach would be efficient at achieving the first goal of reducing GHG emissions up to 2020. But because the real world entails imperfect information, transaction costs, differential taxes, different regulation (e.g. competitive industries like the oil sector, and regulated utilities like the electric power sector) and other less-than-ideal conditions, an economy-wide approach would be suboptimal. This suggests that the efficiency disadvantages of a sectoral approach might be less important than when considering a hypothetical ideal economy. However, sectoral policies should still be designed to be as economically efficient as possible. A sectoral approach is significantly better than an economy-wide approach at achieving the second goal, technological innovation, because 1) social discount rates are much lower than private discount rates, 2) research into environmental technologies is a public good, and, 3)the sectors vary enormously in terms of industrial organization, GHG mitigation costs, capital structure, taxes, regulation, and other factors (Norberg-Bohm 1999; Taylor, Rubin et al. 2006). Each of these three reasons is briefly discussed in turn.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 152

AT: CARBON TAX CP
Carbon taxes and mandates won’t reduce CO2 emissions – only the aff solves. Sperling, 07 (Daniel Sperling, Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies and professor of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis. “A new carbon standard” 6-21-07. articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/21/opinion/oesperling21) Carbon taxes – taxes on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide (CO2) – aren’t a bad idea. But they only work in some situations. Specifically, they do not work in the transportation sector, the source of a whopping 40% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (and a third of U.S. emissions). The one sector where carbon taxes will work well is electricity generation,
which accounts for 20% of California emissions (and 40% of U.S. emissions). The carbon tax works because electricity producers can choose among a wide variety of commercial energy sources – from carbon-intense coal to lower-emitting natural gas to zero-emission nuclear or renewable energy. A modest tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide would increase the retail price of electricity made from coal by 17%. Given the many choices, this would motivate electricity producers to seek out lower-carbon alternatives. The result would be innovation, change and decarbonization. Transportation is a different story. Neither producers nor consumers would respond to a $25-a-ton tax. Fuel producers would not respond because they have become almost completely dependent on petroleum, which supplies 96% of all transportation fuels. They cannot easily find low-carbon alternatives. Even corn ethanol is only slightly better than gasoline. Drivers also would be unmotivated by a carbon tax. A CO2 tax of $25 a ton would raise the price of gasoline only about 20 cents a gallon. This would not induce drivers to switch to low-carbon alternative fuels because virtually none are available. In fact, it would barely reduce their consumption. A recent study at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies found that the “price elasticity” of demand for gasoline has shrunk; a price increase of 10% induces less than a 1% reduction in gasoline consumption. Thus, that 20-cent increase would be barely noticeable. In the transport sector, a carbon tax would have to be huge to induce change. What about mandating use of particular fuels? That doesn’t work because it is impossible to know which horse to back. At UC Davis, we have decades of experience in transportation technology, policy and consumer behavior – yet we still cannot predict which fuels are likely to succeed. What we do know is that there are many low-carbon fuel options available and that many industry and university labs are making rapid progress in developing more. The potential for new fuels with dramatically lower emissions is very real, but we have no clear winner yet. And elected officials are no more qualified to pick winners than are university scientists. I just returned from another trip to Washington, where farm lobbyists have stirred a buzz for ethanol and coal lobbyists for coal-based liquids. But ethanol made from corn provides little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and coal liquids threaten huge increases. Leave it to politicians, and this is what they will mandate. Here is what we can say – and did, in our recent recommendations to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Air

: Cutting carbon emissions from transportation fuels with mandates and taxes won’t work. But a new approach using a low-carbon fuel standard will. This new standard will require oil companies and other fuel providers to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions of transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. It will be up to the providers to choose how to do that, including blending low-carbon biofuels into conventional gasoline, selling low-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen, and buying credits from providers of other low-carbon fuels, such as low-carbon electricity or natural gas. This allows businesses to identify new technologies and strategies that work. The low-carbon fuel standard picks neither winners nor losers. Instead, it sends a fuels-neutral signal that alternatives are welcome in California’s $50-billion-a-year transportation fuels marketplace. The Wall Street Journal recently described a new “fuels gold rush” as innovators and well-funded distributors battle for California’s emerging alternative fuels market. Real solutions to global warming are needed. Let’s just be sure they’re effective.
Resources Board

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 153

AT: CARBON TAX CP
The biggest advantage of LCFS is that it allows for enormous flexibility while carbon taxes cannot. Reich 07 ("A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard?" Robert - Secretary of Labor and Professor at the University of California Berkeley. The Economist View. June 21, 2007. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/a-low-carbon-fu.html) The one sector where carbon taxes will work well is electricity generation, which accounts for ... 40% of U.S. emissions... The carbon tax works because electricity producers can choose among a wide variety of commercial energy sources — from carbon-intense coal to lower-emitting natural gas to zero-emission nuclear or renewable energy. A modest tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide would increase the retail price of electricity made from coal by 17%. Given the many choices, this would motivate electricity producers to seek out lower-carbon alternatives. The result would be innovation, change and decarbonization. And elected officials are no more qualified to pick winners than are university scientists. I just returned from ... Washington, where ... lobbyists have stirred a buzz for ethanol and ... coal-based liquids. But ethanol made from corn provides little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and coal liquids threaten huge increases. Here is what we can say...: Cutting carbon emissions from transportation fuels with mandates and taxes won't work. But a new approach using a low-carbon fuel standard will. This new standard will require oil companies and other fuel providers to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions of transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. It will be up to the providers to choose how to do that, including blending low-carbon biofuels into conventional gasoline, selling low-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen, and buying credits from providers of other low-carbon fuels, such as low-carbon electricity or natural gas. This allows businesses to identify new technologies and strategies that work. The low-carbon fuel standard picks ... sends a fuels-neutral signal that alternatives are welcome in [the]... transportation fuels marketplace. ... Real solutions to global warming are needed. Let's just be sure they're effective.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 154

AT: RFS CP
Renewable fuel standards can’t solve – only a low carbon fuel standard encourages innovation and discourages the use of high-carbon fuels. ESA, 07 (Ecological Society of America, nonpartisan ecological science organization. “Global Warming, Biofuels & the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” http://www.esa.org/biofuels/presentations/Greene_poster.pdf) It is possible, and taking Searchinger's numbers at face value very likely, that the amount of low-carbon biofuels we can procure through real politics and real markets is much smaller than we would hope. This makes the urgency around getting a federal low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) all the greater. An LCFS is a better approach to encouraging innovation among fuels and reducing global warming pollution than a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) because it is technology-neutral, allowing any type of low-carbon fuel to compete in reducing the average GHG intensity of fuels, including electricity. Furthermore while the new RFS provides a minimum level of lifecycle GHG performance, an LCFS encourages the best performance. Finally, an LCFS discourages high-carbon fuels such as liquid coal, oil shale, and tar sands, while an RFS has no direct impact on them. The stakes are high for producing biofuels in the right way: global warming, disrupted agricultural markets, eco-system destruction and more. EISA is driving forward low-carbon biofuels with an eye to these issues, but only by coupling this policy and eventually a LCFS with the best scientific and economic research can we actually get there.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 155

AT: STATES CP—EPA KEY
EPA carbon reduction research has stalled – federal action is necessary to ensure that life-cycle carbon emissions are accurately measured. Plus, states are dependent on EPA research for implementation. Peckham, 08 (Jack Peckham, Diesel Fuel News. “U.S. EPA Biofuels 'Life-Cycle Analysis' Lacks Certification Scheme.” 3-3-08. avail. InfoTrack General Reference Center) U.S. EPA is working to develop a "life-cycle analysis" (LCA) scheme for biofuels (including biodiesel) to ensure they won't cause even worse greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than ordinary fuels. Recent studies (including two articles in the latest Science magazine) indicate that biofuels can cause several times worse GHG emissions than ordinary petroleum fuels, if biofuels expansion leads to unfavorable land-use changes. As EPA mobile sources director Margo Oge explained to the annual Clean Heavy Duty Vehicle Conference (CHDVC, sponsored by Westart) here, EPA recently had to suspend earlier internal work on possible ways to cut carbon from transportation fuels, "until the Administration decides how to proceed" with the requirements of the 2007 energy bill, she said. That bill, mandating 36 billion gallons of "renewable" fuels by 2022, requires up-to 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol, 1 billion gallons of renewable biodiesel, and billions more gallons of cellulosic-based biofuels that must not come from corn starch. At least part of such cellulosic biofuels could wind up as diesel fuel blendstock. The bill has "aggressive schedules" for minimum biofuel blending volumes as well as mandatory "life-cycle" analyses to ensure that biofuels result in true reductions in net GHG, rather than increases, Oge pointed out. This will require EPA to discuss LCA issues with biofuels producers, environmental advocates, refiners and states -- "especially California," she said. California Air Resources Board (CARB) aims to come up with its own "low-carbon fuel standard" (LCFS) by end-2008, Oge noted. Asked here when EPA might complete work on greenhouse "life-cycle analyses" (LCA) of various biofuels, including the impact of land-use changes, Oge wouldn't commit to a fixed date. But she said that EPA has made "tremendous progress" on a corn-ethanol LCA methodology, which has been shared with California Air Resources Board (CARB). Eventually, "when we go out with a proposed rule, we'll have an LCA methodology for all renewables," including feedstocks such as cellulosic, she said. "It's not an easy task and we take it very seriously," she added. "We don't want unintended consequences; we don't want to make greenhouse gas emissions worse, nor [unfavorable] impacts on water or food." The EPA is key – they have unique experience with alternative fuels and the infrastructure necessary to do the plan Greene, 07 (Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Testimony before the House Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming. 10-24-07. http://docs.nrdc.org/air/air_07102401A.pdf ) Here I outline key principles that should be incorporated into any expansion of the renewable fuels standard through a combination of robust performance standards, careful definitions of what qualifies as renewable fuel, and incentives to promote voluntary management practices that protect ecological values. • An increase in the RFS should be done as an amendment to the existing RFS under the Clean Air Act and implemented by EPA EPA cannot carry out its job of protecting public health and welfare without having the authority to regulate the quality of our nation’s fuel supplies under the Clean Air Act. Among federal agencies, EPA has the most experience and expertise related to transportation fuels, and is already responsible for implementing the current RFS program.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 156

AT: STATES CP – UNIFORM FIAT KILLS SOLVENCY
State uniformity prevents states from moving beyond federal requirements. Bushinsky, 07 (Joshua Bushinsky, Western Policy coordinator at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. International Environmental Law Committee Newsletter. Vol. 9, No.2, May 2007. http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/intenviron/newsletter/may07/IELC0507.pdf) Other approaches have not yet been seriously discussed in the federal context, such as a low-carbon fuel standard or GHG emission performance standards. No federal proposal yet matches the comprehensive scale of strategies pursued by states such as California or Connecticut. Federal climate policy is not likely to be forthcoming during the current session of Congress, but state policy is informing and compelling eventual federal action. The interaction between existing state policies and a federal strategy will bring to the fore two major issues: credit for reductions undertaken before a federal program and preemption of state action by the federal government. States that have made major reductions in their emissions will demand recognition of these early actions. Likewise, companies that have reduced emissions through voluntary efforts or to comply with state mandates will also ask for dispensation under a federal program. Policymakers in some states have voiced their desire to be preempted by a federal policy, whereas states such as California want to maintain their ability to move beyond any federal requirements. California Sen. Barbara Boxer argued against federal preemption on climate policy at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on March 2. Resolving these issues will be one hurdle to translating the states’ robust and varied efforts into a federal response to climate change. The CP fiat of state uniformity undermines flexibility, crushing solvency. Only federal baselines allow for state innovation. Litz, 08 (Franz T. Litz, senior fellow at the World Resources Institute and Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “Toward A Constructive Dialogue On Federal And State Roles In U.S. Climate Change Policy.” June 2008. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf) While the heavy state and federal approaches take advantage of the strengths of the state or federal governments, respectively, a Federal and State Partnership Approach aims to draw on the strengths of both levels of government. Under this approach, the federal government would set nationwide greenhouse gas reduction targets and implement key national “anchor” programs that are aimed at obtaining significant uniform reductions across all 50 states. At the same time, the states would be tapped to achieve additional reductions through those policies and programs that benefit from state and local design and implementation. In developing the federal anchor programs, furthermore, states would serve as on-the-ground implementers where appropriate, and opportunities to allow states to continue to serve as “first movers” would be preserved to the extent that the benefits of national implementation are not unduly compromised. It is important here to consider the
potential need for both federal anchor programs as well as complementary policies that are designed to adjust for market failures or local circumstances. For example, much attention has been paid to the need for a national cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions across multiple sectors of the economy. Some of the federal proposals to date seek to cover transportation fuels to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Yet while broad coverage has advantages, consumer behavior is generally not very responsive in the short term to incremental increases in the

. States may be in a better position to design complementary measures designed to encourage consumers to both buy more energy efficient vehicles and travel fewer miles. Indeed, the traditionally state and local areas of transportation and land-use planning could play a significant role in this complementary effort. Because of the potential need to achieve emissions reductions beyond those that can be accomplished through federal anchor programs, the shared approach aims to divide roles to reach the best policy outcome.
price of transportation fuels.44 As a result, tackling transportation emissions is likely to require more than cap-and-trade

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 157

AT: STATES CP – UNIFORM FIAT KILLS SOLVENCY
Uniform fiat precludes state flexibility in adapting to federal regulations. Takes out solvency. Adelmen and Engel, 07 (David Adelman and Kristen Engel, James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. Minnesota Law Review. “Adaptive Federalism: The Case Against Reallocating Environmental Regulatory Authority” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016767) Adaptive federalism, like its dynamic counterparts, rejects the exclusive focus of the matching principle on optimization. It recognizes that static optimizing strategies, on their own, are a prescription for turgid policymaking that is prey to the complexities of environmental problems. Rather than engaging in the charade of identifying the one putatively “efficient” level of government for environmental policymaking, an adaptive model is structurally designed to contend with unpredictable change. The basic philosophies of the two approaches could not be much different—one is premised on stable equilibrium conditions and rigid control; the other seeks to exploit disruptive change as a source of resilience and adaptability. The basic elements of an adaptive model—fragmented operation on multiple scales—are clearly evident in the multilevel jurisdictional structure of the federal system. The overlapping state-federal regulatory authority of dynamic federalism follows naturally from this arrangement. Similarly, the existence of multiple jurisdictions at a variety of geographic scales mirrors the fragmented structure of adaptive systems that is essential to maintaining diversity, although in this case of environmental policies. Adaptive federalism simultaneously sustains competitive legislative and administrative processes that promote the refinement of policies (including ones consistent with static, full-cost internalization) and processes that produce a diverse range of policy options. This pluralistic model supports the open-ended innovation and testing essential to managing unpredictable change, while not ignoring the importance of regulatory efficiency—both are treated as critical. Adaptive federalism, if accepted, would support and enhance the dynamic, multi-jurisdictional elements of the current system of environmental federalism. As we have seen, this approach is incompatible with the single-level framework dictated by the classical matching principle. For putatively local issues, such as those related to drinking water standards or land use, an adaptive model would allow for a significant federal role. Conversely, for putatively national (or international) issues, such as biodiversity or climate change, it would encourage state and local policy innovation. The multilevel approach of adaptive (and dynamic) federalism is not costless. Uniformity, accountability, and finality are all sacrificed to some degree by allowing multiple jurisdictions to address environmental problems simultaneously. However, in many, if not most,areas of environmental regulation, uniformity is as much a problem as it is a virtue. One need only consider widespread calls from regulated industries for “flexible” standards, such as those found in market-based regulations, and the vehement opposition to commandand-control regimes.95 Finality, which is often in opposition to adaptability, is also a double-edged sword in constantly changing natural, technological, and commercial environments.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 158

AT: STATES CP – UNIFORM FIAT KILLS SOLVENCY
The perm solves – federal government action sets a baseline and allows states to expand upon it Litz, June ’08 (Franz, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, “Toward a Constructive Dialogue on Federal and States Roles in U.S. Climate Change Policy,” http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf, Accessed 06-27-08) In the United States to date, states have taken most of the significant actions to address climate change. Yet enactment of a nationwide program requiring reductions across the entire United States is both necessary and increasingly likely. This prospect raises a number of questions as to the appropriate division of responsibilities between state and federal governments across the many areas where climate change action is needed. The key question is not whether responsibility for climate change action should rest exclusively with the federal government or the states, but rather how and to what degree the federal government and the states should share responsibility for tackling the problem. A number of arguments exist to support state-level action on climate change. States have historically played a role as effective first-movers on important environmental issues, functioning as policy innovators, testing policies that have later been adopted at the federal level. States also bring an understanding of the unique circumstances within their boundaries and a familiarity with their stakeholders. States drive federal action, sometimes insisting that policies be strengthened even after the federal government has acted. There are also numerous arguments in favor of a strong federal role in climate policy. A federal program would bring every state into the climate change effort and tend to level the playing field for businesses in all 50 states. Federal action offers a platform for engaging with other nations in forging an international emissions reduction agreement. A national GHG cap-and-trade program would keep costs manageable and drive climate friendly technological innovation, and could link with other markets around the world. Given the strong reasons for both state and federal action on climate change, it is perhaps not surprising that historically state and federal governments have chosen to share authority over most areas where climate change action is needed. This is true across most air pollution control, energy supply, energy efficiency, transportation, forestry and agricultural policy areas. Rather than asking whether federal or state government is best able to address climate change, the more relevant question is which level of government should tackle which parts of the challenge. Precisely how to delineate state and federal roles in a comprehensive nationwide climate change program should be the focus of a constructive national dialogue. This paper evaluates several possible approaches along a continuum from heavy reliance on federal action to heavy reliance on state action. The scenarios examined differ in the degree to which responsibility for reductions is shared between federal and state governments, but each recognizes that some action will be required at both levels. Federal action on climate change is needed to achieve the significant reductions science demands and to establish a minimum level of uniformity across the U.S. economy. This federal action can preserve room for states to continue in their important roles as policy innovators, on-the-ground implementers, and policy drivers, and to capitalize on the significant experience in the states across the many aspects of climate change action. A federal climate change program will be most successful if it is designed with the relative strengths of each level of government in mind.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008

LCFS AFF 159

TOPICALITY
LCFS is an alternative energy incentive. Farrell, UC Berkley News, 2007 (Alex, May 18 “UC Berkley’s Alex Farrell join governor in introducing lowcarbon fuel standards for state” http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/05/18_carbon.shtml) Farrell emphasized that the proposed low-carbon fuel standards are meant to offer oil companies incentives for technological innovation and investment in alternative fuels, not to dictate the way in which companies will meet the standard.

Joe, Ross, Mitch, Leandra, Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, J Heidt

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful