Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

Scholars Lab

1 Green Military Aff

CTL Aff Index
CTL Aff Index.................................................................................................................................................................1 ***1AC***.....................................................................................................................................................................6 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Inh/Plan.................................................................................................................7 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (1/8)..........................................................................................8 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 1: China................................................................................................16 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (1/3)...........................................................................................17 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 3: Terrorism..........................................................................................21 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (1/4).........................................................................22 1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (1/4).....................................................................................................26 ***Topicality***...........................................................................................................................................................30 CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (1/2).........................................................................................................31 CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (1/6)....................................................................................................................33 CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: AE = RE....................................................................................................39 CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: 50-50 = Oil...............................................................................................40 CTL Good – T – Incentives...........................................................................................................................................41 CTL Good – T – Increase..............................................................................................................................................42 ***Inherency & UQ***................................................................................................................................................43 CTL Good – Inherency – American Energy Production Act of 2008...........................................................................44 CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (1/3).................................................................................................................................45 CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (Fuel Use Down) – Fuel Use Up (1/2)............................................................................48 CTL Good – Non-UQ – Incentives Now......................................................................................................................50 CTL Good – Non-UQ – RE Up (1/2)............................................................................................................................51 ***Readiness Adv Links***.........................................................................................................................................53 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (1/4)......................................................................................................54 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Natural Disasters...............................................................................................58 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Fuel Simplification/Tactical Supplies ..............................................................59 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Supply Shx UQ)...................................................................60 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (1/7)........................................................................................61 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Terror)...................................................................................68 ***Readiness Adv Internals***....................................................................................................................................69 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (1/4).....................................................................................................70 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key – Terrorism..........................................................................................74 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Air Power =/= Key – Jet Fuel K to All..................................................................75 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Fuel Key.......................................................................................................................76 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Costs Key (1/2)............................................................................................................78 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Weight Requirements Key...........................................................................................80 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Key.................................................................................................................81 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Up (1/2)..........................................................................................................82 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Allied Coop Key..........................................................................................................84 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Interventions Key (1/2)................................................................................................85 ***Readiness Adv Solvency***...................................................................................................................................87 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Missiles...................................................................................................88 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Maintenance............................................................................................89 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Budget.....................................................................................................90 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (1/2)...........................................................................91 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (1/6)....................................................................93 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Control..............................................................................................99 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Shocks.............................................................................................100 ***Readiness Adv A2: Take-outs***.........................................................................................................................101 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: CTL Drawbacks..................................................................................................102 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Retrofitting/Interoperability (1/3).......................................................................103 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – No Link..................................................................................106 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – NUQ.......................................................................................107 CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Aircraft Carriers DA – No Link: JP-5/JP-8 Fuels...............................................108 ***Iran Adv***...........................................................................................................................................................109

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

2 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [1/5]............................................................................................................110 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel [1/2]...............................................................................................116 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel – Draws In U.S. ............................................................................118 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – CIA/Covert Ops [1/3].............................................................................119 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Prolif...........................................................................................................122 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Miscalc NW................................................................................................123 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Terrorism ....................................................................................................124 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Too Many Places..................................................................................125 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: “Don’t know where they are”..............................................................126 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Fundamentalism................................................................................127 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Radiation...........................................................................................128 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: U.S.-EU Relations................................................................................129 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Deterrence Solves................................................................................130 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: UN Solves [1/2]...................................................................................131 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [1/3]...........................................................................133 CTL Good – Iran Adv – Air Power Key.....................................................................................................................136 ***China Adv***.......................................................................................................................................................137 CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat (1/3)......................................................................................................138 CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat – AF......................................................................................................141 CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit (1/3)......................................................................................................142 CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan................................................................................................145 CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan – US Intervention..................................................................146 CTL Good – China Adv – A2: Deterrence Checks.....................................................................................................147 CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – General...................................................................................................148 CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – Taiwan [1/2]...........................................................................................149 ***Iraq Adv***...........................................................................................................................................................151 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Pullout Coming (1/2)...........................................................................................................152 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Spillover.................................................................................................................154 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: NW (1/2).................................................................................................................155 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Civil War (1/2)........................................................................................................157 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy..............................................................................................................159 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – NW...................................................................................................160 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – Terrorism..........................................................................................161 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – War etc. ...........................................................................................162 CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Air Force key [1/3]...............................................................................................................163 ***Air Pollution Adv***............................................................................................................................................166 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves General (1/2)..............................................................................................167 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves Airlines.......................................................................................................169 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – US Key to World...................................................................................................170 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine (1/3)..........................................................................................................171 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine – O/W War................................................................................................174 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Marine Species......................................................................................................175 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Species...................................................................................................................176 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer..........................................................................................................177 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer – Survival.........................................................................................178 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Endocrine Disruption............................................................................................179 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen (1/2)...........................................................................................................180 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen: Keystone...................................................................................................182 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Health Harms.........................................................................................................183 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Low-Level......................................................................................................184 CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Inefficient........................................................................................................185 ***Solvency***..........................................................................................................................................................186 CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (1/8).............................................................................................187 CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Interprets CTL as AE.................................................................................................195 CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (1/5)........................................................................................................197 CTL Good – Solvency – Repeal EISA Solves............................................................................................................202 CTL Good – Solvency – Excise Tax Credits Solve....................................................................................................203

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

3 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (1/4).......................................................................................................204 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – Technical Problems (1/2)....................................................................208 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – CTL = Profits......................................................................................210 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Empirically Fails..........................................................................................................211 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Regulation Prevents.....................................................................................................212 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Backstopping................................................................................................................213 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Peak Coal (1/2).............................................................................................................214 CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Long-Term....................................................................................................................216 CTL Good – Solvency – CTL = Gasification.............................................................................................................217 CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (1/4)..................................................................................218 CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Airlines (1/3)....................................................................................................222 CTL Good – Solvency – AF Key (1/3).......................................................................................................................225 ***A2: Warming DA***............................................................................................................................................228 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: CO2 Up.......................................................................................................231 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: Methane Up.................................................................................................232 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Threshold.........................................................................................................233 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Blends Solve..........................................................................................................234 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Storage Solves (1/2)...............................................................................235 CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Feasibility (1/2)...................................................................237 CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Costs....................................................................................239 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Oil Recovery..........................................................................................240 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: NOx (1/2).....................................................................................................241 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Airlines.........................................................................................................243 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (1/2)..........................................................................245 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (1/2).................................................................247 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Ethanol Fermentation...................................................................................249 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Hybrids.........................................................................................................250 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Efficiency.....................................................................................................251 CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (1/4)...............................................................................................252 ***A2: Other Enviro DA’s***....................................................................................................................................256 CTL Good – A2: Water DA – No Link: Heat Recovery.............................................................................................257 CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Turn: SQ Worse...........................................................................................................258 CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Recycling....................................................................................................................259 CTL Good – A2: Water Pollution................................................................................................................................260 CTL Good – A2: Slag DA (1/2)..................................................................................................................................261 CTL Good – A2: Radon DA (1/2)...............................................................................................................................263 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – 2AC...........................................................................................................................265 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (1/4)...............................................................................................266 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Turn: CTL = Efficiency............................................................................................270 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – No Impact.................................................................................................................271 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Waste..................................................................................................................272 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Dust and noise pollution....................................................................................273 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Mine reclamation solves...........................................................................................274 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Emissions...........................................................................................................275 CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Electricity ..........................................................................................................276 CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Generic.......................................................................................................................277 CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Turn: Biomass Slag....................................................................................................278 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Laundry List...............................................................................................................279 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Mercury (1/2).............................................................................................................280 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Trace/Particulate Emissions (1/2)..............................................................................282 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – NOx............................................................................................................................284 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Lead...........................................................................................................................285 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Chlorine.....................................................................................................................286 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Flourine .....................................................................................................................287 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Sulfur (1/2).................................................................................................................288 CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Cyanide......................................................................................................................290 ***A2: Econ DA’s***................................................................................................................................................291

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

4 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: 2AC General.......................................................................................................292 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Renewables Bridge.............................................................................................293 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Manufacturing....................................................................................................294 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Aviation (1/3)......................................................................................................295 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Rare Mineral Extraction.....................................................................................298 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry (1/2)..............................................................................................299 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry – Coal Prices .............................................................................301 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Heating Oil.........................................................................................................302 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Chemical Industry (1/4)......................................................................................303 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Chemical Industry – Key to Econ.......................................................................307 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – No Link...............................................................................................308 CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – A2: Spending – Turn: Reg’s Inevit...............................................................................310 ***A2: CP’s***..........................................................................................................................................................311 CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – “Say No”.......................................................................................................312 CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – Non-Binding Perm........................................................................................313 CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – No Solve: One Act ........................................................................................314 CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – No Impact: Resilience ..................................................................................315 CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – Turn: Heg.......................................................................................................316 CTL Good – A2: Consult NATO CP – A2: NATO K Heg..........................................................................................317 CTL Good – A2: Actor CPs – US Key........................................................................................................................318 CTL Good – A2: XO CP.............................................................................................................................................319 CTL Good – A2: PIC EISA CP – WTO Add-On........................................................................................................320 CTL Good – A2: Ban Iran Strikes CP.........................................................................................................................321 CTL Good – A2: Fuel Cells CP..................................................................................................................................322 CTL Good – A2: Hybrid Cars CP...............................................................................................................................323 CTL Good – A2: Nat Gas-to-Liquid CP.....................................................................................................................324 CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: AF (1/2)...................................................................................................325 CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve – General..................................................................................................327 CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – Perm Solves.............................................................................................................328 CTL Good – A2: Biofuels CP – No Solve: Oil Demand.............................................................................................329 CTL Good – A2: Fuel Efficiency CP (1/4).................................................................................................................330 ***General Military Aff Misc.***..............................................................................................................................334 Gen Mil Aff – Non-UQ – RE Up Now.......................................................................................................................335 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – DOD Key (1/2).................................................................................................................336 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – International Spillover......................................................................................................338 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Installations Key...............................................................................................................339 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – RE Key.............................................................................................................................340 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP [1/3].........................................................................................................................341 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – ECIP-ESPC (1/2)..............................................................................................................344 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Commercial (1/2)...........................................................................................346 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Spillover – Microgrids......................................................................................................348 Gen Mil Aff – Solvency – Procurement Good............................................................................................................349 Gen Mil Aff – A2: Solar Power Bad DA – N-UQ.......................................................................................................350 Gen Mil Aff – A2: Wind Power DA............................................................................................................................351 Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Installations Key......................................................................................................352 Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Solvency..................................................................................................................353 Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – AE Deters.................................................................................................................354 Gen Mil Aff – Readiness Adv – Heat Signatures........................................................................................................355 Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – AE Solves..........................................................................................................................356 Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Links (1/2).........................................................................................................................357 Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Impacts (1/3).....................................................................................................................359 Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – A2: Occupation Bad..........................................................................................................362 Gen Mil Aff – Iraq Adv – Surge Working [1/2]..........................................................................................................363 Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – A2: Back-Up Power Solves..............................................................................................365 Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – SQ Bad (1/2).....................................................................................................................366 Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – RE..................................................................................................................368 Gen Mil Aff – Grid Adv – Solvency – Microgrids (1/4).............................................................................................369

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

5 Green Military Aff

Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Military Industry (1/2)......................................................................................373 Gen Mil Aff – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Subsidies..........................................................................................................375 Gen Mil Aff – A2: Militarism/Enviro K.....................................................................................................................376

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

6 Green Military Aff

***1AC***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

7 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Inh/Plan
Ob 1: Inherency The Department of Defense can only extend 5-year contracts for alternative fuels – Longer contracts check price volatility, which is critical to the widespread commercialization of alternative energy Letourneau April 29 (2008, Matthew, Senate Press Release,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.detail&PressRelease_id=8ab09ee0-f356-49bf-abd9-70e21ab46dd2)

Next, I encourage you to extend federal agencies’ contracting authority for renewable energy. Current law limits such contracts to a period of ten years, even though longer-term contracts would protect agencies from price volatility while simultaneously encouraging greater investment in renewable sources of energy. Congress sought to remove this barrier last year. In H.R. 6, the “Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007,” the Energy Committee authorized the extension of this contracting authority for up to 50 years. The House-passed Energy bill contained a similar provision, allowing for a period of 30 years. However, the contract extension was not included in the final energy package, EISA, that became law. In my opinion, this contracting authority should be extended for all federal agencies, especially the largest energy consumer within the federal government, the Department of Defense, to at least a 20-year period.

Plan – The Department of Defense should be exempted from the Energy Investment Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have the authority to extend 25-year contracts for alternative fuel development. Plan – The Department of Defense should be exempted from the Energy Investment Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have the authority to extend 25-year contracts for liquid coal development. Plan – Congress should exempt the Department of Defense from the Energy Investment Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have give the Department of Defense the authority to extend 25-year contracts for alternative fuel development. Plan – Congress should exempt the Department of Defense from the Energy Investment Security Act of 2007, section 526 and should have give the Department of Defense the authority to extend 25-year contracts for liquid coal development.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

8 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (1/8)
Advantage 1 – Readiness The military budget is strained to the brink – Growing support and logistics funding crowds out crucial technology investment necessary for sustained military power Spring 8 (Feb 13, Baker, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2110.cfm)
In recent years, spending on today's forces has tended to crowd out investment in tomorrow's forces. The funding for operations and support activities (the operations and maintenance account plus the military personnel account) has taken an increasing share of the overall Department of Defense (DOD) budget. Conversely, spending on modernization (the research and development account plus the procurement account) has received an increasingly smaller share of the DOD budget. Specifically, operations and support activities absorb roughly 60 percent of DOD budget authority for
the core program, not including the FY 2009 request for supplemental appropriations. Modernization activities absorb only a little over 35 percent. By comparison, the two activities approached parity in the 1980s, when operations and support absorbed slightly more than modernization. The trend toward operations and support's receiving higher shares of the core defense budget is driven largely by the increasing per capita compensation cost for military personnel and the higher operational tempo. During the 1990s, the gross cost of compensating America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines was held in check by a 24 percent reduction in manpower. However, this pressure valve on manpower costs is closing because the Bush Administration has proposed adding 92,000 soldiers and Marines to the force by 2012. In fact, the planned increase in ground forces is ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, per capita military compensation costs continue to rise, more than doubling in the past 10 years. A major contributing factor is the cost of military health care. The FY 2009 defense budget allocates $41.6 billion to providing health care benefits to military personnel and their dependents. The trend toward modernization's receiving smaller shares of the core defense budget is largely the result of the Clinton Administration's "procurement holiday" in the 1990s. The recovery from this unwise choice is still incomplete. An enduring effect of the procurement holiday is the imbalance between the procurement account (the account for purchasing new weapons and equipment) and the account for researching and developing new weapons and equipment technology. In the 1980s, procurement consumed more than 70 percent of the modernization budget. The core defense budget for FY 2009 would still leave procurement at only slightly more than 60 percent. (See Chart 6.) As

a result, essential new weapons programs must be stretched out, which increases unit costs, reduces the numbers of new weapons available to the military, and prevents their timely delivery.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

9 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (2/8)
Oil dependence is the cause – High prices drive DOD budget shortfalls and create critical gaps in readiness Miles 7 (Donna, American Forces Press Service, DoD, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_1_36/ai_n27158522)
The Defense Department is exploring ways to make its weapon systems and facilities more fuel-efficient and less vulnerable to market fluctuations and controls, senior defense officials told Pentagon reporters today. John J. Young Jr., director of defense research and engineering, said DoD is putting more emphasis on improving the efficiency of its operations--for national security as well as financial reasons. DoD is the United States' biggest energy consumer, using more than 300 million barrels of oil every day. At those levels, a $10-a-barrel price hike puts a $1.3 billion dent in the defense budget and the funds appropriated to support the fighting force. "When oil goes up $10 a barrel, there's a billion dollars in things we don't get to do ... [for] the warfighter," Young said. But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The United States imports 58 percent of its oil, so there's no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy it needs. A major goal in DoD's energy program "is making sure we ... have multiple options in a changing marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation's security," Young said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic vulnerability, Young explained. The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to deliver it, and the more frequently they expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats. He cited "a desire to have renewable-type [energy] sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we ... potentially have to take less fuel to the deployed forces and therefore put fewer convoys at risk." About three-quarters of DoD's oil consumption goes toward keeping the military on the move: its aircraft conducting sorties, its ships patrolling the seas, and its wheeled and tracked vehicles patrolling the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan. The military is working to make these systems less oil-dependent without sacrificing capability, Young explained. It is looking into composite materials that make vehicles lighter and more efficient, and fuel-efficient engines and alternative fuel sources to decrease its dependence on fossil fuel. The Air Force, DoD's biggest energy user, is considering setting a goal to reduce its fuel consumption in a way that doesn't shortchange training or operations, he said. The Marine Corps recently issued a solicitation for a new heavy truck that includes "a very specific and precise goal that decreased fuel consumption something like 15 to 20 percent" over its current Logistics Vehicle System. "And so in each program space, we are going to set ... fairly aggressive goals for achieving additional efficiencies" that apply technological advances, he said. "And we have already been doing that." Many of those same strategies are already proving successful as DoD reduces the fuel needed to keep its 570,000 buildings and facilities around the world humming, Philip Grone, deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, told reporters. These facilities consume about 22 percent of DoD's energy requirements, but more than 8 percent of the electricity they use comes from renewable energy sources, he said. DoD hopes to raise that level to 25 percent by 2025, setting the standard for the rest of the federal government as well as industry, Grone told reporters. Throughout the military, Grone said, he sees a continued trend toward tapping diversified energy sources--particularly more renewable sources--that offer more efficiency and reliability to the fighting force. "That is where I see us headed in the course of the next 10 to 25 years," he said. "Conceptually, that is where we want to be." Whether from an operational or support viewpoint, all energy conservation ultimately supports the fighting force because it frees up defense dollars for critical training and equipment, Grone said. As these initiatives increasingly take shape, "resources will be freed up to go for higher priority efforts in supporting the mission ... [and] the pointy end of the spear," he said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

10 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (3/8)
Oil dependence undermines coalitions, leads to hostage holding by aggressive powers, increases the trade deficit reducing US industrial competitiveness, and makes the military vulnerable to price spikes, which aggravate budget problems Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog
new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

Foreign policy issues are daily concerns for the White House and the Department of State, but the DOD is typically the department called upon when foreign policy goes awry. In his article, “Energy Security: The New Threats in Latin America and Africa,” David L. Goldwyn, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that current US energy dependency challenges US power in five ways. First,

dependency on consuming imported oil makes many nations reluctant to join coalitions led by the United States to combat weapons proliferation, terrorism, or aggression. Examples include French, Russian, and Chinese resistance to sanctions on Iran; Chinese resistance to sanctions against Sudan; and US tolerance of Middle East repression that would otherwise have been sanctioned were it to occur in any other non-oilproducing part of the world.20 Second, high oil revenues in the hands of oil-exporting nations allow governments to act with impunity against their own people and work against the United States and its neighbors. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Latin America’s loudest anti-American cheerleader, has used oil revenue to build support for his economic vision by providing subsidized oil to neighboring countries and gaining advantage over them by purchasing bonds to finance their debt. Russian president Vladimir Putin has renationalized his energy sector, restricted foreign access to his pipeline system, and demanded open access to Europe. Iran has reduced its international debt and increased foreign reserves to prepare for possible sanctions. Goldwyn remarks that “Even Saudi Arabia’s economic reform movement, born in the days of $10 oil in 1998, evaporated when oil reached $30 per barrel in 2000. Enrichment of America’s competitors or adversaries harms US security interests in every part of the globe.”21 Third, the global oil market is
far from being a fair, free-market system. Governments that do not allow free-market access to develop, exploit, and expand supplies control most of the world’s major oil reserves. Most free-market commodities allow the market supply to expand to meet demand. As oil prices rise, many governments are less receptive to foreign investment, preventing supply from responding to demand and driving prices even higher.22 An

increased price of imported goods increases the US trade deficit and exports wealth to foreign lands. In 2005, imported oil accounted for one-third of the country’s $800 billion trade deficit.23 Fourth, the highly competitive world oil market enables the political competitiveness to undermine the fluidity and fairness of the market for available supplies. Goldwyn adds that “New competitors like China and India are trying to negotiate long term
contracts (at market prices) to ensure they have supplies in the event of a crisis or supply disruption. . . . From an economic point of view it may not matter if China lends Angola $3 billion at low interest to gain part of an exploration project as long as the oil is produced. But China gains an enormous geopolitical advantage by this act.”24 Fifth, the problem oil dependency creates for America and directly impacts the DOD is vulnerability to price volatility that results from supply and demand shocks.25 From fall 2005 until gasoline prices started to decline in fall 2006, the price of gasoline had replaced the weather as America’s favorite subject of conversation with a stranger. The price of standard crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange was under $25 per barrel in September 2003, but by 11 August 2005, the price had increased to more than $60 per barrel; the price topped out at a record $78.40 per barrel on 13 July 2006.26 Experts attributed the spike in prices to many factors, including the war in Iraq, North Korea’s missile launches, the crisis between Israel and Lebanon, Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, and Hurricane Katrina. None of these factors, except for the war in Iraq, could be controlled by the

US government.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

11 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (4/8)
Air Force oil dependence leaves them open to price increases-This hurts air power and causes budget shortfalls Shalal-Esa`8 (Andrea, Reuters oil specialist, Every $10 oil rise ups Air Force costs $610 million, May 22,
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2252728920080523?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

The U.S. Air Force operates the "world's largest airline" and every $10-per-barrel increase in crude oil boosts its annual operating costs by $610 million, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said on Thursday. The Air Force's bill for aviation fuel was about $6 billion in fiscal 2007, Wynne told a defense industry group. He declined to predict what the total would be for 2008. U.S. crude oil futures soared to a record above $135 a barrel on Wednesday, more than double the price of one year ago. "We are very concerned about the instability in oil prices because it wreaks havoc on how we manage our flying-hour program across the Air Force, just as it is wreaking havoc on the pricing statistics for an airline," Wynne said. The jump in fuel prices has hammered the U.S. commercial airline industry, forcing seven small carriers to file for bankruptcy or to close their doors in the past five months.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

12 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (5/8)
Air power is critical to US military power Melinger 3 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. (ret.), Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html)

Just as the Royal Navy defended British economic strength over a century ago, so do our air forces protect our economic security. This is especially true because military strategy has evolved so dramatically over the past decade. The basic factors that shaped our geopolitical environment during the Cold War era have changed. The Soviet threat is gone, but other threats and other commitments remain. In fact, US military deployments have increased fourfold while
the size of our military has shrunk by 40 percent. The character of these engagements has also altered. It is ever more essential that the United States

we must be extremely careful about both inflicting and sustaining casualties. Our military campaigns from the Persian Gulf War to Afghanistan have been marked by remarkably low losses, and the increasing use of precision weapons has limited civilian casualties and collateral damage, essential to maintaining worldwide public support. It is obvious, however, that if such sterilized warfare is our goal, then certain types of strategies, tactics, and weapons are more desirable than others. Precision or nonlethal weapons delivered by air platforms- ideally either unmanned, unseen, or flying beyond the range of enemy fire- are the instruments of choice. To be sure, the process
maintain strong public support for its actions. This in turn means of identifying, tracking, and destroying mobile targets- tanks, trucks, and terrorists- remains one of our most difficult challenges, but this problem is being addressed through the use of a combination of space-, air-, and land-based sensors tied to strike aircraft by satellite. It would be foolish for our leaders to think that air and space power could be effective in any crisis, but it people intuitively realize this: recent Gallup Polls reveal that 42 percent of those surveyed believe the Air

has now become their weapon of first resort. The American Force is the most crucial arm

of our national defense, and a like number believe it should be built up to a greater extent than the other services. Just as our commercial air
fleet is the largest and most modern in the world, so too is our military airpower. Our superiority is even greater than a comparison of the number of US military aircraft to the totals of other leading countries would indicate (fig. 4). Although China has a large supply of aircraft, most are obsolescent, including over 4,500 Vietnam-era MiG-17s, -19s, and -21s. Certainly, quantity has its own quality, but most of the Chinese air force would stand little chance against a frontline adversary. Similarly, Russia’s air force has atrophied dramatically over the past decade. Once the pride of the Soviet state, much of this vaunted air force now sits unused. Examining the types of military aircraft comprising the world’s air forces is also revealing. The majority of combat aircraft worldwide consists of short-range fighter-bombers, such as the F-16, Mirage 2000, and MiG-21. The United States has nearly 4,000 such aircraft but has far more capability than that. Our airlift and aerial-tanker fleets allow us to project power anywhere in the world on short notice. The United States possesses the vast majority of the world’s large military cargo aircraft, such as the C-17 and C-5, while also having four times more tankers than the rest of the world

No other nation has such an impressive capability to project power and influence. China, for example, has fewer than 50 modern cargo aircraft and virtually no aerial-refueling capability. Our
combined. Tankers turn our tactical fighters into strategic bombers. dominance in space is equally compelling. At present, approximately 550 operational satellites are in orbit. Nearly half of those were launched by the United States, and approximately 100 of them have military missions. In addition, the Global Positioning System’s constellation of 28 satellites provides precise geographical data to users all over the world. In contrast, Russia now has only 90 operational spacecraft, and much of its space infrastructure- its missilelaunch detection system, for example- is moribund. Although China can be expected to become a space competitor- it is currently working on an antisatellite

one finds an increasing reliance and emphasis on air and space power. According to an old saying, if you want to know what’s important, follow the money. In the American military, that trail is clear. The backbone of the Navy is the aircraft carrier, which costs over $5
system- it has launched an average of fewer than four satellites per year over the past decade. Within the US military services, billion each (without its aircraft and support ships), and the Navy spends nearly as much on aircraft each year as does the Air Force. The top funding priority of the Marine Corps is the tilt-rotor V-22 cargo plane, which will cost $85 million apiece. The Army has major production and modernization programs for Comanche, Apache, and Black Hawk helicopters that will total $70 billion. Indeed, over the past decade, the Army has spent more on aircraft and missiles than it has on tracked combat vehicles. In sum, over 60 percent of the US defense budget is devoted to air and space forces. In fact, a comparison of our four air arms with those of the rest of the world shows that each individually is greater than the military air assets of most major countries (fig. 5). The

qualitative superiority of American aircraft makes our air and space dominance even more profound. The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. Indeed, the major disagreements that occur among the services today generally concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those assets, but their differing views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the authority of the joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the question of which service should command space, and the question of whether the air or ground commander should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance of joint operations, and air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon. Air and space dominance also provides our civilian leadership with flexibility. Although intelligence is never perfect, our leaders now have unprecedented information regarding what military actions can or cannot accomplish and how much risk is involved in a given action. For example, our leaders understood far better than ever before how many aircraft and weapons would be
needed over Serbia and Afghanistan to produce a specified military effect, weapon accuracy, collateral damage that might occur, and risk to our aircrews. This allowed our leaders to fine-tune the air campaign, providing more rapid and effective control than previously.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

13 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (6/8)
Declining US power causes econ collapse, nuclear world wars and power vacuum Wall Street Journal 4 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005244)
Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the one of the ninth century. For the world is roughly 25 times more populous, so that friction between the world's "tribes" is bound to be greater. Technology has transformed production; now societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of mineral oil that are known to be finite. Technology has

changed destruction, too: Now it is possible not just to sack a city, but to obliterate it. For more than two decades,
globalization has been raising living standards, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. Deglobalization--which is what a new Dark Age would amount to--would lead to economic depression. As the U.S. sought to protect itself after a second 9/11 devastated Houston, say, it would inevitably become a less open society. And as Europe's Muslim enclaves grow, infiltration of the EU by Islamist extremists could become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to breaking point. Meanwhile, an economic crisis in China could plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that have undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out, and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The

worst effects of the Dark Age would be felt on the margins of the waning great powers. With ease, the terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers and cruise liners while we concentrate our efforts on making airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in Korea and Kashmir; perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. The prospect of an apolar world should frighten us a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the U.S. is to retreat from the role of global hegemon--its fragile self-belief dented by minor reversals--its critics must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony. The alternative to unpolarity may not be multipolarity at all. It may be a global vacuum of power. Be careful what you wish for.

Effective military power precludes nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2. pg. 84 Spring 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put American lives at risk. It is a good prism for identifying threats, setting priorities for U.S. policy toward various regions and states, and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

14 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (7/8)
Collapse of US heg makes peace impossible – there are multiple scenarious for war KAGAN 7 (Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, Policy
Review, August/Sept, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10,)

People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The
international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and

Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States.Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the United States withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more
overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in

If

time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic
key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance

and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would
voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again.The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

15 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Adv 1: Readiness (8/8)
Liquid coal enhances all military functions of combat vehicles, strengthening overall military power Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
December 09, 2006]

Ethanol, however, has a 50% lower volumetric energy density than gasoline. With 50% less energy density than gasoline, DoD operations will require 50% more fueling sorties by tanker trucks, implying a 50% greater danger for those responsible for that endeavor. To keep the same range per fillup by combat vehicles, fuel tanks would have to be increased in size by 50%. Furthermore, ethanol has a lower flash point and, therefore, more prone to explosion than is gasoline. Hence, even if it were comparable on a WTW energy or GHG emissions basis, ethanol would still be unsuitable for use on DoD missions on a performance basis. On this performance basis, liquid hydrocarbon fuels emerge as the preferred energy source for mobility on DoD tactical and combat vehicles, both air and land-based. Since these fuels are most cheaply made from fossil energy of one type or another, and since, barring unforeseen upheavals, the fossil-fuel feedstock supplies appear adequate for sometime into the future, the best method for reduction of a DoD fuel consumption is to reduce demand, as described above, through a variety of methods including patterns of use, lightweighting vehicles, re-engining tanks and B-52 bombers, and replacing manned platforms with unmanned ones. In aggregate, these approaches can yield considerable fuel savings while at the same time enhancing performance of DoD platforms and opening up new mission capabilities for DoD forces.

Liquid coal solves oil dependence Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 9)
The United States continues to increase its dependence on foreign oil as domestic production declined by 11% from 2001 to 2005. Meanwhile, global demand is growing and concerns are mounting that world oil production is depleting reserves at rates faster than replacement reserves can be deployed. Application of coal-to-liquids technologies would move the United States toward greater energy security and relieve cost and supply pressures on transportation fuels by producing 2.6 MMbbl/d of liquids. These steps would enhance U.S. oil supply by 10% and utilize an additional 475 million tons of coal per year.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

16 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 1: China
The Chinese will attack in 2012, it will go nuclear, and only air power solves Winn 8 (Patrick, Air Force Times Staff Writer, Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China, January 28, 2008
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/01/airforce_china_strategy_080121/) In a hypothetical future scenario, the U.S. and China are poised to clash — likely over Taiwan. The democratic Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan — which America backs and the communist People’s Republic of China considers part of its territory — frequently irritates

while the American military mulls its options, Chinese missiles hit runways, fuel lines, barracks and supply depots at U.S. Air Force bases in Japan and South Korea. Long-range warheads destroy American satellites, crippling Air Force surveillance and communication networks. A nuclear fireball erupts high above the Pacific Ocean, ionizing the atmosphere and scrambling radars and radio feeds. This is China’s anti-U.S.
Chinese leaders with calls for greater independence from the mainland. But sucker punch strategy. It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war. This strategic outlook isn’t hidden in secret Chinese documents. It’s printed in China’s military journals and textbooks. And for much of last year, Mandarin literates and defense experts — working for the Santa Monica, Calif.-based Rand Corp. on an Air Force contract — combed through a range of Chinese military sources. They emerged with “Entering the Dragon’s Lair,” a lengthy report on how the

Chinese People’s Liberation Army would likely confront the U.S. military and how the Air Force in particular can brace itself. In many cases, the
theoretical enemy nation China’s officers discuss in these scenarios isn’t explicitly named but is unmistakably the U.S. “These aren’t war plans,” said report coauthor Roger Cliff, a former Defense Department strategist and China military specialist who spoke to Air Force Times from Taiwan. “This is the military talking to itself. It’s not designed for foreigners or even China’s general public to read.” Element of surprise When it comes to conflict with the U.S., Chinese military analysts favor age-old schoolyard wisdom: Throw the first punch and hit hard. “Future conflicts are likely to be short, intense affairs that might consist of a single campaign,” Cliff said. “They’re thinking about ways to get the drop on us. Most of our force is not forward-deployed.” China’s experts concede its army would lose a head-on fight, with one senior colonel comparing such a scenario to “throwing an egg against a rock.” Instead, the Chinese would attempt what Rand calls an “anti-access” strategy: slowing the deployment of U.S. forces to the Pacific theater, damaging operations within the region and forcing the U.S. to fight from a distance. “Taking the enemy by surprise,” one Chinese military expert wrote, “would catch it unprepared and cause confusion within and huge psychological pressure on the enemy and help [China] win relatively large victories at relatively small costs.” Another military volume suggests feigning a large-scale military training exercise to conceal the attack’s buildup. The Dragon’s Lair Striking U.S. air bases — specifically command-and-control facilities, aircraft hangars and surface-to-air missile launchers — would be China’s first priority if a conflict arose, according to Rand’s report. U.S. facilities in South Korea and Japan, even far-south Okinawa, sit within what Rand calls the “Dragon’s Lair”: a swath of land and sea along China’s coast. This is an area reachable by cruise missiles, jetborne precision bombs and local covert operatives. Air Force bases within this area include Osan and Kunsan in South Korea, as well as Misawa, Yokota and Kadena in Japan. And in a conflict over Taiwan, any nation allowing “an intervening superpower” such as the U.S. to operate inside its territory can expect a Chinese attack, according to China’s defense experts. China is designing ground-launched cruise missiles capable of nailing targets more than 900 miles away — well within striking range of South Korea and much of Japan, according to the report. Cruise missiles able to reach Okinawa — home to Kadena Air Base — are in development.

The Chinese would first launch “concentrated and unexpected” attacks on tarmacs using runway-penetrating missiles and, soon after, would target U.S. aircraft. Saboteurs would play a role in reconnaissance, harassing operations and even “assassinating key personnel,”
according to another military expert. Chinese fighter jets would scramble to intercept aerial refueling tankers and cargo planes sent to shuttle in fuel, munitions, supplies or troops. High-explosive cluster bombs would target pilot quarters and other personnel buildings. Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the Rand report.) Once this hard-and-fast assault on U.S. bases commenced, the Chinese army would “swiftly divert” its forces and “guard vigilantly against enemy retaliation,” according to a Chinese expert. Dumb and blind The PLA also would likely use less conventional attacks on the American military’s vital communications network. The goal, as one Chinese expert put it: leaving U.S. combat capabilities “blind,” “deaf” and “paralyzed.” Losing early-warning systems designed to detect incoming missiles would be, for the Air Force, the most devastating setback — one that could force the service to exit the region altogether, according to Rand. China could also launch a nuclear “e-bomb,” or electromagnetic explosive, that would fry U.S. communication equipment while ionizing the atmosphere for minutes to hours, according to the report. This would likely jam radio signals in a 900-mile diameter beneath the nuclear fireball. The PLA could also employ long-range antisatellite missiles — similar to one successfully tested last January — to destroy one or more American satellites. However, the PLA has a host of less dramatic options: short-range jammers hidden in suitcases or bombs and virus attacks on Air Force computer networks. U.S. Air Force options Shielding against a swift Chinese onslaught is, according to Rand, as simple as reinforcing a runway or as complex as cloaking the orbit of military satellites. In the short term, U.S. air bases inside the Dragon’s Lair should add an extra layer of concrete to their runways and bury fuel tanks underground. All aircraft, the report said, should be parked in hardened shelters, especially fighter jets. Parking larger aircraft — bombers, tankers and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems jets — in hard-shell hangars would be expensive and difficult but likely worth the cost, according to the report. U.S.

fighter jets remain the best defense against incoming Chinese missile attacks. But, given China’s taste for sudden attacks, surface-launched missile defense systems must be installed long before
a conflict roils. Because the PLA is expected to strike quickly, the report said, waiting for the first tremors of conflict is not an option. The Air Force also should fortify itself against Chinese hackers by using software encryption, isolating critical computer systems and preparing contingency plans to communicate without a highbandwidth network. Though China maintains a “no first use” nuclear bomb policy, the U.S., according to Rand, should warn China that nuclear electromagnetic pulse attacks will be considered acts of nuclear aggression and could prompt nuclear retaliation. Rand insists the Air

Force must defend satellites — which support communication, reconnaissance, bomb guidance and more — against China’s proven satellitekilling missiles. This could be accomplished in the Cold War tradition of mutually assured destruction by threatening to retaliate in kind if the PLA blasts U.S.
satellites. “That might be the one restraining factor,” Cliff said. “They might not want to start that space war.” Or, Rand suggests, the U.S. could invest heavily in satellite protection or evasion techniques, including stealth, blending in with other satellite constellations or perhaps developing and deploying microsatellites capable of swarming to defend larger satellites, which the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working toward. If the

most contentious issue is Taiwan, Cliff said, then the likely trigger would be Taiwanese elections, where assertions of complete independence from the mainland can infuriate Chinese leaders. China’s current president, Hu Jintao, has built up China’s military but also its ties with America. In 2012, however, when Taiwan holds an election and mainland China’s leadership is expected to turn over, perhaps for the worse, the risk of conflict could increase. “It really depends on the circumstances,” Cliff said. “Would Taiwan be the provocateur? If so, it might be hard for the American public to support intervention.” However, if China moves to capture control of the island, Cliff said he believes the U.S. would face a rocky dilemma. “Are we really going to let a small, democratic country get snuffed out by a huge authoritarian country — especially when you think about how our own country came into existence?” Cliff said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

17 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (1/3)
War with Iran is inevitable – The Bush Administratin wants it in the short-term BBC 8 (Brittish Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Monitoring International Reports
June 23, 2008 Monday USA MAY GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAN SOON - AZERI EXPERT, Lexis)
The following is the excerpt from Cavid Turan's report in opposition Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 23 June headlined "`The

US-Iran war is inevitable'" and subheaded "Vafa Quluzada: `The White House thinks that Tehran should be attacked before it acquires nuclear weapon'" The concern about the start of military operations against Iran is again on the
agenda of the world. The head of the IAEA, Muhammad al-Baradi'i, has said he would resign if military action is taken against Iran. [Passage omitted: quotes from al-Baradi'i statement and Iran's move to transfer bank accounts from Europe] Political expert Vafa Quluzada says that the

danger around Iran remains quite real: "War against Iran has always been on the agenda. Their policies are completely against each other. Such a situation may end up in a war soon." The political expert highlighted that it is of no significance for the USA the region to be turned into a fireball: "The point in question
is that not the USA but our region will turn into a fireball. This is a very dangerous issue. However, we are unable to influence the processes. Other states are not the same heavyweights like the USA. When there was a balance in the world, the USSR either raised the issue with the UN or announced a "nuclear alarm". After such a move, the USA would retreat. However, Russia is not a match to the USA now. Therefore, the

USA does whatever it wants." Quluzada said that no-one yet knew on what America has calculated own plans: "There are criticisms that the USA made mistakes in Iraq. However, they do not name what those mistakes were. Does the USA consider that this should be the case?! America, which has succeeded in Iraq, now wants to wipe Iran off the political map. We should know that the US calculations are different." The political expert thinks that as against the Iraq operations, the US-Iran conflict is more understandable than that of Iraq. "America has no option except for war with Iran as the Iranian regime is very strong and will not surrender to the USA. Although Tehran does not recognize, it is coming closer to the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapon. In its turn, America thinks that it is better to go to war against Iran now rather than after it obtains nuclear weapon." Quluzada also believes that opinions of experts that oil prices will rocket to 500 dollars if a war starts, will not hinder these operations: "It is possible that oil prices will soar into 500 dollars for a brief period. But at the end, the prices may plummet to 15 dollars. America is not going to destroy Iranian oil... On the contrary, as a result of these operations, the USA will also get control over Iranian oil. In this context, war is always expected."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

18 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (2/3)
A failed strike would cause WWIII Ashinoff`6 (Alan Ashinoff, HUMAN EVENTS, May 22,, 2006, p.. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1487)
Ahmadinejad has set Iran on a collision course with the world powers over nuclear technology. The Iranian leader's argument for his nation's nuclear path is simple and even legitimate. Iran believes that
President Mahmoud any sovereign nation is entitled to pursue nuclear power to suit its purpose be it energy or weaponry. In this view Ahmadinejad is not alone. French President Chirac was quoted via a spokesman as saying that "France believes in the need for the demands of non-proliferation to be respected, but believes this does not in any way prejudice Iran's right to civil nuclear energy within such a framework." France is not alone in this position as many European Union nations and Russia seem to believe Iran responsible enough to posses and wield the earth most destructive power. Unlike Iraq, the world clearly knows where Iran's nuclear ambitions are leading.

The Iranian leader made his intentions clear that he views the destruction of Israel as an Islamic duty. Any world leader making such a statement is either fanatically insane
or extraordinarily calculating. Ahmadinejad has publicly threatened the existence of another sovereign nation, Israel, and nothing has been done by Israel, the UN, or any other nation to curtail the probability of an actual strike. The world has known for quite some time that Iran has aggressively supported terrorism across the globe. Very much like a bully who needs to talk himself into action Iran has been building its courage as it builds its ability to make war. Once the bully feels his punch is great enough to back his mouth the fight ensues. How could such a brazenly hostile statement serve Iran's interests? Iran has reluctantly willing allies in Europe. History has already witnessed the 'price' countries like France and Germany were willing to pay for Iraqi oil and business revenues. Thousands of Iraqi civilians died as some members of the United Nations skirted the 1991 cease-fire sanctions to allow billions of dollars into former leader Saddam Hussein coffers to rebuild his weapons and regime. Former President Saddam Hussein did not care how many innocent Iraqi's suffered and instead blamed the United States for Iraq's hardships via the sanction imposed by the 1991 cease fire agreement. United Nations members who allowed for the Oil for Food scandal obviously didn’t care, or didn't care to know, what this dictator was doing with the excess funds they allowed him to collect. Instead United Nations members pocketed billions of dollars as Iraqi citizens were butchered, tortured, or let starve by Saddam Hussein. Ahmadinejad is gambling that the world is more interested in the flow of oil (and the potential of some nations to grossly profit from that flow) than Israel. After all, in Ahmadinejad's mind, were not the Jews systematically exterminated in Europe not that long ago? Did not the recreation of Israel occur after the Holocaust of World War II as a way to physically remove the Jews from Europe's hatred? Isn’t there a sizeable and sometimes violent racial hatred toward Jews in Europe that continues to this day? Isn't there a deeply paranoid and irrational distrust of the Jews resident in the American left today? Ahmadinejad is banking on distrust and hatred of Jews and is relying on greed to buy enough time to develop the power and weapons needed to fulfill what he

As the United States inches closer to war with Iran, the world frantically scrambles to negotiate some equitable, peaceful solution to defuse global chaos. A war with Iran would
sees as his divine purpose. disrupt the world’s oil trade and drastically increase the cost of oil and oil related goods. To complicate matters further, Muslim populations throughout Europe have already been enraged by Dutch cartoons, which have sparked riots throughout Europe. A war with Iran (a known sponsor of terrorism and the suspected supporter of the Iraq insurgency) could mean Muslim violence of epic proportions across Europe. As witnessed in France recently, many European governments prefer not to confront rioters and instead choose allow angry mobs to exhaust themselves from feasting on the destruction of anything in their path. A massive Muslim uprising of potentially 88 million Islamic people in Europe could devastate entire countries. Widespread riots combined with seeded terrorist cell activity in typically apathetic European nations could provoke the

To assume that Iran, once having attained nuclear capability, would launch a first strike on Israel is logical from an attrition point of view. Iran’s population of 68 million people greatly outnumbers Israeli’s population of 6.2 million people. Iran could, with enough nuclear capability, trade blows with Israel until Israel is no more. The Iranian Mullahs have shown little concern when it comes to the lives of their own people. It would not be much of a stretch to think the mullahs (who have been buying homicide bombers for years) would hesitate to sacrifice all of Palestine to obliterate Israel. In fact, the Palestinian people would be
failure of European government and leave millions of Europeans at the mercy of angry and vicious Islamic mobs. revered in Islam as martyrs. Iran would look like heroes to all of Islam despite the massacre of millions of Israelis and nearly 10 million Palestinians. A stretch of nuclear wasteland and a wandering cloud would be preferable to co-existence with the Jews. From a Christian perspective the Iranian conflict could well be the beginning of the end. Iran is playing the part of the antagonist quite well. Consider this, Iran through wild accusations, an impotent Europe, a diplomatically timid United States, or a backdoor deal, manages to bide enough time to develop nuclear power and manufacture a nuclear weapon. Immediately the negotiating environment changes as anyone who is negotiating knows exactly where the single warhead is pointed. Wielding the ultimate destructive power, Iran would continue to threaten Israel with less concern than ever. Israel having an openly hostile enemy bent "removing Israel from the map" snubs Europe's diplomatic efforts with Iran and seeks to remove the threat itself. If successful the Iranian nuclear threat is removed. The outraged Muslim world (and possibly self-

This would set the stage for biblical Armageddon as told in the book of Revelation where all the kings of the earth and their armies would be amassed to destroy Israel once and for all. If Israel’s attack were unsuccessful Israel would be struck by the Iranian warhead, which could potentially kill millions of Israel’s people. Israel having been struck would retaliate in kind. Diplomatic, geographic, and economic alliances form and the third world war would begin. The
serving European allies angered by Israel's actions) would then declare war on Israel. United States can not rely on the United Nations. The United Nations and the European Union showed their mettle with the Iraq crisis and the Oil for Food scandal. Regardless of the weapons of mass destruction, Iraq did support terrorism and did have the mechanisms to produce chemical weapons in quantity on relatively short notice. Iraq was in possession of dual use chemicals and machinery and a variety of banned items from the sanctions imposed by the cease fire. Iraq was a logical threat with logistical value in the long term war on terrorism. How less of a threat is a country that has openly stated that they are pursuing nuclear power and possibly nuclear weapons with hostile intent? How much more suspect was Iraq for supporting terrorism in 2003 than is Iran’s support of terrorism today (or prior)? Neither Israel nor America has the luxury of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab
manufacture nuclear weapons,

19 Green Military Aff

time with a diplomatic oil embargo. Considering the United Nations record in such matters and the time it takes to

to wait allows Iran to grow stronger and increases the likelihood of greater bloodshed. Can the world afford to play politics and posture while literally millions of human lives hang in the balance? Europe stood by as Hitler grew to his murderous prominence on their continent. Will Europe will stand by, and possibly assist, as seventh century Muslim fundamentalist minds arm themselves with 21 century weaponry?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

20 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 2: Iran (3/3)
The Air Force is critical to effective Iran strikes WND 7 (Word Net Daily, NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR Pentagon rules out ground attack on Iran Officials find rugged terrain
makes invasion virtually impossible February 17, 2007, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54294)

Democrat leaders in Congress vow they'll move to block President Bush from invading Iran, but Pentagon officials say that won't be necessary, because they have no active plans for a ground attack. In
fact, officials tell WND they have war-gamed a full-blown invasion and ruled it out because of the difficult terrain in Iran, a mountainous fortress compared to Iraq. "It's a non-starter," said one official. He explains Iran

is ringed virtually 360 degrees by towering mountains, and even if they were passable by artillery units, unstable salt flats and high desert wastelands stand between those mountains and Tehran, the capital. "The Great Salt Desert outside Tehran is hundreds of miles of dry lakebeds that ooze a black sticky mud that's a lot like quicksand," he said. "It won't support tanks and artillery." It was in the Great Salt Desert, known locally as the Dasht-e Kavir, that the 1980 military mission to rescue
American hostages in Tehran was aborted. Dust storms blinded pilots and caused a U.S. helicopter to crash into a C-130 transport plane, killing eight crew members. On the other side of Tehran lie the steep, jagged Elburz Mountains, which include Mount Damavand, the highest peak in Europe and Asia west of the Hindu Kush. The average elevation of that northern range protecting Tehran is twice that of mile-high Denver. Critics of Bush's saber-rattling over Iran – which he accuses of arming insurgents in Iraq while developing a nuclear-weapons program – worry the president is looking for a pretext to also invade Iran and carry out regime change in Tehran. "Congress should make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president to go into Iran," warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. But even strong promoters of the war in Iraq are not talking seriously about going "into" Iran. "I do not think anyone in the U.S. is talking about invasion," said Josh Muravchik, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute who has argued for air strikes on Iran. "We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." If

the initial march to Baghdad was a cake walk, a march to Tehran would be a logistical nightmare, experts agree. Iran is more than twice the area of Iraq. And a wall of mountains essentially surrounds a high plateau of inhospitable terrain pocked by salt domes and sand dunes. Supply lines would be next to impossible to establish because needle-eye mountain passes are barely wide enough for one-way traffic during mild weather. Bottlenecks are common even on roads between Iran and Iraq, officials note. Logistics teams were able to readily supply U.S. forces marching to Baghdad thanks to Iraq's flatlands and easy-access ports in the Persian Gulf. "Iran is a different story altogether," even along its rugged Gulf coast, another Pentagon official pointed out. "We couldn't convoy big daily loads into the interior. We'd have to airlift them in." But those smaller deliveries wouldn't be enough to supply full divisions, he added. And unlike Iraq, Iran lacks any sizable rivers, leaving most of the country arid and dry. The Lut Desert, for example, experiences some of the world's hottest summers.) U.S. artillery forces would not have any indigenous means to keep engines cool. That leaves air assault, which is a much more viable military option.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

21 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Scenario 3: Terrorism
Air Power solves terrorism Peck`7 (Allen G Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower's Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07/peck.html)

In an IW environment, the traditionally recognized ability of airpower to strike at the adversary’s “strategic center of gravity” will likely have less relevance due to the decentralized and diffuse nature of the enemy.3 The amorphous mass of ideological movements opposing Western influence and values generally lacks a defined command structure that airpower can attack with predictable effects. Still, airpower hold)s a number of asymmetric trump cards (capabilities the enemy can neither meet with parity nor counter in kind). For instance, airpower’s ability to conduct precision strikes across the globe can play an important role in counterinsurgency operations. Numerous other advantages (including information and cyber operations; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance [ISR]; and global mobility) have already proven just as important. These capabilities provide our fighting forces with highly asymmetric advantages in the IW environment. Innovation and adaptation are hallmarks of airpower. Cold War–era bombers, designed to carry nuclear weapons, can loiter for hours over the battlefield and deliver individual conventional weapons to within a few feet of specified coordinates. Fighter aircraft, designed to deliver precision weapons against hardened targets, can disseminate targeting-pod video directly to an Air Force joint terminal attack controller who can then direct a strike guided by either laser or the global positioning system (GPS). Unmanned systems such as the Predator, once solely a surveillance platform, now have effective laser designation and the capacity for precision, kinetic strike. Airborne platforms offer electronic protection to ground forces, including attacking insurgent communications and the electronics associated with triggering improvised explosive devices (IED). Exploiting altitude, speed, and range, airborne platforms can create these effects, unconstrained by terrain or artificial boundaries between units. Forward-thinking Airmen developed these innovations by using adaptive tactics, techniques, procedures, and equipment to counter a thinking, adaptive enemy. To be sure, our IW adversaries have their own asymmetric capabilities such as suicide bombers, IEDs, and the appropriation of civilian residences, mosques, and hospitals as staging areas for their combat operations. However, they lack and cannot effectively offset unfettered access to the high ground that superiority in air, space, and cyberspace provides.

Terrorism risks extinction Alexander 3 (Yonah, Professor for Inter-University for Terrorism Studies http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/aug/27/20030827-084256-8999r/)
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 cease-fire 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.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

22 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (1/4)
Advantage 2: Air Pollution Aircraft are the major source of air pollution. Holzman 97 (David, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 105, Number 12, December, http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html)
In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of VOCs and NO x during landing and takeoff cycles, more than double 1970 levels, according to the NRDC report. These two classes of compounds are precursors of groundlevel ozone, which can interfere with lung function. "During the summer . . . between 10% and 20% of all East Coast hospital admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," says the NRDC report. Airports are among the greatest sources of local air pollution. A major airport's idling and taxiing planes can emit hundreds of tons of VOCs and NO x annually. John F. Kennedy International Airport is the second largest source of VOCs in New York City. LaGuardia is among the major sources of NO x .

Air pollution devastates crops killing 50 million BBC 5 ( News, Horizon Documentary on Global Dimming, January 15,
http://www.innovatieplatformnoordnederland.nl/cms/content.asp?contentId=247&catid=77)

The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive. Climatologists studying this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern Africa. In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never quite understood why they had failed. The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more” with hunger and starvation.

Air pollution kills lichen. Kourik 8 (Robert, Author of Roots Demystified, March 29, http://robertkouriksgardenroots.blogspot.com/2008/03/tattletale-lichens.html)
In 1866, William Nylander, a Finnish naturalist, was the first to link the disappearance of lichens and air pollution. He noticed that some lichen species present within Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, were missing in other parts of the city. He attributed these differences to air quality. Over the next thirty years, fumes from coal-burning industrial furnaces gradually led to the eradication of the lichen population within the park. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), the result of industrial and urban emissions, does

the most widespread damage to lower plants, even though it is only one of several air are lichens sensitive to air pollution? Since lichens lack roots, surface absorption of rainfall is the only means of obtaining vital nutrients which are dissolved in rainwater. Lichens act like sponges, taking in everything that is dissolved in the rainwater, and retaining it. Since there is no means of purging the SO2, the sulfur content accumulates within the lichen and reaches a level where it breaks down the chlorophyll molecules which are responsible for photosynthesis in the algae. When the photosynthetic process stops in the algae, the algae die and this leads to the death of the fungus. Since it is known that different species of lichens vary in sensitivity to air pollution, scientists can use these organisms as monitors of air
pollution components in the atmosphere. Why pollution and as indicators of air quality. This is very useful because modern air quality instruments cannot measure the effects air pollution has on living cells and they are limited to measuring present conditions.Most

importantly, the lack of lichens on fruit trees would be a sure indicator that their orchard is not free from the harsh chemical sprays that harm and kill lichens. I
could readily tell that the air quality was fine in their backyard just by looking at what is growing on the bark of older trees. Take some time and look at the bark of some of your older trees. Hopefully, a few scattered patches of gray or orange lichens can be seen growing on the bark. Near a city, there is an obvious change in what is growing on tree trunks. Here there are areas where lichens don’t exist, such areas are termed "lichen deserts". As the air quality in

Lichens are sensitive to air pollution and have disappeared from many metropolitan and industrial areas over the last century. Lichens’ sensitivity to pollutants are actually used as biomonitors—like a green version of a canary in the coal mine.. Lichens are valuable research tools and through the information they provide, we can have a better understanding of the impact
these lichens deserts improve, lichens will begin to reappear in a slow process of recovery.

air pollution has on the environment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

23 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (2/4)
Lichens are keystone species critical to biodiversity USFS 98 (United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/summary/gtr_385d.pdf)
The key ecological roles of lichens include contributing mass and nutrients to litter and duff, increasing canopy and soil moistureholding capacity, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, serving as food for animals, and acting as bioindicators for air quality. Some species are important to American Indians. The 736 lichen species were divided into 40 functional groups based on ecological relations. The groups occur on four main substrates: dead organic matter; corticate and decorticate wood; rock; and soil. Lichens are major components of native rangelands and provide critical soil functions, but have been threatened by exotic grasses, increased fire frequency, conversion of rangelands, and livestock trampling. Lichens are part of microbiotic crusts and are susceptible to damage from livestock grazing and trampling. One lichen, Texosporium sancti-jacobi, is listed as a Category 2 (C2) candidate species. Providing clumps of old trees and uneven-aged stands for their legacy of lichens can improve conservation of lichens.

Biodiversity collapse threatens human extinction Schlickeisen 2000, (Roger, President of Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, May 24, Federal News Service
A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History confirmed that a majority of scientific experts believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things. These scientists agree that: the loss of species will pose a major threat to human existence in this century; during the next 30 years as many as one-fifth of all species alive today could become extinct; this so-called "sixth extinction" is the fastest in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, but unlike prior mass extinctions, is primarily the result of human activity and not natural causes; biodiversity loss is a greater threat than the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and contamination.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

24 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (3/4)
Liquid coal fuels are more affordable, eliminate pollutants, and enable better engine performance. This spills-over from the Air Force to commercial air lines Sirak 6 (Michael, Defense Daily Correspondent, Vol. 231 No. 116, December 22, Lexis)
As the Air Force nears the goal of certifying its B-52H bomber aircraft to burn synthetic aviation fuel, the service is also working toward the broader goal of having its entire future fleet capable of burning such alternatively derived fuels, according to a senior service official. "We are looking for complete certification of the Air Force fleet," Paul Bollinger, special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, told Defense Daily during an interview on Dec. 20. Such fuels would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources, Air Force officials have said. Additionally, said Bollinger, they are expected to be more affordable, produce less pollutants and potentially enable greater engine performance, he said. The Air Force conducted a 6.1-hour flight test on Dec. 15 of a B-52H bomber burning a synthetic fuel mix in all eight of its engines. The fuel is 50 percent derived from natural gas and 50 percent traditional JP-8 aviation fuel. The natural gas is converted via a process called the Fischer-Tropsch procedure. Pilot feedback from the mission, which built upon earlier
flight tests in September, showed that the B-52H "performed the same way that he would have expected on a JP-8-fueled aircraft," said Bollinger, who noted that Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, Calif., flew the aircraft. Cold-weather engine tests with the synthetic fuel mix are scheduled to take place in January and February, Bollinger said. Analysis of data from the B- 52H tests is ongoing and the service anticipates issuing a report of the findings around March that will lead to the aircraft's certification, he said. The Air Force expects to select a second platform within the next month or so to continue the process of certifying additional aircraft, he said. The

service intends to pick an aircraft with high-bypass engines, such as those on Air Force transport aircraft, he said. Doing so will allow the Air Force work to support the certification of the synthetic fuels on commercial airliners, said Bollinger. Since commercial airlines consume about 90 percent of all aviation fuel in the United States annually, their inclusion is critical to establishing the market for the alternative fuels in the United States, he said. Thereafter, the Air Force anticipates addressing its fighter fleet, he said. "The aircraft that our scientists and engineers are most interested in testing are the fighter aircraft because of the afterburners," he said. Bollinger said there is a clear business case for the synthetic fuels. The Air Force currently pays about $92 per barrel of aviation fuel, he said. Studies have shown that synthetic fuel could be acquired for around $70 per barrel, he said. "The ability to have fuel provided at a known price over a long-term period has potentially huge benefits to the Air Force and other services," he said, noting that the Air Force had to spend $1.6 billion more in 2006 than
the previous year for roughly the same amount of fuel due to oil price increases. By 2016, the Air Force would like to have half of its aviation fuel to be the 50-50 synthetic blend (Defense Daily, Nov. 21). However, the longer term objective is to incorporate synthetic fuel mixes with a greater percentage of Fischer-Tropsch-derived fuel, such as a 90-10 blend, he said. "It is our objective in all of this ultimately to be able to fly with synthetic fuel potentially up to 100 percent synthetic fuel, which is in reality a 90-10 formula," he said. The Air Force is cooperating with the Army and Navy on the introduction of alternative fuels, Bollinger noted.

CTL solves air pollution from aircraft Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
F-T fuels offer numerous benefits for aviation users. The first is an immediate reduction in particulate emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown in laboratory combustors and engines to reduce PM emissions by 96% at idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other turbine engine emissions is still under way. Concurrent to the PM reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel. F-T fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy content per carbon content of the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load of fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

25 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Advantage 2: Air Pollution (4/4)
Independently, CTL replaces traditional cooking oils which produce indoor air pollution – The impact is 1.5 million lives a year Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)
Fuels produced from coal also have potential outside the transportation sector, In many developing countries, health impacts and local air quality concerns have driven calls for the use of clean cooking fuels. Replacing traditional biomass or solid fuels with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has been the focus of international aid programs. LPG, however, is an oil derivative and is thus affected by the expense and price volatility of crude oil. At current oil prices the affordability of LPG is questionable, potentially causing consumers to return to traditional biomass resources—wood or dung—with resulting health impacts. Indoor air pollution from traditional solid cooking fuels is responsible for at least 1.5 million deaths per year.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

26 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (1/4)
Ob 2: Solvency Long-term contracts jumpstart the industry by ensuring financial stability – A procurement market overcomes cost-competitiveness issues Landry 7 (Cathy, Platts Oilgram Price Report, SECTION: Pg. 1 Vol. 85 No. 40, Feb. 28, Lexis)
The Pentagon will announce plans this week to buy 215,000 gal of synthetic jet fuel, with 206,000 gal of the total going
to feed a US Air Force test and evaluation program and the balance going toward a similar program being conducted by National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a contracting official for the Defense Department's fuel-procurement arm said Tuesday. "We could have the [solicitation] out [Wednesday]," said the Defense Energy Support Center official, who asked not to be named. DESC had initially been considering a tender of around 500,000 gal, but the contracting agent said the Navy had yet to sign onto the program, so the solicitation would reflect only the needs of the Air Force and NASA. "We will probably get to 500,000 gal in the future, but right now we only have a need for

215,000 gal," the official said. Michael Aimone, the Air Force's assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations and mission support, unveiled the Air Force's synthetic jet fuel purchasing plans before a Senate panel Tuesday. He also told the Senate Finance Committee that the Air Force would seek legislative authority to enter into long-term contracts to buy larger volumes of the fuels. Companies that are considering development of commercial-scale US synthetic fuel coal-to-liquids production plants say they need long-term contracts to justify the multi-billion projects. To allow for "strategic research and development investments," the Air Force would like "long-term contract authority for these types of products," Aimone said of synthetic fuel
purchases. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave federal entities authority to enter into long-term contracts, but that authority was limited to five years, Aimone said, adding in an interview that he wanted at least 10 years of long-term contract authority. The Air Force spends $7

billion/year on energy and stated its intention to get synthetic jet fuel approved for all its military aircrafts by 2010 and the fuel to be in widespread use by 2016. The Air Force has successfully completed its first two tests of a 50-50 blend of synthetic jet fuel and crude-derived jet in its B-52 bombers to ensure the fuel meets various performance and safety standards. The Air Force plan is part of a Pentagon policy toward promoting synfuels. The Defense Department, through the DESC, buys 8.7 billion gal/year, making it the world's largest fuel buyer. The Pentagon is hoping to use that buying power to jump-start the synthetic jet fuel industry, and has indicated it could purchase of up to 200 million gal over the next several years. The ultimate goal would be to lessen US dependence on crude oil, particularly from trouble spots in the Middle East. While the Defense
Department's long-term objective is to bolster US alternative fuel production, US synthetic jet fuel plants probably will not be ready for another three years at the earliest. For that reason, the winner or winners of the upcoming solicitation will likely be foreign companies?Royal Dutch Shell and South Africa's Sasoil?because they are the only two companies that have expressed interest that have commercialized synthetic fuels. Shell produces synthetic jet using the Fischer-Tropsch process by converting natural gas to liquids; Sasoil, which sells to commercial jets in the Johannesburg airport, converts coal to liquids using the same process. The solicitation will be an "open competition contract," meaning any qualified bidder can bid, the contracting official said. US companies that have expressed interest in supply synthetic jet

fuel to the military have indicated they would pursue coal-to-liquids plants because of the favorable price differential between coal and jet fuel prices. The solicitation to be released this week will require that the synthetic jet fuel be converted using a Fischer-Tropsch process, the contracting official said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

27 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (2/4)
SQ incentives are effective, but limited – Only new federal incentives generate a stable DOD test market and prevent backstopping by OPEC Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
Today, the barriers to building large scale commercial F-T facilities that can cut into the volume of imported oil are purely financial. The history of the energy business, particularly the oil industry, is marked by volatility. Investors have long memories and, as has been said before, “capital is cowardly.” Many who are interested in investing in alternative energy production are looking to Washington to provide some level of certainty. The cost of a 30,000 to 40,000 barrel per day F-T plant is estimated in the $3 to $6 billion range, numbers that are often associated with large traditional refineries or power plants, not alternative energy production. Federal policies and programs that can help to provide the needed certainty can take several forms. The first, and most natural, would be for the Department of Defense to enter into long term supply contracts with F-T fuel producers. There are several bi-partisan proposals to enable this, including extension of the Department’s contracting authority from its current 5 year limit to 25 years. Next would be the establishment of a program similar to that proposed by Representatives Boucher and Shimkus to create a “price collar” program which would protect producers from a dramatic drop in oil prices and taxpayers through a revenue sharing mechanism when prices exceed a certain level. Extending the extending the existing alternative fuels excise tax credit, which covers F-T fuels and is set to expire in the fall of 2009, to 2020 would also provide a level of protection for investors from potential OPEC price manipulation intended to undermine U.S. alternative energy programs.

CTL faces no technical problems and expanded federal R&D is critical to commercial deployment and carbon capture Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
A great benefit of the F-T approach to liquid fuel development is that we know it works. F-T fuels are being produced today using both coal and natural gas in South Africa and using natural gas in Malaysia and Qatar. F-T fuels or blends of F-T and conventional petroleum products are in commercial use. Their suitability for use in vehicles and commercial aviation has been established. The R&D challenge for coal-to-liquids development is not how to use but rather how to produce these fuels in a manner that is consistent with our national environmental objectives. If the federal government is prepared to promote early production experience, then expanded federal R&D efforts are needed. Most important, consideration should be given to accelerating the development and testing (including large-scale testing) of methods for the long-term sequestration of carbon dioxide. This could involve using one or more of the early coal-to-liquids production plants as a source of carbon dioxide for the testing of sequestration options.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

28 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (3/4)
Global use of CTL is inevitable – Only US incentives create the motive for environmentally sound development, global modeling and guarantee U.S. competitiveness in critical industries Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
The preceding discussion supports the argument for a holistic approach to energy and transportation fuel development that is protective of the environment, while giving adequate attention to sustainable and secure energy for the nation`s future. The urgency for clean energy need not come at the expense of national security. As the nation moves forward using biomass and other renewable energy resources, and eventually with nuclear power and heat, it will be to again produce ammonia for fertilizer, chemical feedstock for consumer products, industrial gas for gas and steel production plants, and clean hydrogen for electrical power production (as known as FutureGen), hydrogen for sour crude and unconventional fossil fuel upgrading, and last, but not least, secure transportation fuels for the next century and beyond. This can be done while reducing green house gas emissions. Failure to take on this leadership will only transfer this responsibility to future generations or foreign nations that will continue to produce the products demanded without probable control of greenhouse gas emissions. Failure to assume this leadership will also result in economic decline and increased national security risk. On the other hand, willingness of project developers and environmental protection organizations to accept coal conversion with biomass blending and carbon management will enable the U.S. to provide solutions to our global commons, while assuring secure, clean, efficient, and sustainable domestic energy for the future. Other system approaches could consider the use of high pressure CO2 slurries to transport western coal and CO2 to CTL plants and carbon sequestration sites in the East, with a return line bringing water from the East to the arid West as practical. The reality is that the U.S. is not short on viable solutions to build a clean, and secure CTL industry. Such ideas abound within the nation`s research academic institutions and national laboratories. The key for currently developing projects is to implement proven technology with a goal of reducing green house gases and minimizing water use. This recommendation is consistent with other technical experts who have previously testified before congressional committees. It is consistent with DOE and Department of Defense objectives to establish a secure domestic supply of transportation fuels while simultaneously mitigating global climate impact concerns. I personally support efforts to convince the U.S. to conserve energy, while moving to a new fleet of hybrid cars and electrically-driven commuter cars. I support accelerated development of wind and solar energy, as well ``smart`` deployment of nuclear electrical power generation. I support a movement to develop biomass as a national resource, and the associated deployment of a system to improve yield, collection, preparation, and transportation of this resource to points of efficient conversion into energy and transportation fuels. However, I also believe the pending peaking of oil production, as well as diminishing domestic reserves of natural gas, in parallel with global energy demand projections and the acute need to address climate change point to the urgency for the United States to begin unprecedented efforts to begin building plants for transportation fuels from the nations abundant supply of coal with biomass. It is both in the interest of national security as well as global environmental protection. The example established by the United States can serve as a model for other countries to follow. This task cannot be left purely to the market place, since it is not presently the lowest cost method to produce electricity, natural gas, ammonia, chemicals, and transportation fuels. It is for these reasons that ``big oil`` is not currently investing in the development and construction of CTL plants in the United States. Therefore, Federal incentives to move to a synthetic fuels industry are necessary for timely market entry- in a manner that is protective of the environment. Establishing necessary greenhouse gas reduction targets will impact the economics and risk of the first U.S. plants; hence, assistance in the form of loan guarantees and tax advantages will help establish this vital industry ahead of significant economic incentives.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

29 Green Military Aff

1AC – CTL Good – AF Fuels Aff – Solvency (4/4)
Only the military can solve – Jet fuel purchases spillover to civilian life – CTL solves military vulnerabilities in the short-term Eggers 8 (Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff. Was director for combating terrorism at national
security council Armed Forces Journal “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)
Then-Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, before Hurricane Katrina, cautioned that policy should not interfere with the market and instead should allow elevated prices and naturally reduced demand to drive increased innovation in alternative energy markets. In 2006, after Katrina and facing sharp increases in prices, Greenspan testified before Congress that “the buffer between supply and demand is much too small to absorb shutdowns of even a small part of the world’s production. ... Oil users judge they need to be prepared for the possibility that at some point a raid will succeed, with a devastating impact on supply.” And the price of oil has increased more than $30 a barrel since that speech. The ability of market forces to force an adjustment of demand and spur technological innovation is now eclipsed by market volatility and supply vulnerability. The growing national security consequences of our dependence underscore the imperative for action. Oil’s

ascendancy to a strategic commodity was through the military; the military should also be the source of its demise. The British Navy’s shift from coal to oil and the U.S. Navy’s pioneering research in nuclear power suggest that military requirements and innovation are well-poised to push difficult or innovative solutions. For starters, U.S. warships are one of the few places where
nuclear power might reduce the transportation sector’s dependence on liquid fuels. Thus the maritime sector has the luxury of being poised for transformation to alternative methods if and when oil spikes to prices considered inconceivable today. Similarly, land-based transportation is arguably close to viable jumping points to new foundational technologies, possibly through electric or hydrogen power. It is significantly less clear what non-liquid or non-carbon technology the airline industry might choose. While there are alternatives on the horizon for shipping and wheeled transportation, there is no resource so optimized in ease of storage and power density as good old petroleum. And given

that jet fuel constitutes the Defense Department’s largest single energy expenditure, improvements in this field would not only close the widest gap in civil transportation requirement, they would simultaneously make the largest improvement in defense propulsion vulnerabilities.
At the International Maritime Propulsion Conference in May, scientists and researchers will debate the viability of crude oil alternatives and will likely conclude that

CTL processes offer the most feasible short-term solution. Similar studies in Europe have concluded that hydrogen and biofuels are
unlikely short-term successors. Hydrogen is an energy storage option, not a source, and current generation biofuels are competing with food supplies — the principal reason that a gallon of milk still costs more than a gallon of gasoline. While CTL is cost-effective now, the process of liquefying coal requires significant amounts of water and produces significant carbon emissions, two sensitive areas that need to be addressed hand-in-hand with energy needs, not at the expense of one another. Climate change and associated political pressures mean that proposed solutions must increasingly utilize a comprehensive well-to-wheel analysis, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental consequences. National security has always held the trump card over environmental factors, and this is

unlikely to change, but the bar for playing this hand is rising. As we begin to capture more of the hidden costs of energy, cheap solutions will become harder to find, further emphasizing the need for expanded research.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

30 Green Military Aff

***Topicality***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

31 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (1/2)
1. We meet: The plan says alternative energy. The government interprets this to include CTL. The advantage stems from a topical mandate. 2. Counterinterp: Alternative energy is non-petroleum fuel and any non-fossil fuel for electricity production A. Alternative fuel is alternative energy – This category includes non-renewable, traditional fuel sources Warkentin-Glenn 6 (Denise, “Electric Power Industry”, http://books.google.com/books?id=ivtsqD692DoC)
Alternative energy includes alternative fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is traditional. It also includes the use of traditional energy sources, such as natural, in untraditional ways, such as for distributed energy at the point of use through microturbines or fuel cells. Finally it also encompasses future energy sources, such as hydrogen and fusion.

B. Alternative means untraditional – Coal is not traditionally used as fuel American Heritage 6 (dictionary.com)
Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.

3. Reasons to prefer A. Overlimits: They exclude fuels cells, hydrogen, natural gas, and nuclear power, all of which are critical areas for topic education. B. Aff predictability: Govt definitions statutorily define CTL as alternative energy. They’re the most obvious standard for inclusion DOE 93 (Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/financial/020693.pdf)
Nothing illustrates the volatility of the FRS companies' investment targets during the past two decades better than the waxing and waning of their activities and investments in alternative energy in the late 1970's and 1980's. Alternative energy includes renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy), cogeneration, and the production of refinable hydrocarbons from tar sands, oil shale, and coal. At first, FRS companies viewed many alternative energy technologies as promising. For example, Exxon and Suncor (Sun Oil's Canadian subsidiary) had synfuel (tar sands) operations. Unocal and Coastal had geothermal operations. In 1982, a dozen FRS companies invested more than $1 billion in oil shale development.

C. Grammatical precision – Alternative energy is distinct from renewables – It’s intentionally broader NEPD 7 (Natl Energy Policy Directorate, executive branch advisory, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Chapter6.pdf)
Alternative energy includes: alternative fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is traditional; the use of traditional energy sources, such as natural gas, in untraditional ways, such as for distributed energy at the point of use through microturbines or fuel cells; and future energy sources, such as hydrogen and fusion. Both renewable and alternative energy resources can be produced centrally or on a distributed basis near their point of use. Providing electricity, light, heat, or mechanical energy at the point of use diminishes the need for some transmission lines and pipelines, reducing associated energy delivery losses and increasing energy efficiency. Distributed energy resources may be renewable resources, such as biomass cogeneration in the lumber and paper industry or rooftop solar photovoltaic systems on homes, or they may be alternative uses of traditional energy, such as natural gas microturbines

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

32 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – 2AC (2/2)
This distinction has legal importance and grammar is critical to predictability Andrews 7 (Edmund L., New York Times reporter, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/business/coal.163507.php?page=1) President George W. Bush has not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has carefully referred to the need for "alternative fuels" rather than "renewable fuels." Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal.

4. Their limits arg is bad A. No explosion: We only add coal and natural gas and we only do so for fuels. The increase is small. B. “Uncommon” checks: Prevents any general electricity, clean coal, or improved oil affs. These aren’t uncommon uses, just uncommon outcomes. We’re still required to invest in massive infrastructure changes and compete with oil like all renewables. C. “Oil good” and mechanisms check: The combination of general arg’s in favor of oil and free market vs. command and control CP’s provides a solid balance of neg generic ground. Their appeal is only to basic neg ground, which we don’t decrease. 5. Their ground arg is bad: A. Err aff: The neg gets too many generics, PICs, K’s w utopian alts, consult, conditions, and actor CPs, the neg block, and no risk neg theory. The aff empirically loses more elims in modern debate. B. Ground is variable: The aff is always reducing neg ground intentionally. They have no right to any particular DA, CP, or K. C. CTL increases ground: We deplete traditional coal stocks, meaning we trade off with any SQ coal uses. Any “coal good” DA they had before still applies to the aff bc of the uncommon use in the aff. 6. Counterinterp: The plan must say alternative energy. 7. Our interp is superior: A. Predictable: It’s the word in the resolution, the clearest brightline. B. Neg ground: Allows the “renewable energy” PIC, which competes based on the disads to dirty
alternatives.

C. Limits: Prevents the aff from overspecifying thousands of different emerging technologies which
explodes the topic and crushes limits. The generic category is more predictable and bounded.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

33 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (1/6)
They conflate renewable and alternative – Synfuels are alternatives to gasoline Philadelphia Inquirer 7 (6-4)
As America develops substitutes for gasoline, it should value environmental protection equally with its quest for energy independence. These two vital goals can come into tension; this tension can't be eliminated by exalting one goal over another. It should be managed through a balanced approach. What's needed now is a focus on renewable rather than simply alternative fuels _ terms that politicians in Washington and Pennsylvania too often use interchangeably. Clean, renewable energy can be harnessed in all 50 states from resources such as wind, solar, water and biomass. It creates jobs in rural America and in manufacturing, provides energy at stable prices that will never run out, and reduces urban smog and pollution that contributes to global warming.

CTL is alternative energy – It’s an oil-substitute Rauber 7 (Paul, Sierra, Sep/Oct)
Alternative energy is all the rage these days. But buyers beware! In a brazen application of lipstick to a pig, coal companies are branding liquefied coal as an "alternative fuel." True, it is an alternative to oil; the problem is, it's a significantly worse one.

Most predictable govt definitions of “alternative” include CTL Congress Daily 7 (2-8)
Republican leaders offered a motion to recommit the bill to the House Science Committee to specify that it deals with "alternative fuels," as a way to ensure that coal-based liquids are included. "By leaving this out, this bill discriminates not only on coal-to-liquid technologies … but also natural gas and hydrogen," said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who offered the motion. He said the word "alternative" has been accepted by the House since Democrats led an effort to pass an energy bill in 1992.

Alternative clearly includes coal – Congress uses the more restrictive term biofuels to exclude coal Congress Daily 7 (2-8)
But Science Chairman Gordon, the bill's sponsor, said the motion was "another effort to try to undermine this good bill today." He said that while "clean" coal will be a future part of the energy mix, it "is not available now," and the bill is intended to be a "very narrow" quick fix to help existing infrastructure. Gordon's spokeswoman added that the term "alternative" was changed to "biofuels" in a manager's amendment before the committee unanimously approved the bill during a markup last week. The idea was to make Gordon's bill consistent with the 2005 energy law, the spokeswoman said. The GOP motion failed on a 207-200 vote. The overall bill passed easily, 400-3.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

34 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (2/6)
CTL is an alternative fuel-Federal context Laumer`7John Laumer is an independent consultant who joined TreeHugger. His recent service with a multinational chemical firm included
environmental management systems development, training in product stewardship, product introduction management, scenario planning, and risk assessment., Coal-To-Liquid Diesel Fuel: A Bipartisan Issue That Unites Environmentalists With Farmershttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/coalto_liquid_f.php The Treehugger.com, 1.26.07,
The Wall Street Journal has an article titled Energy Mandates Fuel a Rift (subscription only) that reminds us of the madness that breaks out when fans pour

Bush's push for domestic alternatives to imported oil has ignited a battle between coal interests and environmentalists -- and underscored tension between the goals of increasing U.S. energy security and curbing global warming." And, an unusual 'coal-ition of the unwilling' seems to have been forged, now that the President mentioned coal-toliquids (CTL) diesel as an "alternative fuel": "Environmentalists are backed by the ethanol industry, which doesn't want the
onto a soccer field to mix it up:- "...President coal industry muscling in on a fuel mandate that ethanol producers now have to themselves". Prominent Democrats favor CTL. For example:- "Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat and White House hopeful, is a sponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, which provides more tax incentives and federal loan guarantees for companies interested in making coal-based fuels". A few of us TreeHugger writers who are US citizens

have conversed about the linkage of CTL, climate, and conservation and have come up with what we hope will be seen as constructive criticisms for evaluation of alternative liquid fuels. Good for any party. Have a look
below the fold.

Coal is an alternative fuel and alternative fuels don't have to be renewable Halcrow 7 (Stephanie D., Major and student at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Green
Energy for the Battle Field, December, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A475991&Location =U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) Alternative fuels are also a key component of meeting the energy crisis. Alternative fuels include biodiesel, ethanol, natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, hydrogen and electricity. Not all alternative fuels are renewable (natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels) nor emissions free, but these alternative fuels offer other benefits such as reducing the dependence on foreign sources of energy. Alternative fuel use is the backbone behind a recommendation by the Southern States Energy Board, which suggests the U.S. can achieve energy security and independence through using a combination of domestic fossil fuel resources, renewable energy sources and most importantly, alternative fuels (American Energy Security, 2006).

CTL is alternative energy Thomas 2 (Larry, author of “Coal Geology”,
http://books.google.com/books?id=4oYWx90ybY8C&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=%22alternative+energy%22,+c oal,+statutory&source=web&ots=2phn_rF1d1&sig=UWiyCaItCciNPvGdGO83bENAVJw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book _result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA47,M1) The essential property that distinguishes coal from other rock types is that it is a combustible material. In the normal course of events, coal is burnt to provide warmth as a domestic fuel, to generate electricity as a power station feed stock or as a part of industrial process to create products such as steel and cement. Coal, however, is more versatile than this and has been, and still is, able to provide alternative forms of energy. This may be from its by-products such as gas, or through chemical treatment to become liquid fuel, and by in situ combustion to convert coal to liquid and gaseous products.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

35 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (3/6)
Their all-or-nothing position on oil is unsustainable Elhefnawy 6 (Nader, Toward a Long-Range Energy Security Policy," Parameters, Spring 2006)
A third problem is the tendency to view the matter as a choice between the outright replacement of fossil fuels or nothing at all. The reality, however, is that partial solutions can provide a cushion until a more complete transition can be brought about. This being the case, it matters little if renewable energy production will at first be undergirded by more traditional supplies. Solar cells and wind turbines will be made in factories powered by oil-burning plants. To state this as proof that alternatives to oil are unrealistic is nonsense. The energy base of the future will have to be created using the energy base existing now, just as the oilbased economy was built using previously existing sources. Of greater concern, many schemes for a hydrogen
economy involve the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas or other fossil fuels, with power supplied by traditional electricity sources like oil, coal, and nuclear generators. Hydrogen, however, also can be extracted directly from water through photoelectrochemical processes or electrolysis, which could be powered by cheap wind and solar energy.12

Liquid coal is alternative energy. Ng 08 (Eric, South China Morning Post, June 24,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4129689669&f ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4129689672&cisb=22_T4129689671&tr eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=11314&docNo=1) Alternative energies could include wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power, ethanol, methanol and fuel derived from liquefied coal.

Liquid coal is alternative energy. Andrews 7 (EDMUND L., The New York Times, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview
/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4129729074&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resu ltsUrlKey=29_T4129729078&cisb=22_T4129729077&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=4) Some debates are over basic questions that seem obvious but are not. Does ''clean'' and ''renewable'' energy include nuclear power? Should the government subsidize only ''renewable'' fuels, like wind or ethanol, or should it subsidize ''alternative'' fuels, including coal-based liquids, that might substitute for oil and reduce dependence on foreign oil?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

36 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (4/6)
Congressional definitions include CTL Pfeiffer 7 (Eric, The Washington Times, June 22, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview
/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4130674578&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resu ltsUrlKey=29_T4130674581&cisb=22_T4130674580&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8176&docNo=6) The provision passed by Ways and Means would allow the proceeds from tax credit bonds to be used for alternative energy projects that "promote the commercialization of technologies for the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide." A former Ways and Means staffer said the process for converting coal to liquid fuel meets the requirements of the resolution's language.

Alternative energy means fuel substitutes from petroleum – CTL is included DEDE, no date (Department of Alternative Energy Development Efficiency,
http://www.dede.go.th/dede/index.php?id=126) Alternative Energy means energy used for fuel substitution; divided in 2 categories of theirs original resources; alternative energy from depleted resources such as coal, natural gas nuclear, peat and oil sand etc. and the other alternative energy from non-depleted resources which can be renewable such as solar, wind, biomass, hydro and hydrogen etc. In this article, it will only state about potential and status of alternative energy application.

Synthetic fuels are alternative energy GAO 8 (General Accounting Office, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT Overarching Organizational Framework Needed to Guide
and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations,March 2008, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ZJ9rEZ9gFqQJ:www.gao.gov/new.items/d08426.pdf)

In addition to these demand-reduction initiatives, the Air Force is pursuing efforts to increase supply through the research and testing of new technologies, as well as renewable and sustainable resources. Through the Air Force’s synthetic fuel initiative, jet fuels made from alternative energy sources, such as coal, natural gas, and biomass, are being evaluated for use in military aircraft with the goal of reducing future fuel costs and ensuring fuel availability. The Air Force completed initial testing of a synthetic blend of fuel in the B-52H bomber and certified the use of this fuel blend for this aircraft in August 2007. The service has begun testing on the C-17 cargo aircraft, the B-1 bomber, and the F-22 fighter, with certification expected in 2008. Air Force officials said that they expect the entire fleet to be certified to fly on the synthetic blend of fuel by 2011.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

37 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (5/6)
Executive Branch definitions prove CTL is AE Montague 7 (Peter, September 20, http://www.rachel.org/lib/07/prn_coal_news.070920.htm)
Big Coal played a crucial role in getting George Bush elected, and Mr. Bush is loyal to a fault. The President has said he wants the nation to adopt "alternative energy" -- being careful not to say "renewable energy." Coal fits the President's definition of "alternative" energy.

Legally, coal synthetics are alternative fuels American Jurisprudence 96 (2nd Ed. A Modern Comprehensive Text Statement of American Law, Vol. 27A,
Energy and Power Sources to Escheat. 1996, pg. 22-23)

The term "alternate fuel" has several statutory meanings. Most generally it means electricity or any fuel other than natural gas or petroleum, and includes petroleum coke, shale oil, uranium,biomass and municipal, industrial, or agricultural wastes, wood and renewable and geothermal energy sources, liquid, solid, or gaseous waste by-products of refinery or industrial operations which are commercially unable to be marketed, and waste gases from industrial operations. In terms of energy development policy, the term "alternative fuel" means methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or more (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, by rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels such as natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, coal-derived liquid fuels, fuels (other than alcohol) derived frombiological materials, electricity (including electricity from solar energy), and any other fuel that the Secretary determines, security benefits as well as substantial environmental benefits. The term "conventional energy source" means energy produced from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear fuels.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

38 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy (6/6)
Common usage supports coal-synthetics as alternative energy Brittanica Concise 5 (http://www.answers.com/topic/coal)
Solid, usually black but sometimes brown, carbon-rich material that occurs in stratified sedimentary deposits. One of the most important fossil fuels, it is found in many parts of the world. Coal is formed by heat and pressure over millions of years on vegetation deposited in ancient shallow swamps (see peat). It varies in density, porosity, hardness, and reflectivity. The major types are lignite, subbituminous, bituminous, and anthracite. Coal has long been used as fuel, for power generation, for the production of coke, and as a source of various compounds used in synthesizing dyes, solvents, and drugs. The search for alternative energy sources has periodically revived interest in the conversion of coal into liquid fuels; technologies for coal liquefaction have been known since early in the 20th century.

DOE supports our interpretation US Dept of Energy 7 (9-18, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/emerging_coal_liquids.html)
Coal to liquids is a term describing processes for converting coal into liquid fuels. Coal-derived liquid fuels are considered alternative fuels under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).

More ev… DOE 8 (3-11, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind_fed.php/afdc/391/0)
The following fuels are defined as alternative fuels by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992: pure methanol, ethanol, and other alcohols; blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline; natural gas and liquid fuels domestically produced from natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas (propane); coal-derived liquid fuels; hydrogen; electricity; pure biodiesel (B100); fuels, other than alcohol, derived from biological materials; and P-Series fuels. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to designate other fuels as alternative fuels, provided that the fuel is substantially nonpetroleum, yields substantial energy security benefits, and offers substantial environmental benefits.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

39 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: AE = RE
Alternative energy is distinct from renewable energy Damien 8 (3-6, Renewable Energy Devt – industry tracker, http://greenfuelpower.blogspot.com/2008/03/renewableenergy.html

Renewable energy is any source of energy that can be used without depleting its reserves. It is distinct from alternative energy because alternative energy may or may not be renewable. It is also distinct from green energy which refers to clean, low or nonpolluting energy such as solar and wind power. Renewable energy simply refers to the fact that the sources used to create power can replenish themselves. These sources include sun, wind, biomass and hydro energy.

Contextual evidence from state energy policy Texas State Energy Conservation Office 3 (http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/energy-ed_curriculum.htm)
In 2000 AFRED produced a second edition of the supplement and offered additional workshops. The renewable energy section of the curriculum was expanded, and an additional section on global climate change added. The curriculum supplement was retitled Alternative Energy to reflect its broader scope.

CTL is alternative fuel and alternative fuels don’t have to be renewable
Halcrow 7 (Dec, Major Stephanie Halcrow is a student at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Green
Energy for the Battle Field http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A475991&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

Alternative fuels are also a key component of meeting the energy crisis. Alternative fuels include biodiesel, ethanol, natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, hydrogen and electricity. Not all alternative fuels are renewable (natural gas, coal-derived liquid fuels) nor emissions free, but these alternative fuels offer other benefits such as reducing the dependence on foreign sources of energy. Alternative fuel use is the backbone behind a recommendation by the Southern States Energy Board, which suggests the U.S. can achieve energy security and independence through using a combination of domestic fossil fuel resources, renewable energy sources and most importantly, alternative fuels (American Energy Security, 2006).

Alternative energy is broader than renewable energy Jetson Green 7 (May 29, http://www.jetsongreen.com/2007/05/alternative_ene.html)
First of all, recall the difference between renewable and alternative fuels. Don't conflate the two. We should now recognize that the term "alternative" includes dirty forms of energy. Second, in my humble opinion,
I'm going to have to side with Marc Gunther. Previously, if I were to vote Democrat, I would have gone with Obama or Edwards. But, recently, I've gone away from Obama, but not for any single issue. Why, you ask? Because it is clear he makes decisions based on money or popularity, or both. Coal is big in his state, and the lobby is really strong. But he capitulated to the lobby and made a decision that was unhealthy for the American people. That's illustrative of character. Who's going to be the politician that will stand up to the lobby and say, "I'm sorry, but that's not right for America." If we're going to be serious about bandying support for Al Gore's documentary, supporting coal-to-liquid is a blatant contradiction. You can't support efforts to stop global warming and support coal-to-liquid (in its current form). And I say that because no one is putting the cleaner variety of coal-to-liquid on the table. It's a bad joke on the American population. I'm embarrassed that we argue so much about supporting solar and wind, but our politicians jump on the coal-to-liquid bandwagon so quickly. What is wrong with this situation?

Alternative energy is intentionally designed to include coal as a fuel substitute Andrews 7 (Edmund L. - The New York Times Media Group; International Herald Tribune; FINANCE; Pg. 9; Lexis)
President George W. Bush, meanwhile, has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to oil and deliberately referred to the need for ''alternative fuels'' rather than simply ''renewable fuels.'' Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal. The political momentum to subsidize
coal-based fuels is in odd juxtaposition to simultaneous efforts by Democrats, who are also drafting bills to address global warming that would place new restrictions on coal-fired electric power plants. The move reflects a tension, which many lawmakers gloss over, between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Many analysts say the United States' huge coal

reserves could indeed provide a substitute for foreign oil.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

40 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Alternative Energy – A2: 50-50 = Oil
100% synthetic fuels are possible O' Sullivan 8 (Jacqui Group Communication Manager, Thomson Reuters,April 9,www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS192283+09Apr-2008+PRN20080409)

The world's leading producer of synthetic fuels from coal and natural gas, today announced that it has become the first company worldwide to receive international approval for its 100% synthetic jet fuel produced by its proprietary Coal to Liquids (CTL) process. Sanctioned by global aviation fuel specification authorities Sasol CTL will be the first fully synthetic fuel to be approved for use in commercial airliners. This marks a significant development in the adoption of clean burning alternative fuels for the aviation industry; engine-out emissions of Sasol's jet fuel are lower than those from jet fuel derived from crude oil due to its limited sulphur content. Approval of Sasol's CTL fuel for commercial aviation is also a milestone in the effort to secure domestic energy supply for South Africa and other countries with significant domestic coal and natural gas reserves; Sasol's transformative technology will allow these countries to monetize natural resources and increase energy security. Commenting on the announcement, Pat Davies, CE of Sasol said, "This is an historic breakthrough -- winning approval for a transportation fuel that is 100% synthetic. This approval by the international aviation fuel authorities recognizes the absolute need to develop aviation fuel from feedstocks other than crude-oil in order to meet the world's growing needs. Sasol is the global leader and pioneer in advanced synthetic fuel technology and this is a huge step forward toward integrating a viable alternative transportation fuel into the energy mix and showing the way forward for countries seeking security in a world that is thirsty for energy."

Overlimits: Excludes all biofuels – They’re blended too New Scientist 8 (3-8, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19726463.400)
Despite their green intentions, buyers of blended biofuel may not be getting quite what they are paying for. Chris Reddy, an environmental chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, has developed a test which reveals the proportions of biodiesel and conventional diesel in the fuel mix. It works by detecting the radioactive isotope carbon-14, which is present in biodiesel but not in fossil fuel.

Overlimits: Excludes fuels cells – They use hydrocarbons FC Tech 7 (http://www.fctec.com/fctec_basics.asp)
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy of a fuel (hydrogen, natural gas, methanol, gasoline, etc.) and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into electricity. In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a battery however, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as long as fuel and an oxidizer are supplied.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

41 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Incentives
25-year contracts for coal-based jet fuel are viewed as an incentive for alternative energy The Independent 7 (“U.S. lawmakers promote coal as an alternative fuel”, 5/29,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/business/coal.1-63507.php)

Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol. Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees are these: Loan guarantees for 6 to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the U.S. Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel. Coal companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying on the issue, marshalling allies in organized labor, the air force and fuelburning industries like the airlines. Peabody Energy, the world's biggest coal company, urged in a recent advertising campaign that people "imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East." Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, whose district is dominated by coal mining, is writing key sections of the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of coal-to-liquid fuels include Barack Obama, the Illinoisan who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, and Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans. President George W. Bush has not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has carefully referred to the need for "alternative fuels" rather than "renewable fuels." Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal.

25 year contracts are an incentive Athias 7 (Laure, Yale visiting scholar, “Political Accountability, Incentives, and Contractual Design of Public Private Partnerships”, 9/19-21,
http://extranet.isnie.org/uploads/isnie2008/athias.pdf)

The recent experience of the British government with school dinners offers a good example of the incentives provided by an availability contract, i.e. a contract in which the private provider does not bear the demand risk. According to Ellman (2006), “In the aftermath of a series of television reports on school diners by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver in early 2005, the government rushed to quench mounting public discontent over low quality committing to make improvements. However, new schools locked into 25-year contracts through private finance initiatives (PFIs) are finding that they cannot rid their menus of junk food despite the government’s pledge”.

Long-term contracts are incentives Sierra Club 7 (“Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global Warming”, April http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/downloads/200704liquidcoalfactsheet.pdf)

Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. There are currently no operating liquid coal plants in the U.S., which means this new industry would require huge government incentives to develop the technology and build plants that would operate with a meaningful capacity. These incentives range from subsidies to longterm purchasing contracts to price guarantees that eliminate any financial risk to investors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

42 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – T – Increase
5-year contracts hurt investor confidence in liquid coal – longer contracts would increase the incentive to companies to sign on Wall Street Journal 7 (“Energy: Coal Industry Hopes Pentagon Will Kindle a Market --- Use as Liquid Fuel Is an Aim, but Cost,
Pollution Are Issues”, 9/11, p. A15)

The military faces a five-year limit on how long it can sign contracts for supplies. Without the certainty that the military will be there to buy this product, regardless of what happens to oil prices, investors are unlikely to back coal-to-liquids plants.

5-year limits investment Coal International 7 (“Coal-to-liquid (CTL) interest spurs many projects”, Vol. 255, No. 1, p. 24, Jan./Feb.)
Mr Bollinger stressed that the current five-year limit on military energy contracts must be expanded to allow DOD to sign, at a minimum, 15-20 year supply contracts. Long-term contracts would make it easier for developers to secure the financial backing needed to construct FT plants, as developers could point to the lengthy contracts as evidence of a viable marketplace for such fuels.

Increasing contract length increases incentives University of Sussex 8 (Procurement Guide, Section 3, p. 39, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/procurement/documents/pgsect3.pdf)
These are not strictly contracts as the University or various Consortia initially do not agree to purchase anything. The promise of consideration and acceptance of the offer, both essential components of a contract, do not occur until an order is actually placed. The resulting contract is limited only to that one order. Provided the supplier does not withdraw the offer, the University may place any number of subsequent orders for any quantity of goods or services covered by the arrangements, thus creating as many or as few contracts as required. Such arrangements are referred to as either framework arrangements or standing offers; they are not call-off contracts, for which they are sometimes mistaken. Framework arrangements are essentially pricing agreements with suppliers. They are often based on an estimate of the goods and services likely to be required. Whilst making no firm commitment to purchase, framework arrangements enable the identification of competitively priced suppliers in advance of actual demand. In many cases, they enable dayto-day material or service acquisitions to be carried out effectively at user points. Framework arrangements: • reduce the purchasing effort by involving only one tendering exercise for the duration of the agreement • produce more competitive prices than would result from individual purchases • give the opportunity to devolve to the users a call-off ordering facility, thus reducing delay and paperwork • improve availability from suppliers • give the opportunity to improve commitment to, and relationships with, suppliers • require a mechanism of control enabling invoice payment and cost allocations. The major considerations are I. The length of the arrangement Too long a period may result in missing out on new offers from more competitive suppliers. Too short an arrangement may mean there is insufficient incentive for tenderers to submit their best offers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

43 Green Military Aff

***Inherency & UQ***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

44 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Inherency – American Energy Production Act of 2008
The plan hasn’t passed – It’s in committee GovTracker 8 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2958)
American Energy Production Act of 2008 This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Jul 5, 2008] Last Action: May 1, 2008: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

45 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (1/3)
The SQ leads to backstopping – Only incentives solve Lexington Herald-Leader 7 (6-10)
Nationally, Congress is considering a massive incentive package for producers of alternative fuels. Coal-state lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning of Southgate, have proposed measures that would guarantee minimum prices for fuels produced from coal, create demand for the fuel through guaranteed government contracts and use taxpayer money to co-sign billions of dollars in construction loans. Such guarantees are necessary given the volatile price of oil, said Bill Caylor, President of the Kentucky Coal Association. Recent government studies have shown that facilities turning coal into diesel fuel while capturing carbon dioxide, a key instigator of global warming, could generate a 20 percent return on investment if oil prices stay above $60 a barrel. "Everybody is scared to death that the Arabs will drop the price of oil between the break-even point for a coal-to-liquid plant, and that would bankrupt the plant because they wouldn't be able to sell their product on the open market," Caylor said.

Incentives necessary for commercialization Denton 7 (David, 5-24, Biz Devt – Eastman Gasification Service, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
Contrary to arguments made in the MIT study The Future of Coal, gasification technology is not ``commercial`` today. We at Eastman have the country`s most experienced and successful practitioners of industrial gasification. But our experience of more than 20 years at Kingsport is, by itself, inadequate to persuade A&E firms and financiers to reduce the risk premiums they are currently charging for first-of-a-kind gasification projects in the US. This premium is currently about twenty percent higher than the cost of such plants is expected to be after the first dozen or so are successfully deployed and operated in commercial service. Incentives, such as Section 48A and 48B tax credits, are necessary to encourage commercialization of gasification projects. The use of gasification will cause the substitution of coal, petcoke and other materials for natural gas, thus resulting in decreases in demand (and presumably prices) for natural gas. The benefits to all Americans from lower and stable natural gas prices will pay for the expense of the Section 48A & B tax credit programs in short order. The other benefits previously noted make these tax programs even more compelling. However, none of these benefits accrue directly to the first adopters of gasification technology. In fact, first adopters of industrial gasification technology, operating in a globally competitive market, would be taking on more cost and risk than their competitors absent the Section 48B incentives. Financiers will be more likely to lend money to such ventures if there are external incentives to ``buy down`` the risk and cost for a novel project.

Only incentives solve commercialization Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
Today, I will discuss the key problems and policy issues associated with developing a domestic coal-toliquids industry and the approaches Congress can take to address these issues. My main conclusions are as follows. First, successfully developing a coal-to-liquids industry in the United States would bring significant economic and national security benefits by reducing energy costs and wealth transfers to oil-exporting nations. Second, the production of petroleum substitutes from coal may cause a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions; however, relatively low risk research opportunities exist that, if successful, could lower carbon dioxide emissions to levels well below those associated with producing and using conventional petroleum. Third, without federal assistance, sufficient private-sector investment in coal-to-liquids production plants is unlikely to occur because of uncertainties about the future of world oil prices, the costs and performance of initial commercial plants, and the viability of carbon management options. Finally, a federal program directed at reducing these uncertainties; obtaining early, but limited, commercial experience; and supporting research appears to offer the greatest strategic benefits, given both economic and national security benefits and the uncertainties associated with economic viability and environmental performance, most notably the control of greenhouse gas emissions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

46 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (2/3)
Only incentives solve market irregularities Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
The prospects for a commercial coal-to-liquids industry in the United States remain unclear. Three major impediments block the way forward: 1. Uncertainty about the costs and performance of coal-to-liquids plants; 2. Uncertainty about the future course of world oil prices; and 3. Uncertainty about whether and how greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide emissions, might be controlled in the United States. As part of our ongoing work, RAND researchers have met with firms that are promoting coal-toliquids development or that clearly have the management, financial, and technical capabilities to play a leading role in developing of a commercial industry. Our findings are that these three uncertainties are impeding and will continue to impede private-sector investment in a coal-toliquids industry unless the government provides fairly significant financial incentives, especially incentives that mitigate the risks of a fall in world oil prices.

The SQ cant solve energy market distortions Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
As a company we believe that the U.S. cannot achieve energy independence without utilization of its many diverse natural resources, including both renewable and fossil fuels. Given the current level of our dependence upon imported oil we must consider all realistic options in solving this problem. But achieving this goal will take guidance and support from the federal government to protect investors from the consequences market manipulation by the oil cartel. We must remember that the oil markets are not free markets and it is not unreasonable to believe that if we begin to succeed in ending our addiction to foreign oil, the nations that produce it will try to undermine our efforts at energy independence by cutting prices. Relying on affordable, abundant domestic coal helps to mitigate strategic concerns, but does not eliminate the risk of a price cut intended sustain our addiction to imported oil.

Market inevitability is too slow Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
As long as oil prices remain high or climb higher, market forces will lead to the development of a coal-toliquids infrastructure in the United States. But that development will come slowly and in measured steps. If for energy security reasons, the United States would like to speed development of a capability for making transportation fuels from our most abundant domestic energy resource, then incentives for the first coal-toliquids project are appropriate.

More ev… Lubold 7 (Gordon, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, USA; Pg. 3; December 28, Lexis)
The Air Force would like to increase the amount of synthetic fuel it uses by that time, but recognizes that the private sector's push to get there will largely determine how fast the Air Force can move towards its goal or accelerate beyond it. "[T]he market isn't moving fast enough yet for us to move any quicker," says William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. The Air Force hopes to stimulate the private sector to embrace the move toward synthetic fuels, which will help private firms as much as it does the Air Force, says Mr. Anderson. "We believe that we need domestic sources of aviation fuel to assure the American taxpayer long term that we can fight tonight and fight tomorrow," said Anderson during a recent roundtable for defense reporters. "And that requires that a domestic synthetic or alternative aviation fuel market grow in this country."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

47 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (3/3)
There’s no market for synthetics now Wagner`7 (Breanne, Air Force energy-saving plans face technical, financial hurdles, May 2007,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm)

In a separate effort to reduce reliance on foreign fuel, the Air Force will seek within the next decade to substitute 50 percent of its aviation fuel consumption with a synthetic blend produced domestically, Wynne said. “To provide an assured source of fuel…we are particularly interested in making synthetic aviation fuel,” he added. Right now the market for these fuels is relatively immature. There are no commercial companies in the nation working on synthetic fuels, Anderson said. “Companies such as Syntroleum, Rentech and Baard Energy are all in the alternative energy business, but none of them has an operating commercial synthetic fuel plant in the United States,” said Paul Bollinger, an Air Force spokesman. “We are watching the market, listening to commercial producers” who come up with new technology, Anderson said. To date, the Air Force has completed two much-publicized B-52 bomber flight tests using synthetic fuel developed by Syntroleum, based in Tulsa, Okla. The company has since closed its Tulsa plant, Bollinger said. The first flight — in September 2006 — used a 50/50 blend of JP-8 jet fuel and synthetic fuel in two of the bomber’s eight engines. The fuel was derived from natural gas using a conversion method called Fishcher-Tropsch. The most recent test in December 2006 used the 50/50 blend in all eight engines.

Government incentives and financial support are key to military use of CTL MacPherson 7 (James, Associated Press, Tulsa World. “Air Force lacks source for coal-based 'synfuel'”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=071016_5_E4_spanc48573)

The Air Force wants to power half its in-country flights with a synthetic fuel made from domestic coal by 2016. But it has yet to figure out how to get the fuel. No commercial plants exist in this country to make it, and industry officials say the government has not offered enough incentives to build a plant. The idea also faces environmental questions. "The bottom line is if the government doesn't choose to support the creation of this industry financially, then the government won't have enough domestically produced fuel in the time frame they've set," said John Ward, a
vice president with Headwaters Energy Services, a division of Headwaters Inc., of South Jordan, Utah, which has been considering a North Dakota plant to convert coal to jet fuel. "The industry will still develop, but not fast enough for the military to meet its goals," Ward said. The Fischer-Tropsch fuel eyed by the Air Force is named after the two German scientists who developed the process in 1923 of converting natural gas or coal into liquid fuel. Germany used the process to convert coal to fuel during World War II.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

48 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (Fuel Use Down) – Fuel Use Up (1/2)
Don’t buy the DOD’s decrease in consumption. Vehicle consumption is up. Karbuz 7 (May 20, Sohbet, Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925)
Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD's total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel. The good news is that between 1985 and 2006, DoD's total site delivered energy consumption declined more than 60%. The bad is that the reduction came from the decline in energy consumption in buildings and facilities. Vehicle energy consumption went up. The ugly news is that even though the DoD is proud of having reduced its energy consumption, in fact the main factor behind that reduction was the closure of some military bases, privatization of some of its buildings, and leaving some energy related activities to contractors.

Most consumption in the DoD is by vehicles. Karbuz 7 (May 20, Sohbet, Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925)
According to the DoD's Federal Energy Management Report for FY2006, the DoD spent approximately $3.5 billion on facility energy and $16.5 billion on energy for tactical vehicles. To this we should add 238 million spent on non-tactical vehicles.[6] Overall, total actual cost[7] for DoD energy consumption is over $20 billion. By the way, remember that a billion has nine zeros. Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5] And yet all DoD/Federal energy conservation and efficiency efforts, initiatives, directives etc target almost completely buildings (called standard buildings in DoD jargon). Note also that standard buildings account for almost 90% of total buildings and facilities energy consumption.

Air Force fuel costs are up even though use is down Dreazan 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)

The problems are particularly acute for the Air Force, which uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, or 10% of the entire domestic market in aviation fuel. The Air Force's fuel costs neared $6 billion last year, up from $2 billion in 2003, even as its consumption fell by more than 10% over the same period because of energy-savings measures, including a campaign to shut off lights and lower thermostats at bases.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

49 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: SQ Solves (Fuel Use Down) – Fuel Use Up (2/2)
Air force fuel use and military oil dependence are up Bender`7 (Bryan, Boston Globe Staff, Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military Urges development of alternative
fuels, May 1, 2007, Lexis)

The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security. "The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind. Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel. The military's energy consumption has steadily grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces have had to travel farther distances. In World War II, the United States consumed about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day, according to the report. In the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, about 4 gallons of fuel per soldier was consumed per day. In 2006, the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan burned about 16 gallons of fuel per soldier on average per day, almost twice as much as the year before. Higher fuel consumption is a consequence of the US military's changing posture in recent years. During the Cold War, US forces were deployed at numerous bases across the world; since then, the United States has downsized its force and closed many of its former bases in Asia and Europe. The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a premium on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from bases in the United States. The National Defense Strategy, which lays out the Pentagon's anticipated missions, calls for an increased US military presence around the globe to be able to combat international terrorist groups and respond to humanitarian and security crises. But aviation fuel consumption for example, has increased 6 percent over the last decade. And the report predicts that trend will continue. "The US military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more regions of the world, employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics system," according to the report. "Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption." The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems. Ensuring access to dwindling oil supplies also carries a big price tag. The United States, relying largely on military patrols, spends an average of $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. And the United States is often dependent on some of the same countries that pose the greatest threats to US interests. Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment, personal involvement, and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report says.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

50 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Non-UQ – Incentives Now
Limited-scale CTL incentives exist in the SQ Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)
In the United States, for example, the government is already providing incentives that relate to CTL development. The 2005 Energy Policy and Transportation Equity Acts encourage the development of CTL by creating a new loan guarantee program for innovative CTL technologies. The U.S. Clean Coal Power Initiative provides loan guarantees for companies wishing to develop clean coal-fired power generation. This can be applied to a polygeneration CTL and power plant, where emissions of CO2, NO,, and SO, are lower per megawatt than a conventional coal-fired plant. The WMPI CTL project in Gilberton (PA) has recently secured a $100-million federal loan guarantee under the U.S. Clean Coal Power Initiative and started construction in 2006- Pennsylvania also is looking to support the venture with tax credits and a purchase agreement for a portion of the fuel produced at the facility. The project will produce 5,000 barrels a day of diesel fuel and use lowgrade waste coal from the region.

Private partnerships are the SQ Dubois 3 [Raymond, deputy under Secretary of Defense, Before the subcommittee on Readiness House Armed Service Committee United
States House of Representatives, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_hr/03-03-18dubois.htm, March 18, 2003]

A key part of our energy program is our utilities management efforts, focused on modernizing systems through utilities privatization. By incorporating lessons learned and industry feedback, the Department has strengthened efforts to take advantage of private sector innovations, efficiencies and financing. We have over 2,600 systems with a plant replacement value of approximately $50 billion. Thirtyeight (38) systems have been privatized using the utilities privatization authority in current law. Another 337 systems were privatized using other authorities, and privatization solicitations are ongoing for over 850 utility systems. The Services plan to request privatization proposals for the remaining 450 systems over the next two years. We are on track to complete privatization decisions on all the available water, sewage, electric and gas utility systems by September 2005. Congressional support for this effort in fiscal year 2004 is essential to maintain the procurement momentum and industry interest, as well as maximize the benefits of modernizing the Department’s utility infrastructure.

More ev… Dubois 4 [Raymond, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, STATEMENT OF MR. RAYMOND F. DUBOIS DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040330-dubois.htm, March 30, 2004]

The Department has reaffirmed its preference to modernize military utility systems through privatization. Following on revised guidance signed by the Deputy Secretary of October 2002, the DoD Utilities Privatization Program has made solid progress. The Services have greatly simplified and standardized the solicitation process for obtaining industry proposals. The Request for Proposal templates have been clarified to improve industry’s ability to obtain private sector financing and manage risks. Of 2,602 utility systems serving the DoD, 435 systems have been privatized and 739 were already owned by other entities. Over 900 systems are currently under solicitation as each Service and the Defense Logistic Agency continue aggressive efforts to reach privatization decisions on all systems by September 2005.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

51 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Non-UQ – RE Up (1/2)
Alternative fuels up now The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 2 [Department of Defense (Environmental Security), U.S.
Department of Defense: Cliamte Change, Energy Efficiency, and Ozone Protection, http://www.p2pays.org/ref/21/20958.htm, September 20, 2002]

Fossil fuels emit GHGs, degrading air quality. As technology advances, alternative fuel sources such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, natural gas, and fuel cells are becoming valid substitutes. DoD is moving towards a vehicle fleet, including both tactical and non-tactical vehicles, increasingly powered by alternative fuels. The Department owns 10,000 alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)—one of the largest fleets in the world. DoD is demonstrating the ability for an organization to incorporate the use of these vehicles while maintaining performance and efficiency.

AF use of RE up now Air Force Press Release 5 (4/25, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010348)
The Air Force continues to lead the way in helping to drive the development of new renewable energy sources for electricity generation,” Maureen Koetz said. “And we continue to seek new projects and purchases to further expand use of green power to benefit the environment while we carry out the Air Force global mission.” Green power is electricity from environmentally renewable resources such as solar, wind or geothermal power. Green power currently accounts for about 2 percent of America’s electricity supply, but voluntary purchasing of renewable energy is accelerating renewable energy development, officials said. Some of the green power commitments made by individual Air Force bases participating in the Green Power Partnership include: -- Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., purchased 138,000 MWh of green power, enough to meet 60 percent of its power needs. This purchase mitigated the energy price increases occurring during the California energy crisis with cost avoidance projections of $42 million during the five-year contract. -- Dyess AFB, Texas, is the first Department of Defense installation to be 100-percent powered by renewable energy and was a 2003 Green Power Partner of the Year. Consuming about 76 million kilowatts of wind energy annually, all the electrical power it uses is pollution free. In 2003, it was the largest purchaser of green power at a single site in the nation. -- Fairchild AFB, Wash., is nearly 100-percent green power. The focus behind the base’s purchase was to support wind farms in the region. This commitment is a cost-effective way to support renewable energy while meeting goals of executive orders encouraging federal agencies to purchase their energy from clean sources. -- Minot AFB, N.D., purchased 13,960 MWh of green power, representing more than 12 percent of the base’s annual electricity load. Two newly constructed wind turbines located just south of the base supply the power. -- Ellsworth AFB, S.D., purchased five years of output from a 750 kW wind turbine from a local Sioux tribe starting in 2003. -- Cannon AFB, N.M., began purchasing 1,800 MWh of wind power in 2002. -- Goodfellow AFB, Texas, joined the Green Power Partnership in 2003 and is purchasing 10,418 MWh of green power annually. -- Sheppard AFB, Texas, makes annual purchases of 3,284 MWh of electricity generated from wind. In addition, it received a Federal Energy Saver Showcase Award in 2003 for energy efficiency upgrades made to its central hot/chilled water plant. The Green Power Partnership is an EPA voluntary program working to standardize green power procurement as part of best practice environmental management. The Green Power Partnership currently includes more than 550 partners, including Fortune 500 companies, states, federal agencies, trade associations and universities.

More ev… Kane 6 (Michael, Wilderness Publications, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_military_prepares.shtml)
For more than a year I have been documenting the military’s ongoing development and embrace of renewable energy technologies. The Air Force has been doing the same by forming the Renewable Working Group (RWG) to assess all renewable technologies within 100 miles of domestic military installations including those located on-base. They have also just announced that they are the largest purchaser of renewable energy in the nation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

52 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Non-UQ – RE Up (2/2)
The AF is using RE now Renewable Energy Online 6 (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44417)
Atlanta, Georgia [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Sterling Planet, a portfolio company of GreenShift, is supplying the U.S. Air Force, the nation's largest purchaser of renewable energy, with 530 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of this clean energy source, representing enough electricity to power 51,000 average U.S. homes for a full year. The U.S. Air Force was honored in October 2005 as a recipient of a 2005 Green Power Leadership Award for its commitment to renewable energy. The Air Force is also the largest purchaser of renewable power in the federal government, accounting for 41 percent of all green power purchases by the federal government. The annual awards were presented during the National Green Power Marketing Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Center for Resource Solutions to recognize organizations whose actions help advance the development of the nation's green power market. Jim Snook, Air Force renewable energy program manager, said the Air Force strategy is to lock in long-term contracts at fixed prices to ensure reasonably priced rates in the future

( ) Air force is embracing small initiatives now – larger scale action is key to get them on board. Weckerlein 6 (Staff Sgt. Julie, USAF, Department of Defense, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1442)
Air Force Making Progress on Alternative Fuels

The Air Force is embracing an energy strategy that uses alternative sources of power and conservation, a top Air Force official said here recently. "I think we're making progress, but we certainly need your help and we look forward to increasing partnerships and taking advantage of the good ideas and products you are developing," Air Force Undersecretary Dr. Ron Sega told a group of civilian energy engineers during a World Energy Engineers Congress luncheon Sept. 15. The undersecretary said energy is an important topic to Air Force leaders, as the service alone consumes about half the fuel purchased by the U.S. government. "It's important to us to pay attention to this issue," he said. Sega pointed out the great strides the Air Force has made toward fuel and energy conservation. In fiscal 2005, the service was the largest buyer of renewable energy in the country. "I'm proud to say the Air Force is a leader in the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources," he said. Sega said the test flight of a B-52 Stratofortress, in which two of the bomber's eight engines used a fuel that was almost 50 percent synthetic, was a first for the Air Force. Sega said four Air Force installations currently are meeting 100 percent their electrical energy needs from renewable energy sources, and cited other ongoing energy conservation efforts: At Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., officials will use a solar farm to provide the base with some of its energy needs; At F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., officials will get additional power from a wind farm; and At Hill Air Force Base, Utah, base officials have used land gas production as an alternative source of energy since 1994. Whether conserving fuel on the flight line or building more energy efficient buildings, the Air Force is working to use energy better and at less cost to taxpayers, Sega said. "At every level, we are encouraging our airmen and civilians to adopt energy-efficient habits," he said. "That could be something as simple as turning off the lights of the office and the computer screen at the end of the day. So with everything we do, we are looking at energy as an important consideration."

( ) Air force taking initiatives now – long-term project key. REWO 6 (Renewable Energy World Online, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44417)
Sterling Planet, a portfolio company of GreenShift, is supplying the U.S. Air Force, the nation's largest purchaser of renewable energy, with 530 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of this clean energy source, representing enough electricity to power 51,000 average U.S. homes for a full year. The U.S. Air Force was honored in October 2005 as a recipient of a 2005 Green Power Leadership Award for its commitment to renewable energy. The Air Force is also the largest purchaser of renewable power in the federal government, accounting for 41 percent of all green power purchases by the federal government. The annual awards were presented during the National Green Power Marketing Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Center for Resource Solutions to recognize organizations whose actions help advance the development of the nation's green power market. Jim Snook, Air Force renewable energy program manager, said the Air Force strategy is to lock in long-term contracts at fixed prices to ensure reasonably priced rates in the future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

53 Green Military Aff

***Readiness Adv Links***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

54 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (1/4)
Oil price increases drain the military budget and make the AF vulnerable to hostile govts Defense News 7 (10-8)
The Air Force said it spent $5.8 billion on fuel in fiscal 2006. When the price of a gallon of jet fuel increases $1, it costs the Air Force $60 million, Billings said. More than half of the crude used to make military jet fuel comes from foreign sources, such as the Middle East and Venezuela, Billings said. “It comes from a lot of places in the world where people don’t necessarily like us that well and that creates a set of vulnerabilities for the Air Force,” Billings said.

Plan solves high oil costs Dreazen 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal Reporter, 5/21,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's massproduced.

More ev… Bates 8 (Staff Sgt. Matthew, Air Force News Agency, March 20, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123090913)
Each time the price of oil goes up $10 per barrel, it costs the Air Force an additional $600 million for fuel. The FT process gives the Air Force a cleaner, more cost-efficient fuel source. Synthetic fuel created using the FT process costs an estimated $30 to $50 less per barrel than its petroleum counterpart.Still, saving money is not the only reason the Air Force is looking to use synthetic fuel. "A lot of people are quick to point to the costefficiency of alternative fuel," Major Rhymer said. "But this innovative domestically-produced fuel will also help alleviate our dependence on foreign energy sources." Alternative fuels can be produced from domestically available hydrocarbon products like natural gas, coal and shale, and then gasified and converted into any number of liquid fuel products. These fuels are also proven to burn cleaner, reducing combustionrelated emissions and particulates in the air -- all without compromising performance. "There was no noticeable difference flying with this fuel," said Capt. Rick Fournier, the B-1B synthetic fuel flight mission commander. "I would have no problem flying an aircraft using this fuel in peacetime or combat." It's great to be part of an Air Force initiative that is also helping the environment, Captain Fournier said. "Using a fuel that is cheaper and cleaner ... what could be better?"

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

55 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (2/4)
Oil use siphons military funds Pugliese 7 (David, CanWest News Service; http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/news/story.html?id=f54f9abb-0da5-40e9-8797b8b96afaff8f&p=3)

It was that vulnerability, and the growing casualty list from such attacks, that prompted U.S. Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Richard Zilmer to submit an urgent request last July for the solar and wind-driven power stations. The officer pointed out that without a renewable energy system for bases, more lives would be lost from insurgent attacks on fuel trucks. In the Canadian Forces, the fuel supply issue is just starting to be looked at. In June, the military created a new directorate to co-ordinate information and fuel-related projects. That office is now starting work on putting in place an information system to monitor how much fuel the military uses, domestically and overseas, as well as the consumption rates for specific equipment. It also wants to set standards for the use of alternate fuels, such as bio-diesel. In addition, the fuel and lubricants directorate is available to advise on the fuel efficiency of new equipment that is going to be purchased. But Lt.-Col. Bernard Poulin, head of the new office, said setting up a system from scratch will take time. "We're slowly establishing a structure that will make a difference," he added. Poulin said the Canadian Forces is also keeping an eye on the research being conducted by its U.S. counterparts. One such project, for instance, involved tests in September and December using a B-52 bomber operating on a blend of regular jet fuel and natural gas. The tests showed there was no difference in performance compared to a plane using straight jet fuel. The U.S. air force is planning further tests to see how the synthetic fuel behaves in extreme cold. "We're looking at the B-52 issue and the impact it has on the fuel they're using - and if it can be transferred to us and how we can use it," Poulin said. If the B-52 experiments ultimately prove successful, the U.S. air force hopes that within the next 10 years about half of its fuel budget will go to domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that being more efficient with fuel could save the Pentagon at least $10 billion a year, partly through reducing the need for an expensive supply system to move that fuel to the front lines. "We pay in some cases 20 to 40 times as much to deliver a gallon of fuel as we pay to buy the gallon," explains Pugh. "Most of the cost is in the logistics and the delivery of the fuel, not in buying fuel, and that doesn't make financial sense."

Air Force dependence leaves them open to price increases-This hurts air power and causes budget shortfalls Shalal-Esa`8 (Andrea, Reuters oil specialist, Every $10 oil rise ups Air Force costs $610 million, May 22,
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2252728920080523?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

The U.S. Air Force operates the "world's largest airline" and every $10-per-barrel increase in crude oil boosts its annual operating costs by $610 million, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said on Thursday. The Air Force's bill for aviation fuel was about $6 billion in fiscal 2007, Wynne told a defense industry group. He declined to predict what the total would be for 2008. U.S. crude oil futures soared to a record above $135 a barrel on Wednesday, more than double the price of one year ago. "We are very concerned about the instability in oil prices because it wreaks havoc on how we manage our flying-hour program across the Air Force, just as it is wreaking havoc on the pricing statistics for an airline," Wynne said. The jump in fuel prices has hammered the U.S. commercial airline industry, forcing seven small carriers to file for bankruptcy or to close their doors in the past five months.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

56 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (3/4)
The DOD is the largest consumer of oil in the world. Karbuz 7 (February 17, Sohbet, Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194)
The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, almost all military fleet (including the ones that will be joining in the next decade) run on oil. Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By
the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon. An interesting point is that even though there are only a few data sources, how much oil the Pentagon really consumes is still kind of puzzle, at least to me.(5) According to recently released “Annual Energy Management Report”, in Fiscal Year 2006 the Pentagon consumed 320,000 barrels per day of site delivered oil, compared to about 360,000 barrels per day in 2005. Note that these and all other official figures do not include fuel obtained at no cost overseas(6), fuel consumed by contractors(7), fuel consumed in some leased and privatized facilities, and not last but least oil consumed by certain leased and rented fleet vehicles. While the official figures for military oil consumption went down in 2006, the costs went to the sky. In 2005 DoD had spent slightly over $8.5 billion for oil but this figure reached $17 billion in 2006. Note that oil accounts for 85% of the DoD’s $20 billion energy consumption costs in 2006. Fortunately at least the cost part of US military oil consumption has recently been getting attention. For example, Senator Dick Lugar’s website contains a section on “Oil and the Military.”(8) In there it is stated that “Some of the energy related costs to the military include protecting shipping lanes, ports, and fuel delivery convoys, as well as transporting the fuel that provides power at military bases. In total,

the Department of Defense estimates that each $10 per barrel increase in oil prices costs the U.S. military an additional $1.3 billion dollars.”
I don’t know what that $1.3 billion really contains but certainly not the items listed. Because a) “every 10 dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the United States Air Force $600 million” (9) only, b) the US military [in 2003] “allocated $49.1 billion annually to maintaining the capability to assure the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf,” (10), & c) DESC alone spends $1 million per day just for transporting the fuel to delivery point (11), among others.

Since oil is a vital strategic commodity and since “DOD’s consumption of oil represents the highest priority of all uses, there will be no fundamental limits to DOD’s fuel supply for many, many decades.”(12) However, once the global peak is reached things will get a bit complicated. In best case oil costs will bite the military budget harder.
The good news is that the Pentagon is getting aware of its energy problem and working towards finding solutions. For instance, the Department of Defense is committed to achieving the energy reduction goals set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13123 “Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management,” and the new (January 2007) Executive Order 13423 “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” To that end several efforts are underway in an increasing pace and aggressiveness. The bad news is that most of those efforts concentrate mostly on reducing energy use in buildings and

facilities, whose share in total DOD energy consumption is 25%, whereas mobility energy use accounts for 75%. In buildings and facilities it is electricity that accounts for almost half of the total energy use. Oil accounts for only 12%. Overall, however, with its 77% share oil is the major fuel consumed by DOD in 2006. Amongst the oil types, jet fuel followed by distillate and heavy fuel oil make up the majority.
Searching for solutions, developing alternative fuels, working towards mitigation, reducing energy costs, increasing renewable power supplies, researching new power transmission, advanced battery as well as propulsion technologies, decreasing energy dependency, and increasing energy security etc are surely nice objectives that should be pursued and promoted. But with moderation and by not forgetting the most effective tools such as efficiency, conservation and change in habits. More importantly, DoD should get its priorities right for its energy strategy (if there exists any) and should concentrate its efforts more on where the biggest pain is. That pain is oil. The time has come to wake up because Peak Oil is around the corner and now time is oil.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

57 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Budget (4/4)
Fuel costs crush readiness Kebede 7 (Rebekah, Reuters, HY MARKETS, http://www.hy-markets.com/html/news/2007/12/7/1197059025nN07332362.html)
New U.S. military energy conservation measures could cut escalating war costs and the number of deaths for troops transporting fuel in combat zones, according to experts. Spending on fuel for U.S. combat forces in Iraq surged 27 percent over the past year to $1.17 billion, according to the Defense Energy Support Center, a figure dwarfed by the associated costs of transporting and protecting the fuel on its way to the troops. "The Department of Defense's problem with petroleum is that they use too much of it. So much of it, that it is a burden on our operational forces," said Tom Morehouse, an energy consultant affiliated with the Institute for Defense Analyses. The U.S. military is
working on cutting fuel demand by insulating tents with spray foam and by using hybrid generators to produce electricity, according to Dan Nolan of the U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force. "You talk about those things and everyone thinks about the Birkenstock wearing tree-huggers," said Nolan, who heads up the military task force charged with cutting energy use. "What we have the opportunity to do is change the culture, change how people think about this." The military currently pays around $2.23 a gallon for fuel, but that skyrockets to

over $20 a gallon when the cost of shipping to the Middle East and protecting it until it arrives is added, experts said. "The delivered price of fuel is about 10 times more than the actual price," said Sherri Goodman, a member of the Defense Science Board which advises the U.S. Department of Defense. By reducing fuel use, Nolan hopes to not only ease the military's energy budget but to reduce the number of casualties from improvised explosive devices against troops convoying fuel in the war zones. "At the tactical level, they are looking at the burdened cost of fuel in blood," said Nolan. "There are a lot of people working on convoy protection and a lot of it is more armor, more guns, more surveillance."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

58 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Natural Disasters
Oil dependence causes jet fuel supply disruptions from natural disasters Houston Chronicle 7 (6-17)
"We have a multitude of weapons systems. We don't rely on one," said Paul Bollinger, a special assistant to the assistant secretary for the Air Force. But the nation has been relying on a single fuel source -- crude oil, largely imported from unreliable or even hostile parts of the world, Bollinger said. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 also demonstrated the vulnerability of the nation's refining capacity, located so heavily along the Gulf Coast. The two storms caused a severe jet fuel supply crunch, Bollinger said, prompting Air Force officials to look for supply sources away from the nation's coastlines.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

59 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Fuel Simplification/Tactical Supplies
Only CTL fuels simplify fuel sources and generate tactical fuel availability Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
The Department of Defense has been a leader in advancing the development of a U.S.-based Fischer-Tropsch fuels industry. As part of several conjoined programs, the Department is seeking to encourage the development of a domestic alternative fuels industry that can provide a reliable source of fuel for their aircraft, tanks, ships and other vehicles while reducing emissions. For the sake of simplifying logistics, these initiatives also aim to reduce the multiple types of fuels that our military must carry to the battlefield approximately 9. This new fuel also must be capable of being stored, transported and distributed using existing infrastructure. Only fuels produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process are able to meet all of these requirements.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

60 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Supply Shx UQ)
Oil supply disruptions are likely, increasing US resentment proves Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an
old dog new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

Instability and hostility towards the United States characterizes most of the oil-producing world. An oilsupply crisis no longer can be dismissed as a low-probability event. Hostile governments and terrorist organizations are well aware of America’s and her allies’ vulnerability and could use the oil supply as a strategic weapon to attack the United States. Oil-supply disruptions to the United States could happen in several ways, occurring singularly or combined. These include disruptions in world production by natural disaster, politically motivated embargo, terrorist attack on production and transmission infrastructure, or closure of world oil transit choke points. Any
longterm disruption in oil supply to the United States is a national security issue that is unacceptable to the US government. However, most of these scenarios assume a major worldwide upheaval or political and other major changes in the primary oil production regions of the world. These scenarios also go beyond the scope of this paper.

Oil supply lines are targeted and vulnerable to terrorist attack Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an
old dog new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

Additionally, if a catastrophe shuts down world oil flow, our government will ensure the DOD has priority access to domestic oil production and the 700–1,000 million barrels of oil in the strategic petroleum reserve. However, scenarios of supply

disruptions to DOD installations through the US oil and gas transmission pipeline system or to deployed operational forces through fuel logistics distribution networks are not completely far fetched. Almost one-half million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline serve the United States.
These pipelines are integral to the US energy supply and have vital links to such other critical infrastructure as power plants, airports, and military installations. The pipeline networks are widespread, running through remote and densely populated regions, and are vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. Roughly 160,000 miles of pipeline carry more than 75 percent of the nation’s crude oil and around 60 percent of its refined petroleum products. The US natural gas pipeline network consists of about 210,000 miles of pipeline for field gathering and transmission nationwide.3

Pipelines are vulnerable to vandalism and terrorist attack with firearms, explosives, or other physical means. Some also may be vulnerable to cyberattack on computer control systems or vulnerable to an attack on the electric grid supplying power to them. Oil and gas pipelines have been targeted extensively by terrorists outside and within the United States. Rebels have targeted one oil pipeline in Colombia more than 600 times since 1995. In 1996, London police foiled a plot by the Irish Republican Army to bomb gas pipelines and other utilities. Since 9/11, federal warnings about al-Qaeda have specifically mentioned pipelines as possible targets. The 800-mile-long Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which runs from
Alaska’s North Slope oil fields to the marine terminal in Valdez, Alaska, delivers nearly 17 percent of US domestic oil production. The TAPS already has been targeted numerous times, and in January 2006, federal authorities acknowledged a detailed posting on a Web site purportedly linked to al-Qaeda that encouraged attacks on US pipelines, especially TAPS, using weapons or explosives.4 Deployed operational forces are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions. Fuel is delivered by convoy to Iraq from Jordan,

Kuwait, and Turkey. In FY 2006, more than 156 million gallons of fuel were delivered to US/coalition forces in western Iraq. In the north, more than 103 million gallons of fuel were delivered through Turkey, utilizing 17,802 trucks that, if positioned end to end, would stretch from Washington, DC, to Wilmington, Delaware.5 In July 2006, US Marine Corps major general Richard Zilmer, commander of the multinational force in western Iraq, submitted a priority request for a self-sustainable energy solution to reduce the number of fuel logistics convoys in Iraq that were increasingly vulnerable to attack (fig. 3).6

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

61 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (1/7)
Oil supply fundamentally limits US military effectiveness Bender 7 (Bryan, Globe Staff, May 1,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/)

A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term." The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.

Oil demand creates long logistics chains that make the military vulnerable Eastwood 7 (Brent M., PhD, President of Personal Identity Solutions Inc (PISI), 1/17,
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/january/0117-energy-conservation-comes-of-age-on-the-battlefield/) Today, the same figure carries a GPS device, night-vision goggles, and a close-combat optical with a laser designator on his M4 carbine. All these gadgets require scads of batteries. Some of today’s soldiers can even pull out a solar array and use a photovoltaic process to recharge them. The millennium grunt comes back from the night’s patrol to his CHU (pronounced “chew”)—a containerized housing unit made in Dubai—that serves as a 21st century foxhole complete with air conditioning, power outlets, and an Internet connection. He receives his operations orders in an air-conditioned command tent that attempts to blast cold air in the middle of a 130-degree inferno—the epitome of energy inefficiency. Our soldiers and marines deserve these modicums of comfort, but at what cost? Power generators need diesel fuel to keep the cold air pumping and the Internet humming, not to mention the fuel needs for combat essentials like Humvees, Abrams tanks, and Apache helicopters. This quest for fuel and mega-watts costs money, time, and personnel. The military calls it a “tooth-to-tail ratio.” Remote forward operating bases (FOBs) that house the grunts (the teeth) require an increasing amount of logistical support (the tail.) This puts logistical and support personnel in the line of fire. They man fuel convoys and run the gauntlet on a daily basis—convoys that must be alert for the next improvised roadside explosive, the next ambush, the next RPG, the next shaped charge, the next suicide bomber. More and more soldiers, marines, and civilian contractors are getting wounded and are dying to “keep things more like home.”

Terrorist attack on oil supply cripples the military Dreazen 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal Reporter, 5/21,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

62 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (2/7)
Oil dependence drains military funds and introduces supply line vulnerabilities Miles 7 (Donna, American Forces Press Service, DoD, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_1_36/ai_n27158522)
The Defense Department is exploring ways to make its weapon systems and facilities more fuel-efficient and less vulnerable to market fluctuations and controls, senior defense officials told Pentagon reporters today. John J. Young Jr., director of defense research and engineering, said DoD is putting more emphasis on improving the efficiency of its operations--for national security as well as financial reasons. DoD is the United States' biggest energy consumer, using more than 300 million barrels of oil every day. At those levels, a $10-a-barrel price hike puts a $1.3 billion dent in the defense budget and the funds appropriated to support the fighting force. "When oil goes up $10 a barrel, there's a billion dollars in things we don't get to do ... [for] the warfighter," Young said. But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The United States imports 58 percent of its oil, so there's no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy it needs. A major goal in DoD's energy program "is making sure we ... have multiple options in a changing marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation's security," Young said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic vulnerability, Young explained. The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to deliver it, and the more frequently they expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats. He cited "a desire to have renewable-type [energy] sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we ... potentially have to take less fuel to the deployed forces and therefore put fewer convoys at risk." About three-quarters of DoD's oil consumption goes toward keeping the military on the move: its aircraft conducting sorties, its ships patrolling the seas, and its wheeled and tracked vehicles patrolling the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan. The military is working to make these systems less oil-dependent without sacrificing capability, Young explained. It is looking into composite materials that make vehicles lighter and more efficient, and fuel-efficient engines and alternative fuel sources to decrease its dependence on fossil fuel. The Air Force, DoD's biggest energy user, is considering setting a goal to reduce its fuel consumption in a way that doesn't shortchange training or operations, he said. The Marine Corps recently issued a solicitation for a new heavy truck that includes "a very specific and precise goal that decreased fuel consumption something like 15 to 20 percent" over its current Logistics Vehicle System. "And so in each program space, we are going to set ... fairly aggressive goals for achieving additional efficiencies" that apply technological advances, he said. "And we have already been doing that." Many of those same strategies are already proving successful as DoD reduces the fuel needed to keep its 570,000 buildings and facilities around the world humming, Philip Grone, deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, told reporters. These facilities consume about 22 percent of DoD's energy requirements, but more than 8 percent of the electricity they use comes from renewable energy sources, he said. DoD hopes to raise that level to 25 percent by 2025, setting the standard for the rest of the federal government as well as industry, Grone told reporters. Throughout the military, Grone said, he sees a continued trend toward tapping diversified energy sources--particularly more renewable sources--that offer more efficiency and reliability to the fighting force. "That is where I see us headed in the course of the next 10 to 25 years," he said. "Conceptually, that is where we want to be." Whether from an operational or support viewpoint, all energy conservation ultimately supports the fighting force because it frees up defense dollars for critical training and equipment, Grone said. As these initiatives increasingly take shape, "resources will be freed up to go for higher priority efforts in supporting the mission ... [and] the pointy end of the spear," he said.

Oil dependence creates logistics and supply vulnerabilities Miles`6 (Donna, American Force Press Service, Defense Department Documents and Publications
October 4, 2006, Lexis)

But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The United States imports 58 percent of its oil, so there"s no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy it needs. A major goal in DoD"s energy program is making sure we C have multiple options in a changing marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation"s security, he said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic vulnerability, Young explained. The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to deliver it, and the more frequently they expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats. He cited a desire to have renewable-type (energy) sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we C potentially have to take less fuel to the deployed forces and therefore put fewer convoys at risk.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

63 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (3/7)
Military dependence on foreign oil risks total paralysis Dreazan`8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)

Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the "peak oil" theory, which holds that the world's oil production is about to plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, "energy security becomes an oxymoron." House Democrats have proposed creating a new Defense Department position to manage the military's overall energy needs. Alternative fuels are part of a broader -- and not so long ago unlikely -- conversion by the military to "green" initiatives. Producing synthetic fuel itself can cause more pollution than conventional fuel if the emissions aren't captured. But Army engineers also are pushing contractors to build armored vehicles with hybrid engines. The Air Force is experimenting with making engine parts out of lighter metals such as titanium to boost fuel efficiency.

Oil dependence increases costs, diverts troops, strains alliances, and undermines the industrial base critical to readiness Scire 8 (John, Professor of Political Science at UNR, Nevada Appeal, Oil dependency, national security, February 10, 2008,
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244)

Military Costs The 2003 NDCF study estimated fixed costs to maintain U.S. forces to keep the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf at about $49.1 billion per year. This figure does not include costs of the current war in Iraq, only the annual portion of the DoD budget dedicated solely to the Persian Gulf area. The figure climbs to $137 billion per year when Iraq war costs are added into the equation. National Security Impacts of Oil Dependency DoD's dependency on oil as a primary motor fuel makes military operations much more costly than if it had alternative fuels. Oil dependency also requires that we dedicate military forces to the Persian Gulf area, reducing our ability to use those forces in other places. Furthermore, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East raises the potential for military conflicts with other importing nations as world demand increases and supplies decrease. Our oil dependency also strains military alliances, such as NATO, as members compete for oil. Witness the French and Germans working with the Iranians to increase oil production and Pakistan building a port to import Iranian natural gas while we are trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Their need for oil and gas trumps our need to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The last and perhaps most serious impact on national security of our oil dependency is that the chronic weakening of the U.S. economic base will inevitably weaken our military; we cannot sustain a strong military with a weak economy.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

64 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (4/7)
Oil dependence leads to vulnerabilities that undermine readiness Lengvel 7 (Gregory Colonel, USAF) http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf
The United States’ unique ability to project military power anywhere on the globe requires incredible quantities of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Today, the primary source of fuel is imported oil from an economically and politically unstable world oil market. The true cost of fuel is much more than it appears on the purchasing receipt. The DOD’s never ending need for fuel comes with a high price tag which includes not only the bulk purchase price of the fuel itself, but also the cost of a fuel logistics system that includes tens of thousands of personnel, storage facilities, tanker trucks, and major weapons systems such as the KC-135 whose primary mission is to deliver fuel. Additionally, fuel has a significant cost in combat capability that is almost impossible to quantify. There are numerous outstanding energy programs within the Department of Defense. Rising energy costs have given new emphasis to saving fuel in each of the Services, and the DOD facilities energy management program is a model for the federal government. Recent energy studies by military and energy experts provide volumes of recommendations to improve efficiency and save energy. However, there is no existing comprehensive DOD Energy Strategy, and no single energy senior official or energy advocate in the Department. The military’s dependence on vast amounts of fuel and electricity creates vulnerabilities. Disruption in the flow of fuel and electricity due to natural disaster, sabotage or physical attack on 53 the petroleum or electricity infrastructure cannot be dismissed as an unlikely event. Also, the fact that so much of US and other countries energy needs rely on imported oil creates foreign policy and economic vulnerability.

Inevitable oil shortages end US leadership Cohen 5 [Dave, Energy and Military Readiness, http://journals.aol.com/jdc2485/EnergyMatters/entries/2005/09/11/military-readiness/364,
September 11, 2005]

We sometimes do not seem to realize that our formidable military strength is driven almost entirely by petroleum derived energy. Without fuel, our military readiness will cease to exist. The only exception to this rule is our small nuclear powered naval fleet. With a shortage of petroleum fuels, our military transportation, supply, and communications networks will stagnate. Ships, aircraft, tanks, trucks and other vehicles will become unusable. Our ability to project our military power worldwide will be at an end. This problem will be compounded by an energy shortage induced shortfall in industrial and agricultural output, severely limiting our ability to keep the military establishment supplied with hardware or even food. I believe that there is no question that our military planners are aware of this. If they are not, then we are living in a fool’s paradise. The coming drop in worldwide petroleum production, only 2-3 decades from now, can paralyze us as a world power at a time when world population has increased by 50% or more. It will be an extremely dangerous time in world history. Are we prepared to go back to a mounted cavalry, horse drawn artillery, and sailing vessels?. Are we prepared to
manufacture weapons by blacksmiths? Are we prepared to hand deliver messages by pony express? I think not. That is where we were at the time of the American Revolution. It was just prior to the start of the fossil energy driven industrial revolution. This raises the question, “What are we going to to about it?” I ask that question of our President, our Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, and our Departments of Transportation, Interior, Commerce, Agriculture and Energy. I also ask that question of our representatives in Congress and ourselves. Do I have any ideas about how to proceed? Yes, I certainly do. Am I qualified to suggest a course of action? I don’t know, but I will proceed to make suggestions anyway. The first issue to consider is our aircraft fleet. Most aircraft require a petroleum derived fuel or its equivalent. Synthetic petroleum can be produced from a mineral known as oil shale. The US has an abundance of oil shale in our western states, enough to meet our own country’s fuel needs for an estimated 250 years. We must embark on a crash program to produce fuel from shale, especially aircraft fuel. We must start this without delay. The process is well known. Production cost can be worked out by merging initial output streams with natural petroleum production. The next issue is hydrogen production. Hydrogen can meet all of our needs as a transportable energy carrier. Surface vehicles can run on hydrogen with internal combustion engines, hybrid power systems or fuel cell engines. However hydrogen is not an energy source. It must be manufactured from water with a native energy supply. The military is in a unique position to do this with nuclear power. Using breeder type reactors supplied with our existing stocks of fissionable plutonium, it is possible to produce electrical energy for the on site manufacture of hydrogen from water. All nuclear powered ships can be floating hydrogen factories that store and distribute hydrogen worldwide. Our large seaports and military bases can also set up stationary nuclear power systems that produce hydrogen on base from water 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. By producing their own hydrogen from nuclear energy, the military will not have to wait for commercial production from renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to go with it. Again, the process is well known and without technical risk. We know how to do this right now, if needed.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

65 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (5/7)
Oil dependence undermines coalitions, leads to hostage holding by aggressive powers, increases the trade deficit and reduces US industrial competitiveness, and makes the military vulnerable to price spikes Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog
new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

Foreign policy issues are daily concerns for the White House and the Department of State, but the DOD is typically the department called upon when foreign policy goes awry. In his article, “Energy Security: The New Threats in Latin America and Africa,” David L. Goldwyn, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that current US energy dependency challenges US power in five ways. First,

dependency on consuming imported oil makes many nations reluctant to join coalitions led by the United States to combat weapons proliferation, terrorism, or aggression. Examples include French, Russian, and Chinese resistance to sanctions on Iran; Chinese resistance to sanctions against Sudan; and US tolerance of Middle East repression that would otherwise have been sanctioned were it to occur in any other non-oilproducing part of the world.20 Second, high oil revenues in the hands of oil-exporting nations allow governments to act with impunity against their own people and work against the United States and its neighbors. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Latin America’s loudest anti-American cheerleader, has used oil revenue to build support for his economic vision by providing subsidized oil to neighboring countries and gaining advantage over them by purchasing bonds to finance their debt. Russian president Vladimir Putin has renationalized his energy sector, restricted foreign access to his pipeline system, and demanded open access to Europe. Iran has reduced its international debt and increased foreign reserves to prepare for possible sanctions. Goldwyn remarks that “Even Saudi Arabia’s economic reform movement, born in the days of $10 oil in 1998, evaporated when oil reached $30 per barrel in 2000. Enrichment of America’s competitors or adversaries harms US security interests in every part of the globe.”21 Third, the global oil market is
far from being a fair, free-market system. Governments that do not allow free-market access to develop, exploit, and expand supplies control most of the world’s major oil reserves. Most free-market commodities allow the market supply to expand to meet demand. As oil prices rise, many governments are less receptive to foreign investment, preventing supply from responding to demand and driving prices even higher.22 An

increased price of imported goods increases the US trade deficit and exports wealth to foreign lands. In 2005, imported oil accounted for one-third of the country’s $800 billion trade deficit.23 Fourth, the highly competitive world oil market enables the political competitiveness to undermine the fluidity and fairness of the market for available supplies. Goldwyn adds that “New competitors like China and India are trying to negotiate long term
contracts (at market prices) to ensure they have supplies in the event of a crisis or supply disruption. . . . From an economic point of view it may not matter if China lends Angola $3 billion at low interest to gain part of an exploration project as long as the oil is produced. But China gains an enormous geopolitical advantage by this act.”24 Fifth, the problem oil dependency creates for America and directly impacts the DOD is vulnerability to price volatility that results from supply and demand shocks.25 From fall 2005 until gasoline prices started to decline in fall 2006, the price of gasoline had replaced the weather as America’s favorite subject of conversation with a stranger. The price of standard crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange was under $25 per barrel in September 2003, but by 11 August 2005, the price had increased to more than $60 per barrel; the price topped out at a record $78.40 per barrel on 13 July 2006.26 Experts attributed the spike in prices to many factors, including the war in Iraq, North Korea’s missile launches, the crisis between Israel and Lebanon, Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, and Hurricane Katrina. None of these factors, except for the war in Iraq, could be controlled by the

US government.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

66 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (6/7)
Oil dependence kills US hegemony and breeds terrorism
Eggers 8 (Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff. Was director for combating terrorism at national security council
“Armed Forces Journal” “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573) The events of January highlight a national security cycle that is now fully closed and rapidly tightening. The pattern has been evolving for nearly a century as Western powers, reliant upon Middle Eastern oil to power their warships and economies, developed a persisting interest in the region. That interest evolved into a major presence and, fueled by past resentment and a war in Afghanistan, drove the eventual creation of al-Qaida to expel the “infidels” from the holy land. The ensuing war against al-Qaida has increased America’s footprint in the Middle East, concerns of instability are growing and oil prices are on the rise. As Saudi revenues grow, more money is funneled to Wahhabi madrasas, another generation is taught to resist the West and the cycle of deterioration continues, clearly underscoring an imperative for change.

Conservatively stated, our reliance on Middle Eastern oil has severely distorted and crippled our foreign policy options abroad. More squarely, oil has become a catalyst for terrorism. Discussions on the severe national
security consequences stemming from the U.S. “addiction” to petroleum are well trodden. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that “the lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.” Going back 50 years, President Eisenhower cautioned that importing more than 20 percent of our oil would severely undermine U.S. security. Attention

is now beginning to focus on a less discussed vulnerability: the natural but ironic predicament that our national security apparatus is as addicted to oil as our country is. Of the 84-plus million barrels of oil consumed globally each day, more than half is moved to market by ships, most of which pass through one of the ocean’s major strategic chokepoints. All such waterways are special nodes of global power, but the Iranians reminded us again that certain straits, particularly those of Hormuz and Malacca, play a critically strategic role because one-third of the world’s oil consumption flows through these two narrows daily. This channeling, coupled with diminishing excess supply, elevates the likelihood that future conflicts will be over energy resources and might occur in such locations. And the U.S. warships that patrol strategic chokepoints are fully dependent on the resource they might be expected to safeguard. In fact, with few exceptions, the U.S. military is powered, fueled and transported by petroleum-derived commodities. A significant oil disruption not only threatens our national economic security, it endangers the national security machinery itself.

High oil prices fund regimes that undermine US foreign policy and allow countries to evade US diplomatic efforts Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
Further, this anticipated reduction in world oil prices also yields a major national security benefit. At present, OPEC revenues from oil exports are about $700 billion per year. Projections of future petroleum supply and demand published by the U.S. Department of Energy indicate that, unless measures are taken to reduce the prices of, and demand for, OPEC petroleum, such revenues will grow considerably. These high revenues raise serious national security concerns, because some OPEC member nations are governed by regimes that are not supportive of U.S. foreign policy objectives. Income from petroleum exports has been used by unfriendly nations, such as Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, to support weapon purchases or to develop their own industrial base for munitions manufacture. Also, the higher prices rise, the greater the chances that oil-importing countries will pursue special relationships with oil exporters and defer joining the United States in multilateral diplomatic efforts.

Oil dependence hurts hard power Morehouse, Sheets, Hulme, and Schroeder 5/8 (Thomas, David, Karen, Christopher): Strategic Studies Institute of
the US Army War College (SSI) )5/8 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?v21=108732&lng=en&id=56036 Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges. Our energy sources both contribute to climate change and are at risk from climate change. Our security is threatened both by our high dependence on foreign sources of oil and by the climate change that high energy use helps bring about. To formulate effective climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, climate change must be a factor in our national security planning processes. If we look to unconventional fossil sources that increase carbon emissions to meet short-term fuel needs, it will be at the expense of investments in greater use of renewable sources and efficiency, putting us at greater long-term risk. DoD’s reliance on high energy intensive operations compromises our

military effectiveness in a number of ways. It creates operational vulnerabilities, jeopardizing mission success; and increases casualty rates, undermining popular support for the mission. It creates an unbalanced force structure, driving an unnecessarily large support “tail” at the expense of our operational “tooth.” In some important ways, DoD’s energy problem is like the nation’s energy problem— we use too much.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

67 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (7/7)
Oil dependence is the root cause of our Middle Eastern interventions Duffield`4 (John, Dept of Political Science, Georgia State University, “The Military Costs of Foreign Oil Dependence,” Paper
delivered at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2 - September 5, Political Research Online)

Even in the Persian Gulf, which has figured most prominently in American efforts to secure access to foreign oil supplies, the United States has had multiple interests. Graham Fuller and Ian Lesser (1997), for example, have identified two other primary purposes of U.S. military activity in the Gulf: preserving regional stability and preventing the emergence of hegemonic powers. To these interests should be added ensuring the security of Israel and moderate Arab states in the region [NSS 1990, 13] and, prior to the end of the cold war, resisting Soviet expansion [Acharya 1989, 16]. When the costs of U.S. military programs cannot be attributed entirely to the goal of ensuring access to foreign oil supplies, how should they be apportioned? The simplest approach would be to divide them evenly among the various objectives. A more sophisticated method, suggested by Koplow and Martin, is known as Ramsey pricing, whereby “costs are allocated based on the relative strength of demand for the products co-produced...” [Koplow and Martin 1998, 4-12]. Nevertheless, this approach requires judging each objective’s relative share of the total demand, which may itself be a very difficult, if not impossible, task. At least in the central case of the Persian Gulf, however, U.S. interests, with the exception of the security of Israel, may boil down almost entirely to access to oil. Certainly, a number of regional experts and other informed observers have suggested as much. In the words of Kenneth Pollack, which are representative of a number of other statements, “the primary U.S. interest in the 3 Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large...” [K.Pollack 2003; see also Fuller and Lesser 1997, 42, Byman and Wise 2002, 2-3; DeLucchi and Murphy 1996, 3] As the U.S. Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999 stated, “in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.” [Quoted in Delucchi and Murphy 1996, 5]. Indeed, even during the cold war, the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote that among the U.S. interests of oil security, regional stability, and Soviet containment, “continued access to oil on reasonable political and economic terms is the most important to US and allied security” [JCS FY1982, 12: quoted in Delucchi and Murphy 1996, 4]. Thus even when American officials have offered other rationales for U.S. actions in the region, such as the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War and, especially, the 2003 Iraq War, it is important to consider the broader context of U.S. involvement in the region, which is inextricably bound up with the dependence of the United States and its economic partners on foreign oil.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

68 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Links: Oil Dependence (Terror)
Oil dependence creates the motive and resources for terrorism

Scire 8 (Dr. John Scire is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at UNR, Oil dependency, national security
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244) Oil dependency forces the U.S. to support oil regimes that oppress their citizens. As a result, other states and the citizens of oppressive oil regimes see the U.S. as their real enemy. It isn't surprising that Osama bin Laden's first Fatwah was against the U.S. for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oppressive Saudi Royal Family. U.S. oil dependency also strengthens worldwide Islamist terror campaigns as funding for these groups comes primarily from Middle Eastern Islamic charities, located primarily in Saudi Arabia. Because of oil dependency, we both motivate the terrorists and provide the money to fund their attacks on us. American oil dependency also strengthens other
states opposed to American foreign policy interests, such as Venezuela and Russia. Foreign policy options are further reduced when other oil importing countries, such as China, block our UN Security Council resolutions targeted at their sources of oil. This has already occurred in regard to Sudan and Myanmar.

Oil Dependence perpetuates a cycle of terrorism Egger`8 (Jeffery W., Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff, The Fuel Gauge of
National Security, 2008, http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)

The events of January highlight a national security cycle that is now fully closed and rapidly tightening. The pattern has been evolving for nearly a century as Western powers, reliant upon Middle Eastern oil to power their warships and economies, developed a persisting interest in the region. That interest evolved into a major presence and, fueled by past resentment and a war in Afghanistan, drove the eventual creation of al-Qaida to expel the “infidels” from the holy land. The ensuing war against alQaida has increased America’s footprint in the Middle East, concerns of instability are growing and oil prices are on the rise. As Saudi revenues grow, more money is funneled to Wahhabi madrasas, another generation is taught to resist the West and the cycle of deterioration continues, clearly underscoring an imperative for change. Conservatively stated, our reliance on Middle Eastern oil has severely distorted and crippled our foreign policy options abroad. More squarely, oil has become a catalyst for terrorism. Discussions on the severe national security consequences stemming from the U.S. “addiction” to petroleum are well trodden. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that “the lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.” Going back 50 years, President Eisenhower cautioned that importing more than 20 percent of our oil would severely undermine U.S. security. Attention is now beginning to focus on a less discussed vulnerability: the natural but ironic predicament that our national security apparatus is as addicted to oil as our country is.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

69 Green Military Aff

***Readiness Adv Internals***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

70 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (1/4)
Air power is critical to deter and win conflicts in Asia and the Middle east Khalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Analysts At RAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf) REGIONAL CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and JSTARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf.In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

71 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (2/4)
Air dominance key to heg Melinger`3 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. (ret.), Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html)

This is a good news, bad news story. The United States is the world’s first and only air and space nation. That fact is evidenced in our dominance of air and space technology and infrastructure, as well as in the future visions shared by our political, economic, military, and cultural leaders. This domination has important implications for our national security. Unfortunately, many Americans have come to view air and space dominance as their birthright. It is not, and troubles are brewing, so we must take steps now to ensure our dominance in the future. Americans have always looked to technology to ease their problems, so they took naturally and quickly to air and space power- the epitome of advanced technology. America was the birthplace of aviation, and it is now difficult to imagine life without our television satellites, cell phones, Internet, and air travel. Indeed, US airline-passenger traffic has tripled over the past 25 years (fig. 1). Speed is the engine of commerce and economic growth. Rapid means of transportation have been essential for nations seeking economic dominance. The rise of Britain in the eighteenth century was based on global trade carried by its large merchant fleet, which in turn was protected by the Royal Navy, the world’s largest and most powerful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was also a maritime power, possessing a sizeable merchant fleet and navy. As the twentieth century progressed, however, speed became synonymous with aircraft, and expanding American aviation began to push out the ship. Over the past 40 years, the growth of the US airline industry has been dramatic, in contrast to the decline of our shipping industry. Since 1960 the number of airliners has quadrupled (and aircraft have more than doubled in size), while the size of the US merchant fleet has dropped 84 percent, a mere 2 percent of the world’s total (fig. 2). In addition, airport expansion is under way at many airports because airline-passenger travel is expected to double over the next decade. As for cargo, 95 percent of the world’s air-cargo capacity resides in Boeing airframes, and the value of goods shipped is telling. In 1997 the average pound of cargo traveling by boat was worth seven cents; by rail it was 10 cents, but by air it was $25.59. When Americans have something important and valuable to ship and it needs to get there quickly, they send it by air. Air and space trade has significantly increased over the past several decades. In 1999 America’s air and space industry contributed $259 billion to the nation’s economy. The black ink in the air and space balance of trade rose to over $32 billion in 2000, making it the largest net exporter in the US economy (fig. 3). At the same time, the overall US trade balance has been negative for 27 of the past 30 years, and the deficit now exceeds $250 billion annually. Given these statistics, it is apparent that the United States has now become an air and space nation- indeed, the air and space nation.

Air power key to US military dominance Meilinger 3 (Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, “The Air and Space Power Nation is in Peril” Air and Space Power Journal Spring 2003.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXL/is_1_17/ai_100727610/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)

Within the US military services, one finds an increasing reliance and emphasis on air and space power. According to an old saying, if you want to know what's important, follow the money. In the American military, that trail is clear. The backbone of the Navy is the aircraft carrier, which costs over $5 billion each (without its aircraft and support ships), and the Navy spends nearly as much on aircraft each year as does the Air Force. The top funding priority of the Marine Corps is the tilt-rotor V-22 cargo plane, which will cost $85 million apiece. The Army has major production and modernization programs for Comanche, Apache, and Black Hawk helicopters that will total $70 billion. Indeed, over the past decade, the Army has spent more on aircraft and missiles than it has on tracked combat vehicles. In sum, over 60 percent of the US defense budget is devoted to air and space forces. In fact, a comparison of our four air arms with those of the rest of the world shows that each individually is greater than the military air assets of most major countries (fig. 5). The qualitative superiority of American aircraft makes our air and space dominance even more profound. The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. Indeed, the major
disagreements that occur among the services today generally concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those assets, but their differing views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the authority of the joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the question of which service should command space, and the question of whether the air or ground commander should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance ofjoint operations, and air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

72 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (3/4)
Air power is key to US military capabilities in Asia Khalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand, “Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,”
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf) The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American

air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas.In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured.The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case
in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan,and the Persian Gulf.

Air Power is key to military ground capabilities Peck 7(General Allen G Peck, Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower’s Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07 /peck.html)

Although the capabilities and effects that America’s airpower brings to the fight are not as visible to the casual observer as the maneuvers of ground forces, airpower (including operations in the air, space, and cyberspace domains) remains an invaluable enabler for those forces. Airpower can also serve as a powerful Irregular Warfare capability in its own right, as it did early in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. No one should dismiss IW as falling strictly within the purview of ground or special operations forces. Understanding the IW environment and, in particular, airpower’s immense contributions is critical for America’s future Air Force leaders, who will prove instrumental in ensuring that the service continues adapting to an ever-changing enemy and bringing relevant capabilities to bear in an ever-changing fight.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

73 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key (4/4)
Air power key to US military power Khalilzad and Shapiro 2 (Zalmay, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jeremy, RAND, Ph.D. candidate,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.A., Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, “United State Air and Space Power in the 21st Century,”)

Aerospace power has become the archetypal expression of the U.S. ability to project force in the modern world. Throughout the world, U.S. aerospace power—and thus, the U.S. Air Force (USAF)—plays a critical, and often primary, role in securing U.S. interests, in promoting American values, and in protecting human rights. While the USAF has had significant success in employing aerospace power in the recent past, emerging trends in international relations, in technology, and in our own domestic society will create a wide variety of new challenges and new opportunities for U.S. aerospace power. Meeting these challenges and exploiting these opportunities will require careful planning, wise investments, and thoughtful training, as well as difficult cultural adaptations within the USAF. This book identifies many of these challenges and opportunities in a wide variety of issue areas and assesses the degree to which the USAF is prepared to meet them.

Air Force transformation is key to operational dominance in the future Johnson`7 ((David E., Ph.D. and M.A. in history, Duke University; M.S., Industrial College of the Armed Forces; M.M.A.S.,
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College; B.A., Trinity University, RAND, “Learning Large Lessons: The Evolving Role of Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era,” EB, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG4051.sum.pdf)

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of air power at the operational level of war is clear. Also clear is that the United States must prepare for potentially sterner tests than it has faced since the end of the Cold War. It is also obvious that U.S. military transformation plans and programs to meet the challenges of the future must reflect the reality that U.S. air forces have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to dominate adversaries at the operational level of warfighting and the fact that Army deep attack systems—in the current inventory or that planned for the future—are not adequate to the task of shaping the large ground AOs called for in Army doctrine. Consequently, the task of shaping the theater— strategically and operationally— should be an air component function, and joint and service doctrines and programs should change accordingly. However, a clear transformation challenge for the United States remains: to ensure that air power can operate effectively against future, first-class opponents, who will undoubtedly pose significantly more formidable challenges to its employment than has been the case in the post–Cold War conflicts discussed in this study.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

74 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Air Power Key – Terrorism
Air Power solves terrorism Peck`7 (Allen G Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower's Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07/peck.html)

In an IW environment, the traditionally recognized ability of airpower to strike at the adversary’s “strategic center of gravity” will likely have less relevance due to the decentralized and diffuse nature of the enemy.3 The amorphous mass of ideological movements opposing Western influence and values generally lacks a defined command structure that airpower can attack with predictable effects. Still, airpower hold)s a number of asymmetric trump cards (capabilities the enemy can neither meet with parity nor counter in kind). For instance, airpower’s ability to conduct precision strikes across the globe can play an important role in counterinsurgency operations. Numerous other advantages (including information and cyber operations; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance [ISR]; and global mobility) have already proven just as important. These capabilities provide our fighting forces with highly asymmetric advantages in the IW environment. Innovation and adaptation are hallmarks of airpower. Cold War–era bombers, designed to carry nuclear weapons, can loiter for hours over the battlefield and deliver individual conventional weapons to within a few feet of specified coordinates. Fighter aircraft, designed to deliver precision weapons against hardened targets, can disseminate targeting-pod video directly to an Air Force joint terminal attack controller who can then direct a strike guided by either laser or the global positioning system (GPS). Unmanned systems such as the Predator, once solely a surveillance platform, now have effective laser designation and the capacity for precision, kinetic strike. Airborne platforms offer electronic protection to ground forces, including attacking insurgent communications and the electronics associated with triggering improvised explosive devices (IED). Exploiting altitude, speed, and range, airborne platforms can create these effects, unconstrained by terrain or artificial boundaries between units. Forward-thinking Airmen developed these innovations by using adaptive tactics, techniques, procedures, and equipment to counter a thinking, adaptive enemy. To be sure, our IW adversaries have their own asymmetric capabilities such as suicide bombers, IEDs, and the appropriation of civilian residences, mosques, and hospitals as staging areas for their combat operations. However, they lack and cannot effectively offset unfettered access to the high ground that superiority in air, space, and cyberspace provides.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

75 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Air Power =/= Key – Jet Fuel K to All
Jet fuel is critical to more than just planes Young 6 (John, Defense Research and Engineering,
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT DOD, September 26, 2006, Leis)

Worldwide demand for oil is rising, particularly in emerging far eastern countries. Globally, about 85 million barrels of oil are used daily, with the U.S. consuming about 21 million barrels per day. About 58 percent of the oil used by the U.S. is imported. The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States, at slightly more than 0.3 million barrels per day. Looking to the future, the International Energy Agency estimates the worldwide consumption will grow to 100 million barrels per day. A large part of the worldwide demand growth is projected to come from India and China. Globally, oil supply and demand are roughly in balance. Hence, short-term perturbations to the supply or distribution sources result in significant perturbations in price. In addition, worldwide refining capacity is at 97 percent, which results in a market that can have wide price fluctuations with small changes in the end-to-end oil availability. The Department of Defense consumption of energy represents about 1.2 percent of the total used in the United States. In fiscal year 2005, the Department spent $10.9 billion on energy - equating to 919 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) and roughly 125 million barrels of oil. Figure 1 shows the energy use by application. Mobility fuels - for aircraft, ships, and vehicles - account for 74 percent of the Department's total energy usage. Buildings and facilities add another 22 percent. Figure 2 shows the energy use by fuel type. As is seen with this figure, jet fuel accounts for 58 percent of DoD's consumption. This does not all go to aircraft because to reduce logistics requirements on the battlefield, jet fuel is used for a variety of "non-aircraft" platforms, including tanks, other ground vehicles, and generators. Thirteen percent of DoD's energy usage is for marine diesel to power ships, with electricity accounting for 11 percent of the consumption. Since 71 percent of the DoD consumption is in the form of fuel, crude oil price levels becomes an important factor to the DoD. For every $10 per barrel increase in the cost of fuel, DoD operating costs increase by roughly $1.3 billion in the year of execution. So, as crude oil fluctuated from $40 to $70 per barrel over the last year, the Department's energy bill increased significantly.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

76 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Fuel Key
Fuel is key to the military Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 16)
National security depends on the timely movement of military personnel and equipment. Estimated Department of Defense use of petroleum exceeds 500,000 barrels per day. Technological innovations have dramatically increased the efficiency of American air, naval, and land forces, but without liquid fuels theses advances would be worthless.

Fuel is critical to speed and agility – Oil hamstrings our operational effectiveness – RE solves Broehl 4 ( Jesse, Editor, Renewable Energy Access.com, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=19841)
Retired Admiral Dennis McGinn, former deputy chief of Naval Operations, knows a thing or two about war. Not

only does McGinn see renewable energy technologies as a means to increase U.S. energy independence but also as a way to directly improve the effectiveness of the military itself. "We need investment in new technologies for increasing the efficiency of the military," McGinn said. "Speed and agility are the key successes so anything you do to make the military lighter, faster and less reliant on a huge liquid fuel infrastructure makes you more effective."McGinn came to this realization while orchestrating remote naval training exercises on small Pacific islands where fold-out,
flexible, thin-film photovoltaic sheets and a hydrogen-powered fuel cell proved themselves indispensable for powering their electronic and communications systems. R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Clinton Administration said the U.S. is waging a war against three totalitarian movements: the Shiite and Sunni Islamists, and the ranks of Al Qaeda. "I fear we're going to be at

war for decades, not years," Woolsey said. "It will last a long time and it will have a major ideological component. Ultimately we will win it but one major component of that war is oil."

More ev…
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Col, USAF, masters in aerospace engineering from Stanford “WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE TRANSFORMATION”
http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)

In addition to the direct consumption of petroleum to power combat systems, there are four under-recognized DoD petroleum dependencies: 1) military industrial supply, 2) contractor support, 3) commercial logistics, and 4) installation requirements. While most policy makers and analysts will focus on the 1.5 percent of
national petroleum consumption directly used by the DoD when studying DoD petroleum dependency (94 percent of which is for mobility/ transportation),47 this approach ignores the indirect dependencies of a highly

intertwined military/industrial complex necessary for modern high-technology warfare. While it may be virtually impossible to quantify and categorize the amount of petroleum specifically required to create/support every activity or procured end item within DoD, the fact that DoD relies upon an industrial base for medical syringes, M16s, and C-17 parts serves to illustrate that the DoD is just as reliant upon petroleum-fueled civilian and governmental institutions as the rest of American society. Recognizing the fact that fueling national defense goes beyond just the direct use of petroleum by armed forces and into a much deeper supply chain dependency is fundamental to understanding the vulnerability of America’s security to strategic petroleum supply disruptions or declines. This military/industrial dependency necessarily links civilian and military future energy solutions.

Fuel is critical to contractors who perform essential military services
Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Col, USAF, masters in aerospace engineering from Stanford “WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE TRANSFORMATION”
http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)

The second under-recognized DoD petroleum dependency exists in the realm of increasingly ubiquitous contractor support. DoD relies upon service contractors to fulfill a broad spectrum of requirements ranging from base maintenance to military interrogations. With the exception of DoD-provided combat zone fuel, the vast majority of DoD service contracts expect the contractor to independently acquire all fuels necessary to fulfill his obligations. This

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

77 Green Military Aff

presents another accounting category that is not represented on DoD total fuel tally sheets nor is it easily projected into the minds of military leaders as a potential Achilles’ heel should their contractors ever be unable to economically or physically purchase fuel during a strategic or even operational energy shortage or crisis.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

78 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Costs Key (1/2)
Cost-savings ripple to overall force effectiveness improvements Nygren et al 2006 (November, Kip, Darrell D. Massie, Paul J. Kern, http://w3.umh.ac.be/pub/ftp_aspo/Nygren_novembre_2006.pdf)
A reduction in fuel requirements can, therefore, cause a ripple effect throughout the DoD that can ultimately result in a better design of our military forces to significantly increase the ability of the Army to provide the most capable force to the combatant commanders. Using the actual weight and volume data, it would be possible to estimate the sensitivity of ground force effectiveness to a reduction in fuel requirements. The authors believe that this sensitivity is more significant than intuition might presume. The other factor in designing future force structure is the almost certain knowledge that the cost of liquid petroleum fuels is going to substantially increase; some experts predict a 200% increase in the next five years. Therefore, without a reduction in fuel requirements, more of the resources allocated to the DoD to design our military forces will go into fuel and less into enhancing the mission effectiveness of the force.

More ev… Nygren et al 2006 (November, Kip, Darrell D. Massie, Paul J. Kern, http://w3.umh.ac.be/pub/ftp_aspo/Nygren_novembre_2006.pdf)
Due to the ripple effect discussed earlier, saving a gallon of fuel in our tactical vehicles results in more than a gallon of fuel saved overall. This savings at the end user is compounded by the savings in the distribution system, not just in terms of fuel required to transport fuel, but also in the people who operate and administer the distribution of fuel from the well to the battlefield. Since it is estimated that 70% of the initial deployment and the resupply weight required by an Army unit is fuel, this cascading effect may be as large as 1.5 gallons saved overall for each gallon saved due to increased fuel efficiency in a tactical vehicle.

Budget shortfalls kill readiness Dalhman & Thaler`2 (Carl Dahlman and David Thaler, READY FOR WAR BUT NOT FOR PEACE: THE
APPARENT PARADOX OF MILITARY PREPAREDNESS, 2002, http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:O_JY53nwWf4J:rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1314/MR1314.ch12.pdf+To+unde rstand+why+overall+readiness+has+slipped+in+recent+years,+it+is+useful+to+make+a+distinction+between+planned+and+unp lanned+readiness+problems&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

Then, decisionmakers on the Air Staff decide which validated requirements the USAF can afford to fund (authorize). At this point in the programming process, very difficult and sensitive judgments are necessary, because the anticipated top line in the presidential or congressional budget cannot possibly fund all the validated require- ments. There are still too many requirements for the budget sack to hold, and decisionmakers have to decide what the bag can actually carry and what they have to leave out. Since all requirements, at this stage, have been validated—that is, they should be funded if the Air Force is to be as capable and ready as desired, given the best judgment of the organization as a whole—decisionmakers face only very difficult decisions. All accounts get shaved, including readiness. In practice, this means that not even first-to-go warfighting units, and the units that support them, receive full funding. As noted above, SORTS designates units at C-1 status when resources man- agers have provided funding at 90 percent or better of all validated requirements. The Air Force makes it a practice to fund most units at low C-1 (close to 90 percent)—the only major exceptions being cer- tain critical activities for which risks are simply not allowed, such as special operations and nuclear-capable units. Shortfalls are spread like peanut butter across most operational units. This is the essence of planned readiness problems. Readiness cannot be funded to the extent desired. Top-line budget constraints force deliberate risktaking, even in such a critical area. This is how and why the Air Force (and its sister services) actually plans for certain readiness shortfalls. There is nothing absolute about readiness when resource programmers and financial managers look through all the program elements; at that stage, everything is a “requirement,” and almost everything will take a beating because almost every activity must be fair game when there is a top line that simply cannot be exceeded.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

79 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Costs Key (2/2)
( ) Extra fuel costs are forcing budget cuts in other areas, disrupting the ability for the airforce to work successfully. Ott and Norris 7 (James and Guy, Aviation’s Green Agenda; Aviation Week & Space Technology Pg. 65 Vol. 167 No. 8, Lexis)
Wynne says every $10 increase per barrel of fuel means an additional $600 million per year in Air Force costs. In 2006, USAF’s fuel bill topped $6 billion, compared to $2.5 billion in 2003. Extra costs are forcing budget cuts in other areas, he says, and disrupting efforts to recapitalize the USAF?s aging fleet, with an average aircraft age of 25 years. ?Our fuel bill is eating our seed corn, and potentially reducing our ability to replace our aircraft,? he said. Wynne certified the B-52 for synthetic fueling on Aug. 8, and he is pushing to increase the pace of certifying the fuel for other aircraft. ?We plan to qualify the mix on the C-17, which is a much more important, and some say significant, step, because qualifying will allow commercial airlines to fly with synthetic fuels,? he said, referring to the FAA helping to clear the fuel for use in the C-17?s commercial Pratt & Whitney PW2000-based F117 engines. Wynne stressed the need to develop a larger market for synthetic fuels. ?To be successful, we have to collaborate with the commercial airlines fleet, and they have to see an advantage that is perhaps larger than what we see.? Wynne also hints that clearing the use of the fuel on some larger jet engines could widen synthetic-fuels use to power stations. ?I?m not suggesting a panacea or silver bullet, but I?m suggesting progress will come when industry and government get together to overcome the development problems,? he said. Larry Burns, program manager of the joint government-industry Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine effort, says VAATE?s technology plan is ?focused? on synthetic fuels. He says projected 2007 ?burdened? fuel costs for the U.S. military are estimated at $20.8 billion. The new research focus on biomass technology raised questions at the AIAA conference. James T. Bartis, a senior policy researcher for the Rand Corp., asked why the manufacturers and Darpa are pursuing these technologies when coal and natural gas-derived synthetic fuels, developed through the Fischer-Tropsch process and tested by the Air Force, have already proven themselves ready for burning in military aircraft. Bartis advocates federal cost-sharing of fuel plant design projects that, when operational, would clarify issues of cost and environmental impacts, particularly in CO2 production, from processing coal and natural gas into kerosene. The operation of a site-specific plant meeting local, state and federal environmental guidelines is a critical step, he believes, to a full-blown, congressionally approved program. ?The key is diversity,? says Darpa?s Douglas Kirkpatrick, program manager of the Strategic Technology Office. Research should explore multiple sources and allow the marketplace to decide on any one or several sources of combustible materials, he says. The agency is investigating algae, soy and other renewable resources, and the University of North Dakota and GE Global Research are among the institutions conducting experiments. Boeing?s Hadaller agrees with Kirkpatrick that the alternatives investigation should be wide-ranging.

Fuel budgets are competing with the rest of DOD operations Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
December 09, 2006]

This study finds that the greatest leverage on DoD fossil-fuel use is exerted by patterns of DoD fossil-fuel use. Recent and present doctrine, tactics, and practices evolved during a time when fuel costs represented an insignificant fraction of the U.S. national-defense budget, with fuel costs entirely dominated by the associated O&M logistical supply chain costs and not by those of the fuel itself. While O&M costs continue to dominate, actual fuel costs have recently risen rapidly, attaining a significant recent visibility. At present, fuel budgets are in competition with other DoD non-fixed costs, such as research, development, and engineering (RD&E), and other discretionary funding, of which they are a much larger part.28

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

80 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Weight Requirements Key
Fuel reductions lead to critical weight reductions in deployment Nygren et al 2006 (November, Kip, Darrell D. Massie, Paul J. Kern, http://w3.umh.ac.be/pub/ftp_aspo/Nygren_novembre_2006.pdf)
However, the most important national security reason for the reduction of energy use is to decrease the weight requirements for the deployment and resupply of Army Units. The Army desires to be an expeditionary and campaign quality force, and its ability to attain these goals resides to a great extent with the ease of deployment and the logistics requirements to maintain that force in a remote area of the world. Therefore, the requirements process must be stimulated to acquire equipment and vehicles that include fuel efficiency constraints on the design process to optimize not only weapon system performance, but also the ability to achieve the expeditionary and campaign quality strategic Army goals. The design tradeoffs necessary to realize these competing goals in a complex system of systems context can probably only be accomplished through the use of high fidelity war-game and security operations simulations that include the fully integrated logistical support processes that accounts for the entire system of systems life cycle costs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

81 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Key
Missiles hamstring the US military Franks May 16 (2008, Representative Trent, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/az02_franks/mdfunding.html)
We now live in a post-Cold War world where ballistic missile proliferation is becoming rampant and where terrorists are not deterred by the threat of mutually assured destruction. In 1972, nine countries had ballistic missiles; today, 27 countries possess ballistic missiles and some contain hostile regimes that actively support terrorists. Chief among these is Iran, whose ballistic missile program is substantial and continues to be aggressively expanded. Already, Iran holds our forward-deployed forces in the Middle East at risk with short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
Our close ally, Israel, faces the existential threat posed by longer-range Iranian ballistic missiles. The Israelis have every cause to be alarmed when these missiles are coupled with the apocalyptic rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our intelligence estimates indicate that Iran could field a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe and the eastern continental United States as early as 2015, and the Israelis estimate it could be much sooner than that. Iran also continues to enrich uranium in defiance of international law, and the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported with high confidence that “Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.” Iran continues to defy calls to comply with international standards of transparency.

North Korea poses another threat to our security through its development and proliferation of ballistic missiles and advanced technological knowledge. We already know that in addition to the North Korean nuclear weapons program, the xenophobic regime of Kim Jong Il possesses a long-range ballistic missile capability that could hold Alaska and Hawaii at risk, as well as the short-range ballistic missiles that could threaten our forces and our South Korean allies. Deploying Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense to the Korean peninsula will
extend further protection to our forces, in addition to our current deployment of the Patriot air and missile defense system and Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Furthermore, Japan’s decision to collaborate with the United States in deploying its own fleet of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships signifies its realization of the potential threat posed by its neighbor, North Korea. The four-star leadership of our geographic combatant commands — those responsible for monitoring separate slices of the globe and for conducting military operations should trouble arise — have testified before Congress that they need more “near-term systems,” such as THAAD batteries and Aegis ships, than the present budget can provide. Congress has responded to this need by authorizing more funds for THAAD and Aegis than the president’s budget request for fiscal 2009. Yet there is still a need, and Congress must do

more to stay ahead of our enemies’ quickly advancing missile technology. Although sea-based systems such as Aegis and land-based systems such as THAAD have sufficiently matured, we remain vulnerable to an attack from a missile launch with multiple warheads and countermeasures.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

82 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Up (1/2)
Missile proliferation increasing around the world: Iran and North Korea prove. Phillips July 10 (2008, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/wm1985.cfm)
Iran's missile demonstrations also reinforce concerns about the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology by North Korea. The Shahab-3, like many other Iranian missiles, is based on technology provided by North Korea's rogue regime. The revelation that North Korea was involved in constructing the Syrian nuclear
facility bombed by Israel last September has raised suspicions that North Korea also could be assisting Iran's nuclear program. Iran's oil and cash resources are a major enticement to the bankrupt and energy-poor Korean communists. Moreover, North Korea has provided tunneling technology for hardening Iranian missile production and nuclear sites. Clearly, the Axis of Evil is alive and well long after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Heat-seeking missiles pose an increasing threat to aircrafts in the status quo. Global Security.org No Date Given (“Infrared Countermeasures Systems”,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htm)

The US military has recognized the increasing threat to its tactical aircraft from anti-aircraft infrared (IR) guided missiles. By one estimate more than 500,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles exist and are available on the worldwide market. The lethality and proliferation of IR surface-to-air missiles (SAMS) was demonstrated during the Desert Storm conflict. Approximately 80% of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft losses in Desert Storm were from ground based Iraqi defensive systems using IR SAMS. Both IR SAMS and IR air-to-air missiles
have seekers with improved Counter-Countermeasures (CCM) capabilities that seriously degrade the effectiveness of current expendable decoys.

Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) are the most serious threat to our large, predictable, and slow flying air mobility aircraft. These systems are lethal, affordable, easy to use, and difficult to track and counter. According to a 1997 CIA Report, MANPADS have proliferated worldwide, accounting
for over 400 casualties in 27 incidents involving civil aircraft over the previous 19 years. This proliferation has forced air mobility planners to frequently select less than optimal mission routes due to lack of defensive systems on airlift aircraft. All Infrared [IR] direct threat weapons require line of sight [LOS] to be established prior to launch and the in-flight missile must maintain LOS with the target heat source until impact (or detonation of the proximity fuse). IR missiles require the operator to visually detect the target and energize the seeker before the sensor acquires the target. The operator must track the target with the seeker caged to the LOS until it is determined that the IR sensor is tracking the target and not any background objects (natural or man made objects to include vehicles, the sun, or reflected energy from the sun off clouds, etc.). The IR sensor is also susceptible to atmospheric conditions (haze, humidity), the signature of the aircraft and its background, flares, decoys, and jamming. When an aircraft has been detected, targeted, locked-on, and the missile fired, the emphasis has to shift to defeating the in-flight missile. Of course, except in the case of autonomously guided missiles, countermeasures against the ground (or hostile aircraft) tracking and command guidance system could still be effective (as in the case of conventional RF countermeasures). There are already a number of countermeasures against RF seekers.

Man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) which are shoulder launched missile systems typically include heat seeking or infrared (IR) missiles and are a threat to aircraft and other types of transportation. IR missiles include an IR detector, which allows the IR missile to detect and track a target. More particularly, IR missiles detect the heat signature (i.e., infrared light) which is emitted by hot structures, for example, engines of the aircraft, to track the aircraft in an attack.

Synthetic fuels make our planes safer by decreasing their radar profile and by increasing their efficiency. Bunning 7 (Jim, United States Senator, West Virginia Coal Association, http://www.wvcoal.com/content/view/61/61/)
The Air Force is a strong supporter of these fuels and has engaged an aggressive testing program in B-52 bombers and will start tests on additional jets soon. They have an outstanding evaluation so far. These fuels burn cleaner and at lower temperatures,

which reduces the radar profile and heat signature of our jets. And it has a higher efficiency, allowing jets to fly faster and farther on the same tank of fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

83 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Missiles Up (2/2)
Iran is raising tensions through firing missiles. Xinhua July 11 (2008, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/11/content_8525904.htm)
Iran has successfully test-fired both medium- and long-range missiles in two consecutive days, in what
many analysts described as a move to trigger grave concerns over stability in the region. By testing a long-range missile capable of reaching targets in Israel as well as U.S. military facilities in the region, Iran has delivered a signal that it is capable of hitting back in case of an Israeli or U.S. attack, analysts say.

Iran is firing an increased amount of missiles. NPR July 10 (2008, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92399124)
Iranian state media reported that Iran test-fired more missiles in the Persian Gulf on Thursday, and the
United States pledged to defend its allies from an Iranian attack. Iran state television reported that the missiles have what it called "special capabilities," but the report did not elaborate on what those were. The missiles were launched throughout the night, with another report saying the new tests included the Shahab-3 missile. Officials have said the Shahab-3 could reach targets almost 1,250 miles away. It was the second day in a row that Iran conducted missile tests.

It’s almost impossible to avoid a heat seeking missile. Sebastian 6 (Jason M, “Heat-seeking missiles”, http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aerospace-Aviation-2437/Heat-seeking-missiles.htm)
IR missiles are so dangerous because they are fast. They are very portable and able to be carried by one man on foot. They are hard to see from the air. Finally, when they are fired, you have only a second to react as many of the missiles fly faster than the speed of sound. By the time you see the smoke trail it may be too
late.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

84 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Allied Coop Key
Allied cooperation is critical to military readiness Office of Technology Assessment 1 (Congress, http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9106/9106.PDF)
The size and capability required of U.S. forces is related to their autonomy. The U.S. forces stationed in Germany or South Korea would have no hope of defending those countries alone and were never intended to. Clearly, if allies are fighting alongside, the requirement for U.S. forces is reduced. The logistical burden on U.S. forces is also reduced by host-nation support and the existence of secure lines of resupply. Required readiness levels are also affected by the degree to which the United States is willing to depend on allies to defend common interests. A rational division of responsibilities could leave quick response to those allies nearer the threat, while the United States maintains its huge reserve potential. The composition of U.S. forces will depend on the degree of allied cooperation. In many cases, efficiency calls for specialization. NATO is an example of how individual nations in a group have-to a limited extent-divided up military responsibilities so that each can become more expert at their tasks or geographic areas. For example, Denmark has special responsibilities to maintain control of its straits, which are important to all of NATO; the United States has a disproportionate responsibility in air power because it can be reinforced across the Atlantic quickly; and Belgium and the Netherlands have special logistical responsibilities in their harbors. The division of these tasks maybe obvious and straightforward, but no nation’s forces could do its job smoothly without the other nations’ doing theirs. The disadvantage of such a division of labor is that without the cooperation of the other members of the alliance, any single member may become vulnerable. As a simple illustration, if one navy were good at protection against submarines and the other at protection against missiles, then the two may be able to work together but each would face major problems working alone.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

85 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Interventions Key (1/2)
( ) Interventions destroys military readiness Layne 98 (Christopher, Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, World Policy Journal, “Rethinking American grand
strategy: Hegemony or balance of power in the twenty-first century?” Volume 15, Issue 2, Summer, Proquest) Of course, America did not really solve the problem because today there is widespread concern that if the United States were to withdraw from Europe militarily in the future, the Europeans would revert to their bad old geopolitical habits and economic interdependence would collapse. 12 This example illustrates a larger point. The strategy of preponderance requires the United States to maintain an

international security environment that is conducive to interdependence. This is a burdensome and often dangerous responsibility. At best, the strategic requirements of economic interdependence compel the United States to assume costly security commitments; at worst, those commitments can lead to war. Two cases, one historical and one current, illustrate how, far from leading to an increase in American security, economic interdependence can have adverse strategic consequences. The two cases are America's role in Indochina from 1948 to 1954, and its current intervention in Bosnia. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, America's Cold War strategic imperatives required Japan's economic recovery, which was believed by U.S. policymakers to depend on its access both to export markets and raw materials in Southeast Asia. 13 The Truman and Eisenhower administrations understood that, for this strategy to succeed, the United States had to guarantee Japan's military and economic security. This connection between security and economic interdependence--specifically, the American strategic interest in
defending Japan's economic access to Southeast Asia--helped propel America's deepening involvement in Indochina. Notwithstanding its lack of intrinsic economic and strategic importance, Indochina became the focal point of U.S. policy because of "domino theory" concerns. 14 The United States regarded Indochina as a fire wall for preventing the more economically vital parts of the region-especially Malaya and Indonesia--from falling under communist control. Washington's concern was that the economic

repercussions of toppling dominoes would have geopolitical consequences: if Japan were to be cut off from Southeast Asia, the resulting economic hardship might cause domestic instability in Japan and result in Tokyo's drifting out of the U.S. orbit (and thus becoming vulnerable to Soviet penetration). The connection between Japan's geopolitical orientation, its economic recovery, and its access to Southeast Asia--that is, the belief that core and periphery are economically and strategically interdependent--catalyzed America's support of France during the First Indochina War and, after 1954, its support of a noncommunist state in South Vietnam. In retrospect, the United States crossed the crucial threshold on the road to the Vietnam War in the early 1950s, when Washington concluded that interdependence's strategic requirements (specifically, Japan's--and by extension, Southeast Asia's-security and prosperity) necessitated that containment be extended to that region. The Bosnian Case America's 1995 military intervention in Bosnia also illustrates how economic interdependence can cause nonpeaceful strategic effects. The parallels between Indochina and Bosnia are striking, notwithstanding that unlike the perceived interdependence between Japan and Southeast Asia in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Balkans' economic importance to Western Europe is minimal, and there is no geopolitical threat in the Balkans that corresponds to the Vietminh, who, according to Washington's (mistaken) belief, were the agents of a monolithic, Kremlin-directed communist bloc. Given these differences, the case for intervention was even less compelling strategically in Bosnia than in Indochina. Nevertheless, the rationale for intervention has been the basically the same. U.S. Bosnia policy has been justified by invoking arguments based on domino imagery and the need to protect economic interdependence. Although a few commentators have contended that U.S. intervention in Bosnia was animated by humanitarian concerns, this is not the case. American policymakers, including President Bill Clinton, made clear that their overriding concerns were to ensure European stability by preventing the Balkan conflict from spreading and to reestablish NATO's credibility. Indeed, some of the proponents of preponderance believe that U.S. intervention in Bosnia alone is insufficient to prevent peripheral instability from spreading into Western Europe. To forestall a geopolitical snowball, they contend, NATO must be enlarged to incorporate the states located in East

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

86 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – Interventions Key (2/2)
Central Europe. These expressed fears about the "spillover" of instability from Bosnia (or East Central
Europe) into Europe are often hazy when it comes to stating what the precise consequences of this spillover will be. However, some U.S. policymakers and analysts have detailed their concerns: they fear that spreading instability could imperil economic interdependence. In 1992, William Odom, the former director of the National Security Agency, explicated the perceived significance of the link between U.S. interests in interdependence and its concerns for European stability and NATO credibility: "Only a strong NATO with the U.S. centrally involved can prevent Western Europe from drifting into national parochialism and eventual regression from its present level of economic and political cooperation. Failure to act effectively in Yugoslavia will not only affect U.S. security interests but also U.S. economic interests. Our economic interdependency with Western Europe creates large numbers of American jobs." 15

Indochina and Bosnia demonstrate how the strategy of preponderance expands America's frontiers of insecurity. The posited connection between security and economic interdependence requires the United States to impose order on, and control over, the international system. To do so, it must continually enlarge the geographic scope of its strategic responsibilities to maintain the security of its already established interests. As the political scientist Robert H. Johnson observes, this process becomes self-sustaining because each time the United States pushes its security interests outward, threats to the new security frontier will be apprehended: "Uncertainty leads to self-extension, which leads in turn to new uncertainty and further self-extension." 16
Core and periphery are interdependent strategically; however, while the core remains constant, the turbulent frontier in the periphery is constantly expanding. One does not overstate in arguing that this expansion is potentially limitless. Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recently has suggested, for example, that NATO expansion is just the first step toward creating an American-dominated "Trans Eurasian Security System" [TESS], that ultimately will embrace Russia, China, Japan, India, and other countries--a security structure "that would span the entire [Eurasian] continent." 17 There is a suggestive parallel between late Victorian Britain and the United States today. The late-nineteenth-cenury British statesman Lord Rosebery, clearly recognized that economic interdependence could lead to strategic overextension:

Our commerce is so universal and so penetrating that scarcely any question can arise in any part of the world without involving British interests. This consideration, instead of widening, rather circumscribes the field of our actions. For did we not strictly limit the principle of intervention we should always be simultaneously engaged in some forty wars. 18

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

87 Green Military Aff

***Readiness Adv Solvency***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

88 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Missiles
CTL reduces heat making infrared detection less likely, eliminating missile targeting Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
The fuel also offers increased turbine engine life through lowered peak combustion temperature. This reduces stress on hot components in the turbine engine thereby increasing the life of those components. Fuels that burn cooler may also help to reduce the heat signature of aircraft, making them less vulnerable to infrared missile attacks. (Figure 3 shows some of the many applications for F-T jet fuel in military equipment ranging from tanks to fuel cells to spacecraft.) Also critical to meeting the needs of aviation, F-T fuels are truly “drop-in replacements” for their petroleum-based counterparts, requiring no new pipelines, storage facilities, or engine modifications, barriers that have stalled other alternative aviation fuels programs.

Synthetic fuels reduce heat signature of jet engines. Bunning 7 (March 8, Jim, United States Senator,
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=cf65561f-1321-0e36-ba15a4159c08d062&Region_id=&Issue_id&IsPrint=true) The results of these tests so far are nothing short of outstanding. We already knew that these fuels are nearly zerosulfur, very low in N.O.X., and low in particulate matter. But we are learning new benefits. For example, the

lower-burn temperature of synthetic fuels reduces the heat signature of jet engines.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

89 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Maintenance
Coal-to-liquid reduces maintenance costs while biofuels increase these costs. Bollinger 8 (1-25, Paul, Staff, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/1716/54657)
The Fischer Tropsche produced synthetic fuel the Air Force has been testing has zero SOx and almost zero particulate matter. It is so clean that the engines produce no coking and are expected to have better maintenance characteristics. The FT diesel has 50-80% less NOx emissions which is being tested and certified in our ground vehicles.

More ev… Air Force Link April 25 (2008, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123096037)
Other factors must also be accounted for, said Secretary Wynne. For instance, he encouraged the audience to consider how using biofuels on a large scale could affect food prices, land use and water resources. He also suggested that much is unknown about how various synthetic fuels affect aircraft engine life. For instance, due to residual deposits and gumming problems, bio-based

fuels increase maintenance costs. However, cleaner burning coal-to-liquid based fuels can substantially reduce maintenance costs.

Equipment maintenance is key to military readiness Peppers 4 (Jerome: Air Force Institute of Technology http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/julaug/peppers.html)

Throughout his existence on this planet, man has found it necessary to develop weapons of many kinds to protect himself from animals and other men. Warfare has been a major concern to him in all his levels of development as it is today to us. Not all men have required offensive forces; some armed themselves only for protection. Even so, mankind has found some form of armed might essential, and this has caused the maintenance of weaponry to be of serious concern for society’s leaders. Man’s weapons of defense and offense, through technological advancements, have become more powerful and more complex. As this has occurred, so, too, has an increased concern about their readiness for use. Maintenance of military weapons and equipment is an integral part of defense capability. In today’s world, the ability of military forces to react instantaneously is essential to national survival. This ability cannot exist unless an optimum quantity of mission-essential equipment is maintained in a mission-ready state. It is impossible to predict when, where, or in what manner our military strength might be needed. The requirement may come during a cold-war tension period or in a limited-war commitment. The threat of sudden attack and the possibility of general war add other uncertainties to the situation. Because of this uncertainty we must be prepared to meet the worst conceivable situation that would require instantaneous response ability. This places a great burden on the tactical commander and emphasizes the urgent requirement for effective equipment maintenance. The burden of the readiness mission is borne by maintenance, and it is essential that each maintenance manager and technician understand his responsibilities to his unit and his country. Maintenance capability is developed to acquire and retain a specified state of equipment readiness for the tactical unit. The measure of maintenance success is the achieved state of equipment readiness. Therefore, maintenance receives its reason for being and its measure of success from the same source: equipment readiness. There is no more valid reason for maintenance in the tactical organization, and maintenance effectiveness thus becomes a primary factor in determining unit capability. This places the maintenance manager in a position of great importance and largely explains the growing command interest in maintenance operations.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

90 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Budget
Syn Fuel saves USAF 3 billion each year. Reid 7 (Clayton B., Staff Writer for NewsMax, November 6, http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/air_force_fuels/2007/11/06/47114.html)
The U.S. Air Force is slashing $3 billion from its fuel bill and reducing its reliance on foreign oil by weaning gas-guzzling aircraft off pure petroleum products and taking to the skies with cutting-edge synthetic fuels. The goal is to have all Air Force planes sipping synthetic petrol by 2011, according to Pentagon officials. Already, all Air Force B-52 bombers have been certified to fly on mixed synthetic fuels. Late last month, a massive C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane took off from California's Edwards Air Force Base powered for the first time with a mix of traditional jet fuel and synthetic fuel. Officials called the test flight a roaring success. “Everything’s going great,” an Air Force official familiar with the project tells Newsmax. “The secretary of the Air Force says he wants us to develop a domestic source of alternative fuel to lessen dependency on foreign oil and give the Air Force sovereign options to fly, fight and win. We’re doing it, and it works.” The Air Force is the biggest
gas-gulper of all of the services by far, sucking up a whopping 2.6 billion gallons of fuel in 2006 at a cost of more than $5.7 billion. For every $10 increase in a barrel of oil, Air Force costs jump $610 million annually, according to assistant Air Force secretary William Anderson. Last year,

the cost of jet fuel jumped from 75 cents a gallon to $2.01. That's a $71,000 increase for just one fill-up of a B52, which holds 47,000 gallons of fuel. “Oil is selling for $94 a barrel right now,” the official, who asked not to be named, tells Newsmax. “The cost of synfuel is estimated to be between $45 and $60 a barrel. You do the math.” With 42 gallons per barrel, that’s an annual savings of up to $3 billion.

The plan saves money on fuel, maintenance, and parts Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
The House and Senate approved a conference report, which President Bush quickly signed into law, for a fiscal year (FY) 2007 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5631) that urges DOD to ensure future budget requests contain sufficient funding to permit continued and expanded testing of alternative fuels, such as CTL fuels. The conference report, approved in September 2006, notes that the Navy is launching its own testing programme based on the results of successful Air Force tests. The report said the Air Force tests demonstrated that the use of coal and natural gas-based synthetic fuels could result in savings of “up to two-thirds of the cost” of a gallon of conventional jet fuel, and that such fuels burn cleaner and produce savings as a result of lower maintenance and engine replacement costs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

91 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (1/2)
CTL use is inevitable – The DOD will purchase it abroad in the SQ Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
Mr Bollinger stressed that the Air Force believes synthetic FT fuels, such as those made from coal, offer an ideal venue to reduce Air Force dependency on foreign oil. He noted the Air Force currently relies on imports for close to 60% of its fuel needs, and that the Air Force has concluded that allowing the nation’s defence to be so tightly linked to foreign energy supplies is untenable. He said the Air Force sees FT fuels as a viable option for replacing imported energy given the massive amount of domestic feedstock available to produce such fuels. Mr Bollinger said sufficient quantities of domestic feedstock exist to produce a century’s worth of FT fuels. However, he echoed others, cautioning that other nations are racing ahead of the US in constructing facilities capable of transforming coal into synthetic transportation fuels, saying it is possible the first FT fuel put into service by the Air Force could be purchased abroad.

Air Force wants substantial synfuel use in 3 yrs Engineering News-Record 5-5-8 [260(15)]
"By 2016, we want to purchase 50% of continental U.S. fuel as synfuel," says Vicki Stein, Air Force spokeswoman. That amounts to 400 million gallons per year. "We will certify the fleet by 2011 to fly on synfuel," she adds. In fiscal year 2007, the service successfully tested with 280,000 gallons of fuel derived from natural gas made in Malaysia. Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Mont., is the only site offered to date for the CTL program, but the developer will be free to sell the products on the open market, says Stein.

CTL can meet the AF’s demand Houston Chronicle 7 (6-17)
The United States boasts more than a quarter of the world's coal reserves, enough to last 250 years at current usage rates, industry officials say. They say their goal of producing 300,000 barrels a day by 2015 could meet the daily domestic needs of the U.S. armed forces. That's an intriguing figure for the Air Force, which consumed 2.6 billion gallons of fuel last year.

More ev… Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
The NMA reports that a typical CTL plant costs about US$1 billion for a 10,000 b/d facility and at least US$6.5 billion for a large-scale 80,000 b/d plant with a five-to-seven-year lead-time. Based on NMA analysis, a feasible, near-term goal would be the production of at least 300,000 b/d of high-grade fuel by 2015 using CTL technology — a supply equal to the amount of transportation fuel consumed daily by the US military for domestic operations.

CTL produces an assured supply for fuel for the DOD Dimotakis 6 [Paul, The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf,
December 09, 2006]

At a U.S. consumption rate of 7.5 Bbbl/yr, this can yield a ~260 year supply from these sources alone. The FT process that converts one form of fossil energy into another, e.g., via coal-to-liquid (CTL) or gas-to-liquid (GTL) processes would yield an assured domestic supply of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the DoD for many decades into the future, albeit accompanied with large environmental burdens, as discussed below, unless carbon sequestration and other measures are adopted with attendant increases in cost.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

92 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (AF) (2/2)
Synthetic fuels from coal solve Air Force oil dependence ACS`7 (American Chemical Society, 2007, April 24). Synthetic Fuels From Alternative Energy Sources Can Power The U. S.
Military, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423100221.htm)

In the study, Sasol Technology's Delanie Lamprecht points out that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has been seeking alternative ways of obtaining "Jet Propulsion 8" (JP-8). DoD uses that single kerosenetype fuel, virtually identical to commercial aviation fuel, for almost all its gas turbine and tactical diesel engine applications. The defense department also wants an alternative route to JP-5, a slightly different fuel used on aircraft carriers. Invited to participate in the effort to develop alternatives, Lamprecht studied use of so-called Fischer-Tropsch technology. Sasol is a pioneer in use of the technology to produce synthetic fuels from coal. It can convert coal, natural gas, or biomass into a synthesis gas and thereafter into a Fischer-Tropsch syncrude suitable for refining into JP-8, JP-5 and other liquid fuels. The study concluded that it is feasible to use the process, together with current refining technology, to produce a "battlefield fuel of the future" that could power the military without reliance on imported oil.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

93 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (1/6)
CTL solves oil dependence Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
America’s National Coal Council wants government incentives to help produce, daily, about 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel from coal by 2025. That would satisfy about 10% of expected US oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 Mt/y of coal, which represents more than 40% of current annual US production. Certainly, US coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production. All over the US, there are calls to embrace CTL. The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) has released the American Energy Security Study detailing how the USA can significantly strengthen energy security by implementing a robust plan to support the development of a domestic CTL fuels industry and other alternative fuels. The governors and state legislators of the 16 SSEB states spent six months on this project. Specific incentives form the basis for a comprehensive energy plan aimed at slashing US oil imports by 5% per year, every year, for the next 20 years beginning in 2010. Of the alternative fuels targeted in the study, ultra-clean CTL transportation fuels account for 29% of the fuels that would be used to reduce American oil imports – by far the largest source of alternative fuel promoted in the study. According to the study, a concerted effort to develop CTL and other alternative fuels will help facilitate a renewed US industrial boom through direct new energy sector investments of up to US$200 billion by 2030, establish a reliable domestic energy base that sustains the global competitiveness of US industries and create more than 1.4 million new jobs over two decades. The study also said such fuels will help achieve conservation and efficiency savings equivalent to 19 million barrels per day (b/d) of current oil usage and will ensure new steps are taken to protect the environment by substantially reducing total atmospheric emissions.

More ev… Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
Coal has a broad geographic distribution - there are coal reserves in more than 70 countries. There is also a well-established, well-supplied and historically reliable international market. In contrast, 80% of the world’s total oil reserves are found in just 11 countries (OPEC). CTL utilises indigenous coal resources or the international coal market to reduce the risks associated with oil import dependence.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

94 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (2/6)
The plan solves oil dependence Springer 8 (Lt. Gen. Robert, Retired Air Force General, 3/25, http://www.wral.com/news/blogpost/2625696)
Imagine flying an Air Force bomber faster than the speed of sound – and doing it while testing a 50/50 blend of synthetic petroleum fuel. Well, that flight did take place last week, as a B-1 bomber launched from its home station of Dyess Air
Force Base, near Abilene, Texas, and flew to New Mexico, crossing the White Sands Missile Range at 680 mph. While this was not the first Air Force aircraft and crew to test synthetic fuels in flight, it was the first supersonic flight, and like the other test flights, it came off without a hitch. In late 2006, an eight-engine B-52 bomber made the first synthetic fuel flight, and more recently, a four-engine C-17 transport aircraft flew across the country on synthetic fuel. This is a big deal. The goal is to have all U.S. Air Force aircraft certified

to use a synthetic blend fuel within the next three to four years. Synthetic fuel is cheaper, will reduce dependence on foreign oil, and burns cleaner. That is significant. The Air Force is by far the largest consumer of aviation fuel, with an appetite for about 3 billion gallons a year. So, any efficiency and cost savings are enormous. Just what is synthetic aviation fuel? And how long has the idea been around? Essentially, it is fuel that can be produced from coal, shale and natural gas – all hydrocarbon products that are available to us in the U.S., significantly reducing dependence on foreign oil. I am no expert on the processing technique, but I am told that these
domestic products – coal, shale or natural gas – go through a conversion process that turns them into a liquid fuel. On last week’s B-1 supersonic flight, natural gas was used in the blended fuel. Sounds like a 21st-century breakthrough, doesn’t it? Well, not quite. The conversion method was first developed some 80 years ago in Germany. A couple of German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, were responsible for what would become known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. The few test flights so far have indicated no difference in aircraft handling or performance. More test flights with other airframes are in the offing. As I noted above, the Air Force's goal is to have all of its aircraft certified for

synthetic fuel by 2011. A cheaper, cleaner, less-dependent-on-foreign-oil aviation fuel will dramatically affect the aviation industry. For now, it is just the Air Force out in front with this significant project of testing and then certifying an alternative fuel. But in the near future, I visualize all of the other armed services and the commercial airline industry
taking the same route. Cheaper, cleaner and domestically available all make for a highly desirable outcome.

More ev… Geiselman 6 (Bruce; Waste News, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; October 23, Pg. 26, Lexis)
The U.S. Air Force within 10 years wants to cut in half its use of jet fuel produced from crude oil and replace it with cleaner-burning, domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Air Force already has large numbers of cars running on alternative fuels, but now it wants to find alternative fuel sources for its aircraft. A B-52 bomber
containing a blend of synthetic and regular jet fuel took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California on Sept. 19, marking the first time the U.S. military has attempted to fly a plane with nontraditional fuel. ``This test flight sets the stage for a more comprehensive

plan the Air Force has toward conservation,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Ronald Sega, a former test pilot who flew with crew members aboard the plane. ``This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels.'' The plane appeared to function normally using a liquid fuel produced from natural gas by Syntroleum Corp., of Tulsa, Okla., according to company and Air Force officials. Particularly appealing to the Air Force is the fact that domestically produced coal, available in abundant supplies in the United States, could also be used to produce the fuel. ``The feedstock for this process could include natural gas or it could be coal or oil shale,'' Sega said. ``The United States has significant reserves in coal and oil shale, something on the order of 2 trillion barrel equivalents.'' Using a domestically produced fuel would make the Air Force less vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies. Also appealing are the environmental characteristics of the fuel. The Air Force initially tested a blend of synthetic fuel with 50 percent normal jet fuel. However, tests have revealed that jet engines burning pure synthetic fuel produce about 90 percent less particulate matter and soot emissions, which also improves engine performance. ``This test is a significant milestone for Syntroleum and is a result of more than four years of research and development efforts with the DOD,'' said Jack Holmes, company president and CEO.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

95 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (3/6)
Plan solves oil dependence Schaefer 6 [Mike, The World's Biggest Investors Moving into CTL, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/ctl-coal-energy/262#,
August 28, 2006]

For the United States, coal-to-liquid technology means energy independence. The most recent estimates show that the United States contains roughly 267 billion tons of in-place coal reserves. That's nearly 30% of the entire world's recoverable coal! That means there's no need to import the resources needed. We already have a massive resource right in our backyard. Oil prices are subject to geopolitical turmoil. But not coal. Since all the coal we'll need for quite a while is right here in America, we won't have to worry about politics. Coal-toliquids has only become a viable energy option in recent years. For investors this means we need to jump on the opportunity now.

Synthetic fuels key to ending the Air Forces oil dependence Sullivan 7 (John A., November 12, 2007 US Air Force Continues to Push Ahead with Alternative Jet Fuels, Lexis)
The US Air Force has continued moving ahead with its goal of finding alternative fuels for its jet fleets with the latest success coming on Oct. 22 with the test flight of a C-17 Globemaster II that used a blend of synthetic and JP-8 fuels in all four of the transport's fuel tanks. The flight at Edward Air Force Base in California , marked the first time that a C-17 has been flown using a Fischer-Tropsch-produced fuel blended with regular JP-8 jet fuel. Last month, a C-17 was flown using the Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend in one tank in an experiment to test engine performance. The Fischer-Tropsch fuels are those produced from natural gas (NGW Nov.6,'06,p1) Alternative fuels can be produced from domestically available hydrocarbon products like natural gas and coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, which was developed in Germany in the early 1920s. Gasification can convert any hydrocarbon feedstock into a synthetic gas that can then, through the Fischer-Tropsch process, be converted into any number of liquid fuel products. When the price of oil is between $60 and $65 per barrel, Fischer-Tropsch technology is economically viable, a Department of Defense official said. With the prices bouncing above $90 a barrel mark, "it has become very viable," a Department of Defense official said. The same technology was used by Germany to fuel their military machine for several years during World War II after most of its other fuel sources were cut off by Allied advances. In September 2006, a B-52 took to the air at Edwards Air Force Base, using a synthetic fuel made from natural gas. A spokesman for the service said the use of synthetic fuels is "vital if the Air Force is to have the means of operating without relying on foreign oil supplies." The fuel for the B-52 flight was produced at Syntroleum's FT demonstration facility near Tulsa , Oklahoma , which has produced more than 400,000 gallons of ultra-clean products. The fuel used in the Edwards test flights has come from this demonstration facility, which only produces 70 barrels or about 1,700 gallons per day. The October flight of the C-17 was called a success by the mission commander. "There was no discernible difference between JP-8 and Fischer-Tropsch," said Maj. Scott Sullivan, the mission pilot on the Oct. 22 flight. Sullivan added that he and the crew were "quite pleased" with the flight results. The C-17 certification is the next step by the Air Force to certify synthetic fuel blends for its fleet. Last A spokesman for the Flight Test Center said the C17 is the workhorse of the Air Force's mobility airlift fleet and the largest user of jet fuel. Sullivan said the four-hour test flight was designed to assess how well the aircraft performed using the special fuel blend. He said the mission consisted of ground operation of the auxiliary power unit and evaluation of inflight performance of the engineers and the fuel quantity measurement system used on the C-17. The final steps for C-17 certification include another service evaluation at McChord Air Force Base in Pierce County , Washington . Fleet-wide certification is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2008, making the C17 the second Air Force aircraft to be certified to use this particular synthetic fuel blend. The Air Force's fleet of B-52s was the first, completing certification Aug. 8. The Air Force has been ordered to have all its aircraft certified to use this new blend of fuel by 2011. A special office has been created at the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio , to manage this effort.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

96 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (4/6)
Synthetics keep us off foreign oil-We have the most coal in the world Behreandt`6 (Dennis Behreandt "The promise of synthetic fuel: coal-to-liquid technologies, pioneered almost 80 years ago,
have the potential to free America from its dependence on foreign oil". New American, The. Nov 27, 2006. FindArticles.com. 09 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996859)

If synthetic-fuel technologies are going to play a significant role in America's future energy equation, they will be made from the nation's supply of coal. The United States has the largest coal reserves in the world. According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States has 508 billion short tons of coal, with 274 billion tons classified as recoverable reserves, meaning they can be recovered economically using current technology. Commenting on the magnitude of the nation's coal reserves, the Congressional Research Service reports: "U.S. recoverable reserves are estimated at 25% of total world reserves." This is an enormous energy resource that could play a huge role in ensuring America's energy independence for many, many years to come. Traditionally, this coal has been used to power electricity generation and heavy industry. But coal liquefaction and gasification technologies could be used to convert much of this coal to liquid fuel. In 2005, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman contacted the National Coal Council, a Federal Advisory Committee to the secretary of energy, requesting that the council draft a report detailing the role coal can play in the near future. The council found that "application of coalto-liquids technologies would move the United States toward greater energy security and relieve cost and supply pressures on transportation fuels by producing 2.6 MMbbl/d [2.6 million barrels per day] of liquids. These steps would enhance U.S. oil supply by 10 percent and utilize an additional 475 million tons of coal per year."

CTL key to solve oil dependence James`6 (Steve, Rueters, Planet Ark FEATURE - Liquid Coal: A Cheaper, Cleaner 21st Century Fuel?, December 18, 2006,
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39529/story.htm)

Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil, are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon. The technology of producing a liquid fuel from coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day. And coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 percent of transportation fuel needs. In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally friendlier and would also help America wean itself of foreign oil imports. "America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid technologies," said JetBlue's founder and chief executive, David Neeleman. "Utilizing our domestic coal reserves is the right way to achieve energy independence." In a recent briefing to power and energy executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offer little in the way of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious transmission and infrastructure" problems. In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleanerburning than conventional fuels.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

97 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (5/6)
Coal to liquid tech will give the US oil-independence Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog
new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a process to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal that supplied a substantial portion of Germany’s fuel during the war. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from the partial combustion of coal which has been gasified and combined with molecular oxygen) is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced fromcoal gasification and the FT process are intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal contaminantsare removed during the gasification process. The principal purpose of the FT process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as synthetic fuel. The FT process can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually any carbon-containing feed stock, including lowgrade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the preprocessing steps would differ from the gasification process used with coal.33 Since the United

States has the largest coal reserves in the world, synthetic fuel, or synfuel, made from coal is particularly appealing. Synfuel represents a domestically controlled resource with prices theoretically tied to the coal market instead of the world oil market. In 1948, Congress extended the project to eight years and doubled funding to $60 million. In the end,
synthetic fuel from coal could not compete economically with gasoline made from crude oil, especially given the major oil reserve discoveries in the Middle East at the time. In 1953,Congress terminated funding and closed the plants.35At the height of the 1979 oil crisis, when the United States imported approximately 25% of its crude oil, President Jimmy Carter proposed an Energy Security Corporation that would use $88 billion of windfall profits tax on domestic oil producers to subsidize development of 2.5 million barrels per day of synthetic fuels production. After much debate, Congress passed the Energy Security Act of 1980. The law created a US Synthetic Fuel Corporation with an initial budget of $17 billion. After four years the corporation would submit a “comprehensive strategy” for congressional approval, where the balance of $68 billion would be made available. A combination of mismanagement, administration change from President Carter to President Reagan, and most significantly, crude oil prices falling from a 1981 peak of $36 per barrel to $12 in 1986, effectivelykilled the US Synthetic Fuel Corporation.36 Of the 67 projects proposed in 1981, only a few carried design efforts far enough to maturity. Bad business risk became the stigma attached to synthetic fuels. In 2006 the Secretary of the Air Force directed a project to procure synthetic jet fuel for ground testing and, if ground tests were successful, flight testing.37 In December 2006, a B-52 conducted a flight-test mission using a 50/50 blend of manufactured synthetic fuel and petroleum based JP-8, orsynfuel-blend, on all eight engines, and recently finished cold-weather testing at Minot AFB, ND,the last step in the testing and certification process. Test data is being analyzed, and the final testreport is scheduled to be released in June 2007. Thus far, results have been positive. The Air Force is committed to completing testing and certification of synfuels for its aircraft by 2010,

and aims to acquire 50% of CONUS fuel from a synfuel-blend produced domestically by 2016. At current consumption rates this equals approximately 325 million gallons of synfuel-blend.38 This will certainly not eliminate US dependence on foreign oil, but is comparable to a double or triple in the George Shultz baseball analogy cited at the beginning of this chapter. Subsequent actions, such as proving the economic viability of synfuels, or improving upon FT process could “bring these runners home” and further expand domestically produced energy supplies. Could the world’s single largest energy consumer be the catalyst to successfully launch a new synthetic fuel industry in the United States? Advocates say with government help FT technology could supply 10% of US fuels within 20 years. A relatively small synthetic fuel plant, processing 17,000 tons per day of coal to produce 28,000 barrels per day of fuel, 750 tons per day
of ammonia, and 475MW of net electrical power would cost approximately $3 billion.40 Ten to fifteen such plants could supply all of the DOD’s fuel requirements.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

98 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Demand (General) (6/6)
CTL solves oil dependence Housman 6 (Damian, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Public Affairs, October 5, www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123028544)
The Air Force Advanced Power Technology Office here is conducting research on synthetic fuel for use in a ground environment. The use of synthetic fuel is vital if the Air Force is to have the means of operating without relying on foreign oil supplies. The Sept. 19 test flight by a B-52H Stratofortress at Edwards AFB,
Calif., is one attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of using synthetic fuel in combat aircraft, and work on synthetic fuel done here at Robins is focusing on synthetic fuel for ground support vehicles. The quest for alternative fuel is not new. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthetic fuel process is named for two German scientists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, who invented the system prior to World War II. Germany recognized its vulnerability to a cutoff of petroleum supplies, and used the FT system extensively during the war. It is the very same FT system that the Air Force uses in its current effort. "If oil is cut off for any reason, we need a source of

fuel to run military aircraft and vehicles," said Mike Mead, head of the Air Force Advanced Power Technology Office at Robins.
Mr. Mead's work at Robins involves management of the fuel integration program for ground applications, while the Air Force Research Laboratory manages the fuel program for aircraft. The Fischer-Tropsch process starts with synthesis gas produced from feed stocks such as natural gas, coal or biomass. The FT synthesis process converts synthetic gas into clean burning liquid fuel through a process using heat and pressure. "Currently we are demonstrating both a 100-percent synthetic fuel and a 50-50 blend of synthetic and petroleum fuel for vehicles and ground equipment applications," Mr. Mead said. The fuel now used in aircraft tests is a 50-50 blend, but the goal is to prove that 100-percent synthetic fuel can be used. The 100-percent product is slightly less dense than current JP-8 jet fuel, according to project engineer Bill Likos. "We don't know yet that the difference in density is meaningful," he said. The two synthetic fuel compounds are under test by the Air Force. S8 FT fuel, which is used as a substitute for JP-8, is being demonstrated at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich. S2 FT fuel, which is used as a substitute for diesel fuel number 2, is being demonstrated at Edwards AFB, Calif. "Most people were not aware of it, but when the B-52 took off from Edwards, the bus carrying the media and VIPs was powered by S2 FT synthetic fuel. It was a double demonstration," Mr. Mead said. The B-52 used S8/JP8 fuel blend to run two engines, with regular JP-8 running the other six engines. S8 FT fuel is also being demonstrated in R-11 refueling trucks as well as other support vehicles. One of the lessons learned, according to Mr. Mead, is that no modifications to any vehicles or ground equipment are needed. "We use the fuel in this demonstration as-is, and don't have to change the vehicle at all in order to use it," he said. Another advantage to FT fuels, testers are discovering, is that synthetic fuel is cleaner than regular fuel. "The FT process results in a 90-percent reduction in particulate emissions and an 80-percent reduction in smoke numbers for purified fuel," Mr. Likos said. In tests of the 50-50 blend some smoke is visible, but with the 100-percent FT fuel, no smoke is expected to be seen. Despite the positive results of synthetic fuel tests, adoption of synthetic fuel is still in the future. "So far, we have only had Syntroleum Corporation, which makes the fuel, make 10,000 gallons of fuel available at Edwards for test, and another 2,300 gallons at Selfridge," Mr. Mead said. "Thus far, this is a demonstration program, with no manufacturing plants built yet for (mass production of) FT fuel." Mr. Mead and Mr. Likos said while the fuel is currently produced from natural gas, it can also be produced from coal. The

U.S. has vast coal reserves, which would go a long way toward easing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies. However, cost may continue to be an issue, even if the synthetic fuel tests successfully throughout the program. Syntroleum estimates if the price of petroleum crude remains at its current highs, FT fuels will be cost competitive.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

99 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Control
CTL improves oil supply resilience through regional dispersion Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
An auxiliary benefit of coal-to-liquids development derives from the broad regional dispersion of the U.S. coal resource base and the fact that coal-to-liquids plants are able to produce finished motor fuels that are ready for retail distribution. As such, developing a coal-to-liquids industry should increase the resiliency of the overall petroleum supply chain.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

100 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – CTL Solves: Oil Shocks
CTL solves oil price volatility Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
In contrast, coal remains the most abundant fossil fuel in the world and the United States has more coal reserves than any other country. With coal-to-liquids technology, the United States can take control of its energy destiny. Any product made from oil can be made from coal. At today’s oil prices, coal-to-liquids is economical and has the power to enhance energy security, create jobs here at home, lessen the U.S trade deficit, and provide environmentally superior fuels that work in today’s vehicles. By building even a few coal-to-liquids plants, the U.S. would increase and diversify its domestic production and refining base – adding spare capacity to provide a shock absorber for price volatility.

Oil price volatility is up in the short-term Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 21)
As the world oil industry continues to operate at or near capacity, prices will exhibit greater volatility, and the market will be prone to periodic sharp price increases if demand increases unexpectedly or if supplies are cut off. Given the concentration of crude oil production in politically unstable regions around the world, recurring supply shocks must be assumed for planning purposes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

101 Green Military Aff

***Readiness Adv A2: Take-outs***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

102 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: CTL Drawbacks
Tests prove CTL is as good as oil Defense News 7 (10-8)
Air Force officials said they were impressed with recent tests of the synthetic fuel when it was blended with an equal amount of traditional jet fuel. The fuel blend was tested over the past year in a B-52 bomber at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., in warm weather, and at North Dakota’s Minot Air Force Base in colder weather. The military found that it performed on par with conventional petroleum-based military aviation fuel, known as JP-8. “Our data showed you cannot tell the difference between the two,” said Lt. Col. Daniel Millman, an Air Force test pilot, who flew the B-52 during the tests.

More ev… Dreazen 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal Reporter, 5/21,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) In June 2006, the Air Force agreed to buy 100,000 gallons of artificial fuel from U.S.-based Syntroleum to mix with petroleum for testing. The next month, military engineers bolted an engine from a B-52 bomber to a table at Tinker Air Force base in Oklahoma and ran it for 50 consecutive hours to see how it would perform on the synthetic blend. Engineers detected no differences from conventional fuel. The Air Force began conducting test flights. In September 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California with two of its eight engines burning the synthetic-fuel blend, the first time a military aircraft had flown on artificial fuel. The plane's performance was the same as if it had flown on conventional fuel, and the Air Force decided to push ahead.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

103 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Retrofitting/Interoperability (1/3)
No need for new jet parts or infrastructure Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
But the benefits of Rentech’s fuels are not limited to CO2. Rentech fuels will be the cleanest liquid transportation fuels available. F-T diesel and jet fuel are pure paraffinic hydrocarbons. This means that they inherently contain essentially no sulfur and aromatics, two fuel components that have long been the focus of federal and state environmental protection policies. The fuels are clear, non-toxic, biodegradable and completely fungible with current fuels and fuel transportation infrastructure. This means that no changes are needed to fuel distribution pipelines or engines to use F-T diesel and jet fuel.

More ev… Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
The fuel also offers increased turbine engine life through lowered peak combustion temperature. This reduces stress on hot components in the turbine engine thereby increasing the life of those components. Fuels that burn cooler may also help to reduce the heat signature of aircraft, making them less vulnerable to infrared missile attacks. (Figure 3 shows some of the many applications for F-T jet fuel in military equipment ranging from tanks to fuel cells to spacecraft.) Also critical to meeting the needs of aviation, F-T fuels are truly “drop-in replacements” for their petroleum-based counterparts, requiring no new pipelines, storage facilities, or engine modifications, barriers that have stalled other alternative aviation fuels programs.

More ev.. Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
Coal-to-liquids is not a new kind of fuel. Any liquid fuel product that can be made from crude oil can be made from coal. Products from coal-to-liquids plants include high quality gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel that can be used in existing engines without making any modifications to the engines or distribution systems for the fuel.

More ev… Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
From a product perspective, coal-to-liquids refineries are very similar to petroleum refineries. They make the same range of products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and chemical feedstocks. These fuels can be distributed in today’s pipelines without modification. They can be blended with petroleum derived fuels if desired. They can be used directly in today’s cars, trucks, trains and airplanes without modifications to the engines.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

104 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Retrofitting/Interoperability (2/3)
Synthetic fuels are cleaner, more stable, and work in current engines Chandler 7 (Jerome Greer Chandler, Air Transport World, “Fueling the Future” May 2007)
OVER THE PAST YEAR, COMMERCIAL aviation suddenly has become serious about alternative fuels. Once pie-inthe-sky popular science, the subject now is manifestly mainstream. From January 2004 through July 2006, jet fuel prices skyrocketed $1.16 per gal., according to the Air Transport Assn., and fuel has leapfrogged labor at most airlines as the largest operating expense. But "this is not just about price," says ATA Chief Economist John Heimlich, "it's about supply integrity. We want to make sure we have fuel around at any price, [not just] a good price." That is why the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative came about. Born of a Boeing workshop in May 2006, ATA, the Aerospace Industries Assn., Airports Council International and FAA are collaborating with the Depts. of Defense and Energy to speed the transition to alternative fuels those not derived from conventional crude oil. Finally, says CAAFI Executive Director Richard L. Altman, "We have a unified aviation sector in terms of the way we look at things." And the way it looks right now, synthetic fuels, with considerable caveats, are the answer. Bereft of reliable supplies of crude during World War II, Germany resorted to something called the Fischer-Tropsch process. Hydrocarbons, in Germany's case coal, were converted through gasification to liquid fuel. Apartheid South Africa adopted FT and refined the process. Today South African firm Sasol produces a blend of coal-derived FT kerosene and Jet A. Fuel up at Johannesburg International and you're going to get a Sasol blend, says Ted Biddle, Pratt & Whitney's fuels technology manager. Carriers have been using a progressively higher blend (it is now in the low-30% range) of synthetics out of JNB for the past seven years. The verdict: "Very successful," says Biddle. "No problems reported." P&W belongs to a team of powerplant manufacturers that is putting together a protocol to propel approval for the use of 100% synthetic FT. Included in the group are General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Honeywell and Hamilton Sundstrand. Based on 18 months of successful tests, Pratt is on track to okay 100% Sasol by mid-2007. Biddle foresees a sign-off by the other engine makers soon after. Engine and airframe builders are high on

FTs because they are so-called "drop-in" fuels. Biddle says it is imperative "that [the transition to synthetics] be invisible to the user so there's no required redesign at all of the engine or the aircraft." It doesn't hurt that Fischer-Tropsch fuels also are dramatically more stable thermally; you can put more heat into them before they break down. "What that means for legacy engines," he says, "is that you can run them longer and cleaner." FTs also enjoy improved cold flow properties and emit reduced particulates. While Sasol shines, so does something
called Syntroleum, another Fischer-Tropsch fuel that is derived from natural gas. USAF has been running a 50/50 blend of JP-8 and Syntroleum in a B-52 successfully. The fuel is produced at Syntroleum's FT demonstration facility near Tulsa, where the company has formulated more than 400,000 gal. of ultra-clean (90% reduction in particulates) product.

FT fuels can be used in current engines Aviation Week 7 (“Alternative Fuels for Jet Engines” Aviation Week
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0907p3.xml)

Because synfuel can be refined from coal or natural gas (as well as biomass sources) using the F-T process and is available now, it is expected to emerge first as a supplement to petroleum-based fuels. In this regard, its primary purpose for the foreseeable future will be as a stopgap to ensure energy security for the United States
and other nations with large coal or natural gas reserves. However, it is not generally seen as a solution to global warming or the mitigation of greenhouse gases, as the F-T refining process releases more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than the refining of crude oil. On the other hand, when burned, its carbon emissions are about the same as those of conventional petroleum-based fuel. Also, as F-T fuel's energy

density and performance replicate those of conventional Jet-A and military JP-8, it can be used as a so-called "drop-in" substitute; hence, the Air Force's interest in using it. And as a number of experts interviewed by B&CA have pointed out, the United States still holds huge reserves of coal. The FAA's initiative to investigate alternative fuels goes back a
few years to discussions within the aviation authority's Research Advisory Committee that concluded that energy ramifications -- fuels, source security and environmental impact -- were going to be the dominant issue facing aviation in the foreseeable future. "In May 2006, the FAA, aircraft and engine manufacturers, refiners and airlines convened in Seattle with representatives of the Department of Defense to examine the prospects and possibilities for alternative fuels for aviation," the FAA's Lourdes Maurice, chief scientist for energy and environment, told B&CA. "A major consideration was the ability to use these fuels in existing aircraft and engines. After the meeting, we agreed to work together on alternative fuels for aviation. On the military side, the work in that regard was well on its way." That October, CAAFI was conceived as a partnership between government and industry, with airport managements now included, as well, thus embracing almost all stakeholders in the fuels debate. The FAA then launched the studies Blakey described at Paris. "The focus is how can we make alternative fuels that are a drop-in for existing systems," Maurice said. Answering the question that most operators of existing equipment are probably asking -- Can we burn this stuff in our existing equipment without re-engining or major modifications? -- Maurice explained, "The concept behind drop-in is that use

of the fuel would not require modifications, only minor adjustments to engines and control software or use of additives. We are looking at a variety of existing sources, like coal-to-liquid, as they've been using in South Africa for some time now, all the way to fuels made from renewable sources. "In the longer term," she continued, "we are looking at how
to vary the properties of the fuel, as there are some alternatives that are attractive to expand the envelop more, new technologies that would be different as opposed to drop-in fuels which essentially [mirror] the characteristics of what we're using today." Certification and qualification implications are being examined, too.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

105 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Retrofitting/Interoperability (3/3)
FT is a drop in fuel, that wont harm current engines Aviation Week 7 (“Alternative Fuels for Jet Engines” Aviation Week
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0907p3.xml)

The second question operators probably have on their minds is what impact alternative fuels like FischerTropsch will have on their engines' TBOs. "The expectation is that if the fuels are qualified right, there should be no negative impact on maintenance issues," Held claimed. "The three factors we have to pay attention to are the thermal stability of the fuel so that it won't affect the nozzles; hot-section durability, as you have to ensure there are no contaminants in the fuel, like metallic elements that could cause corrosion in the hot section, although heat loads should be lower with F-T fuels, which is a good thing; and finally, the lubricity of the fuels." The last, lubricity, is not in the current specification, at least for F-T fuels. "Petroleum fuels have naturally occurring components that contribute to lubricity for protection on metal-to-metal wear, organic acids not necessarily present in other types of fuel," Held said. "This can be dealt with using additives, as in JP-8, which requires one. We do materials compatibility checks to ensure there are no adverse effects with these fuels."

BioFuel cant be produced as jet fuel yet, FT fuels are the alternative Aviation Week 7 (“Alternative Fuels for Jet Engines” Aviation Week
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0907p3.xml) Consequently, reducing the carbon footprint will require fuel refined from renewable sources and ongoing development of more efficient aircraft like Boeing's gestating 787 widebody, which is promised to be 20 percent more efficient than contemporary transports in the same class. As mentioned earlier, the caveat here is that the biofuel refining process is less mature than that for synfuels. "There are more technical challenges related to it," Adams said. "One of the challenges is that it takes a lot of biomass to make a pound of jet fuel. Others include thermal stability, or the tendency to coke and gum up the engine components, and freeze and flashpoint issues. So some work will be necessary in fuel controls and combustion systems." So like his colleagues, Adams believes that synfuels from the F-T process

will be the principal alternatives to petroleum "for a substantial period of time," and it will take longer to perfect biomass-based fuels for jets -- somewhere between five and 15 years. In the meantime, operators should expect to see increasing reliance on the F-T synfuels. "The F-T process can also use natural gas, which is more common than
coal in some regions of the world," he said. "In the United States, the predominate [feedstock] will most likely be coal, but in other locations, natural gas is a ready substitute." Pratt has played an active role in validating F-T fuels for the past 16 years, Adams claimed, working closely with Sasol Ltd. in South America, and expected U.S. approval for use of synfuels made from the F-T process in its engines this summer. "The most important thing the industry can do right now is drive more efficient engine technology, [which is] the other way to lower carbon emissions," he said. "This is where Pratt is investing most of its research -- building more efficient engines. This will have a short-term improvement in footprint and is consistent with improving the economics of operation for our customers." Adams cited the geared turbofan Pratt is developing for the narrow-body jetliner market as an example. Bracketing a thrust range of 14,000 to 30,000 pounds, the engine is touted as delivering "substantially improved fuel consumption." (Gearing the fan allows significant increases in bypass ratio -- up to 12 in the initial iteration of the engine and as much as 20 over time in follow-on versions.)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

106 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – No Link
Empirically, dual refueling needs don’t hurt readiness NATO Publications 6 (“Backgrounder: Interoperability for joint operations”
http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/html_en/interoperability04.html) There are two types of aerial refuelling methods: boom and receiver and probe and drogue. A boom is a long, rigid hollow shaft with a telescoping extension and small V-shaped wings at the end which can be fl own into the receiver on top of the aircraft being refuelled. A drogue is a basket attached to the end of a hose which is extended to meet with a probe, a receiver usually installed in the nose of the aircraft being refuelled. Aerial refuelling methods vary even within air forces. The US Air Force uses the boom system, while the US Navy and Marine Corps use the probe and drogue system. Other NATO nations also use the probe and drogue system. This means for example that British Royal Air Force tinteroperabilitys can refuel US Navy aircraft. To be completely interoperable at the national and NATO levels, aerial tinteroperabilitys must be capable of refuelling using both methods. Aerial refuelling is one of the activities of the NATORussia Council (NRC). The NRC Ad Hoc Working Group on Logistics is planning an air-to-air refuelling exercise.

No need for full shift to retain interoperability APCSS 4 (“Defense Transformation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Meeting the Challenge” Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies is a Department of Defense academic institute that addresses regional and global security issues. http://www.apcss.org/core/Conference/CR_ES/DefenseTrans.doc) Transformation may not be necessary to “get the job done.” Despite the fact that few Asia-Pacific militaries are likely to transform themselves, a “modernization-plus” strategy may be sufficient to meet most of these countries’ defense requirements, particularly with respect to their strategic context (i.e., local threat perceptions) and available resources. These countries do not need to emulate the US model in order to derive considerable new capabilities and benefits from their current modernization efforts – as one participant put it, an 80 percent solution may be more than adequate. In particular, when it comes to US friends and allies in the region, it may be enough for them to modernize sufficiently – especially when it comes to NCW – in

order to be more interoperable with US forces and to fill an important niche in coalition operations, rather than attempt to acquire a complete set of transformational systems.

Modernizing militaries is not disruptive APCSS 4 (“Defense Transformation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Meeting the Challenge” Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies is a Department of Defense academic institute that addresses regional and global security issues. http://www.apcss.org/core/Conference/CR_ES/DefenseTrans.doc) “Defense transformation” does not adequately describe current efforts by Asia-Pacific nations to upgrade and change their militaries. If defense transformation entails a fundamental change in the concept, character, and

conduct of warfighting, then most Asia-Pacific nations are not so much engaged in transforming, as in modernizing, their armed forces. “Modernization-plus,” therefore, emerged out of the conference as a more apt descriptor of what is currently ongoing in most Asia-Pacific militaries (and even in most European
militaries). Many militaries in the region are in the process of buying many new types of military equipment, including precision-guided munitions, airborne early warning aircraft, submarines, air-to-air refueling aircraft, datalinks, and improved command and control systems. Therefore, they are certainly acquiring capabilities that they did not possess earlier, such as new capacities for force projection and standoff attack, low-observability, and greatly improved C4ISR. However, this

modernization effort is, in general, evolutionary, steady-state, and incremental, and it is therefore not so much a disruptive as it is a sustaining process of innovation. In particular, “modernization-plus” does not entail much in the way of change in these countries’ military doctrine, organizations, and institutions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

107 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Interoperability – NUQ
Aerial refueling interoperability low now Harbottle and Schmidt 1 (“Nato Air-To-Air Refueling” Flying Safety 2001. Wing Commander Fred Harbottle
is a Royal Air Force Officer, Major Peter Smidt is a Royal Netherlands Air Force Pilot, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_3_57/ai_74407412/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1) So, where do we go from here? There are those who believe that all of NATO should be using one refueling manual which details standard procedures, with each country having a national annex describing features unique to that country. The UK Air-to-Air Refueling National Instructions (AARNIs) contain details of UK air refueling areas, MDS-specific receiver techniques and planning factors for deployments. Any foreign crew conducting AR in UK airspace would be well advised to use ATP 56(A) procedures and to read the information in UK AARNIs. There would then be few surprises like the one described above. However, what chance is there for the USAF to convert to these procedures? At the moment, the best we can hope for is that all tanker crews become conversant with the contents of ATP
56(A) and then start to carefully consider its use within their own environment. We could then see meaningful amendments being suggested which may make the document more palatable for USAF users. As exchange officers operating with the USAF, we believe there is little which needs to be changed. However, the boom operators who see C-5-sized aircraft filling their boom windows daily, and who have experienced aircraft as slow as helicopters and as fast as SR-71s, need to be the ones to stamp their authority on the usability of this ATP. They then need to embrace and enhance the regulations contained within it so that all NATO members can feel comfortable with (truly) common NATO refueling procedures. If we fail to take this on board, we fear there will be many more

baskets replaced and probes removed as the USAF learns its lessons the hard way.

No fueling interoperability now NATO 6 (“Interoperability for joint operations” http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/interoperability.pdf)
The first STANAGs established common standards for English and French language proficency levels. English is the military lingua franca of NATO, and is one of the two offi cial languages of the Alliance, along with French. Being able to communicate in a common language is a prerequisite for interoperability. One key area where standardization efforts have been necessary is

refuelling. While that would appear to be a straightforward task, there are dozens of STANAGs covering various aspects, depending on the vehicle or aircraft involved and where it is being refuelled. Refuelling can be done on the ground, at sea or in the air (see box on latter). There are also different types of fuel. Fuel-related STANAGs therefore set standards for refuelling at airfi elds and ports, storage, different types of fuel and
lubricants, fi lters and fuel caps. Another standardization agreement, STANAG 4586, sets out the specifi cations of a common ground station for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) used by NATO forces. Implementation of the agreement will allow information between different national UAVs to be collated and shared via common ground stations, which in turn will mean that NATO and national commanders will have far greater control over the use of UAVs in military operations.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

108 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Readiness Adv – A2: Aircraft Carriers DA – No Link: JP5/JP-8 Fuels
Aircraft carriers use JP-5 fuels, not JP-8 fuels Lamprecht 7 (Delanie, 21(3), DOD, Energy & Fuels)
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) currently uses a single kerosene-type fuel for all of its gasturbine and (tactical) diesel engine applications. This single battlefield fuel must currently comply with "Jet Propulsion 8" (JP-8) MIL-DTL-83133 or JP-5 MIL-DTL-5624 fuel specifications. JP-8 is virtually identical to the commercial aviation turbine fuel, Jet A-1, as specified in the British Aviation Turbine Fuel Defense Standard 91-91, except for the requirement of additional additives, such as fuel-system-icing inhibitors. The exception to the use of JP-8 is the fuel for use on aircraft carriers, which require conformance to JP-5 specifications. JP-5 again is essentially the same as JP-8 but has a higher flash point than JP-8 to provide an additional degree of safety in handling fuels on aircraft carriers. Technological changes and advanced propulsion and power systems, such as hypersonic vehicles, that are introduced to the battle space make the single battlefield fuel philosophy of the DoD less viable to the use of crude-oil-derived kerosene-type fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

109 Green Military Aff

***Iran Adv***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

110 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [1/5]
Attack inevitable-In lieu of Iran’s involvement in Iraq the current administration and both candidates are up for it DREAZEN`8 (Yochi, Wallstreet Journal, June 24, 2008 Weapons, Money Are Still Being Sent To Militias in Iraq
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iraq/iran-continues-to-support-shiites-u.s.-report-says.html)

The report reserved its harshest words for Iran, accusing Tehran of breaking its promise to curtail the flow of Iranian armaments into Iraq. It said U.S. and Iraqi forces operating in Basra found large caches of Iranian-made weapons that had been manufactured earlier this year, after Iranian officials told their Iraqi counterparts that they would take measures to curb such shipments. The report also noted that the number of attacks featuring a particularly lethal form of roadside bomb that the U.S. has linked to Iran reached a high in April, while the number of attacks involving Iranian-supplied rockets rose sharply over the same period. Iran has been facilitating the "large-scale trafficking of arms, ammunition, and explosives," and helping to "fund, train, arm and guide numerous networks that conduct wide-scale insurgency operations," according to the report. Iran has denied knowingly funneling weapons into Iraq or training the country's Shiite militants. Its government derides the U.S. accusations as propaganda designed to cover American failings in Iraq and provide a pretext for a military strike on Iran. The Pentagon report is likely to fuel aggressive rhetoric about Iran from Democrats and Republicans. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have each described Iran as the pre-eminent threat to the U.S. and threatened to strike Iran if Tehran fails to abandon its nuclear efforts. Republican Sen. McCain has long been hawkish on Iran, while Democratic Sen. Obama has begun replacing his earlier talk of meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with muscular comments about doing "everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The Pentagon report also accused Syria of contributing to Iraq's instability. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in an interview last year that Syria was taking steps to prevent suicide bombers and other militants from crossing into Iraq. The new report, by contrast, said that Syria was a "safe haven and transit point for the vast majority of foreign terrorist networks now operating in Iraq."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

111 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [2/5]
We’re preparing to attack now Hersh`6(Seymour, The New Yorker, April 8, http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian

regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

Diplomacy is failing like Bush planned, strikes are on their way Symonds`8 (Peter, World Socialist Website, July 5, 2008, Bush reaffirms “all options on the table” over Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/iran-j05.shtml)

For all the denials on both sides, a top-level discussion is clearly underway in the US and Israel over the pros and cons of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In separate press conferences on Wednesday, US President George Bush and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, both reaffirmed that the use of military force against Iran, either directly by the US or following air strikes by Israel, remained an option. The comments come amid a continuing stream of barely concealed threats from Israeli politicians and officials that action will be taken to ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The Israeli air force carried out a provocative exercise last month in which 100 war planes, backed by refuelling aircraft and rescue helicopters, flew 1,500 kilometres over the Mediterranean Sea in what can only be interpreted as a practice run for striking Iranian nuclear facilities. In response, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, warned this week: “Any action against Iran will be interpreted as the start of a war.” In a newspaper comment last week, Jafari stated that if attacked, Iran would respond by hitting Israel with long-range missile and taking action to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s traded oil passes. The commander of the US naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, declared this week: “We will not allow Iran to close it.” When asked on Wednesday about the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Bush emphatically declared: “I have always said that all options are on the table.” He added that “the first option for the United States is to solve this problem diplomatically... That is why we’ve been pursuing multilateral diplomacy.” Asked if he had discouraged Israel from attacking Iran, the president said that he had made it “very clear to all parties that the first option” should be a diplomatic resolution. The president’s remarks have been interpreted as a “no” to Israel and a commitment to a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran—in the short-term at least. In the longer term, however, Bush has made clear that he is prepared to launch military strikes if Iran refuses to bow to US demands. As for diplomacy, the White House has repeatedly refused to hold direct talks with Tehran. The aim of Bush’s “diplomatic solution” has been to pressure and bully the major European and Asian powers into imposing punitive sanctions on Iran through the United Nations and unilaterally. Before any negotiations take place, Washington insists that Tehran shut down its major nuclear facilities—including its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz—which Iran has refused to do. Iran insists that its uranium enrichment program is to provide fuel for power reactors, as is its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Bush administration has failed to demonstrate that Iran has an active weapons program. In fact, last December, a National Intelligence Estimate produced by 16 American spy agencies concluded that Tehran had ended any weapons program in 2003. Despite the finding, Bush continues to claim that Iran is actively pursuing plans for nuclear weapons. The nuclear issue is simply one of the pretexts that the Bush administration has been preparing as a possible casus belli for attacking Iran. Washington also accuses Iran of arming and training anti-US insurgents attacking American troops in Iraq and of supporting “terrorist groups” such as the Lebanese-based Shiite party Hezbollah. The real reason for the continuing confrontation is that the US regards Iran as an obstacle to American ambitions to establish its strategic and economic dominance throughout the oil-rich Middle East.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

112 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [3/5]
Iran strikes inevitable Pena`6 (Charles, Senior Fellow at the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and at the George Washington University
Homeland Security Initiative, “Collision Course With Iran”, http://antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=8973)

The most candid comments about the Ahmadinejad letter have so far been by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to Rice, "This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort" and that it "isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way." But more to the point: "There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter." Which means the United States and Iran remain on a collision course for eventual U.S. military action because both parties have mutually exclusive objectives. Although Iran's nuclear program is the public reason for U.S. concerns, the new National Security Strategy issued on March 16, 2006, reveals the real U.S. motives: "As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy." In other words, it's not just about nuclear weapons – so Iran giving up its nuclear aspirations would only be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Rather, it's about regime change – which is exactly what the Iranians are trying to prevent by seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. So the Iranians have no incentive to give up their quest for nuclear weapons since doing so will not result in a guarantee that the regime will remain in power. Thus, although President Bush has repeatedly claimed that he wants to resolve the dispute with Iran diplomatically, the reality is that there is no diplomatic solution to be had.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

113 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [4/5]
The elections and terrorist label on the IRGC makes strikes inevitable Afrasiabi`7 (Kaveh L, Global Research.org “US steps closer to War with Iran”, August 22, 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6595)

The Bush administration has leaped toward war with Iran by, in essence, declaring war with the main branch of Iran's military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which it plans to brand as a terrorist organization. A logical evolution of US President George W Bush's ill-defined, boundless "war on terror", the White House's move is dangerous to the core, opening the way for open confrontation with Iran. This may begin in Iraq, where the IRGC is reportedly most active and, ironically, where the US and Iran have their largest common denominators. A New York Times editorial has dismissed this move as "amateurish" and a mere "theatric" on the part of the lame-duck president, while at the same time admitting that it represents a concession to "conflict-obsessed administration hawks who are lobbying for military strikes". The political analysts who argue that the main impact of this initiative is "political" are plain wrong. It is a giant step toward war with Iran, irrespective of how well, or poorly, it is thought of, particularly in terms of its immediate and long-term implications, let alone the timing of it. Coinciding with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's highly publicized trip to Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, the news received front-page coverage in the New York Times, next to a photograph of Ahmadinejad and his Afghan host, President Hamid Karzai, as if intended to spoil Ahmadinejad's moment by denigrating the Iranian regime. Just two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice implicitly put Iran on a par with the Soviet Union by invoking comparisons to the Cold War, and in essence compared it to al-Qaeda. Thus if an unintended side-effect of the Cold War terminology was to enhance Iran's global image, the "terrorist" label for the IRGC aims to deliver a psychological blow to Iran by de-legitimizing the country. Also, it serves the United States' purpose at the United Nations Security Council, where a Britishprepared draft of a new round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program has been floating around for a while and will likely be acted on this autumn. The draft calls for tightening the screws on Iran by broadening the list of blacklisted Iranian companies and even may lead to the interdiction of Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. This is indeed a dangerous move that could easily trigger open confrontation. With the window of opportunity for Bush to use the "military option" closing because of the US presidential elections next year, the administration's hawks - "it is now or never" - have received a huge boost by the move to label the IRGC as terrorists. It paves the way for potential US strikes at the IRGC's installations inside Iran, perhaps as a prelude to broader attacks on the country's nuclear facilities. At least that is how it is being interpreted in Iran, whose national-security concerns have skyrocketed as a result of the labeling. "The US double-speak with Iran, talking security cooperation on the one hand and on the other ratcheting up the war rhetoric, does not make sense and gives the impression that the supporters of dialogue have lost in Washington," a prominent Tehran University political scientist who wished to remain anonymous told the author. The US has "unfettered" itself for a strike on Iran by targeting the IRGC, and that translates into heightened security concerns. "The United States never branded the KGB [Russian secret service] or the Soviet army as
terrorist, and that shows the limits of the Cold War comparison," the Tehran political scientist said. His only optimism: there are "two US governments" speaking with divergent voices, ie, "deterrence diplomacy and preemptive action", and "that usually, historically speaking, spells policy paralysis". However, no one in Iran can possibly place too much faith on that kind of optimism. Rather, the net effect

of this labeling, following the recent "shoot to kill" order of Bush with regard to Iranian operatives in Iraq accused of aiding the anti-occupation insurgents, is to elevate fears of a US "preemptory" strike on Iran. Particularly concerned are many top government officials, lawmakers and present or former civil and military functionaries who are or were at some point affiliated with the IRGC. There is also a legal implication. Under international law, the United States' move could be challenged as illegal, and untenable, by isolating a branch of the Iranian government for selective targeting. This is contrary to the 1981 Algiers Accord's pledge of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US government. [1] Should the terror label on the IRGC be in place soon, US customs and homeland-security officials could, theoretically, arrest members of Ahmadinejad's delegation due to travel to the UN headquarters in New York next month because of suspected ties to the IRGC. Even Ahmadinejad, with his past as a commander of the Basij Corps, a paramilitary arm of the IRGC, risks arrest. The US has opened a Pandora's box with a hasty decision that may have unintended consequences far beyond its planned coercive diplomacy toward Iran. The first casualty
could be the US-Iran dialogue on Iraq's security, although this would simultaneously appease Israeli hawks who dread dialogue and any hints of Cold War-style detente between Tehran and Washington. It would also become more difficult for Syria to collaborate with Iran with respect to Lebanon's Hezbollah, who owe much to the IRGC since their inception in the early 1980s. The consensus in Iran is that chaos in Iraq is in Israel's interests, but not that of the US, and that the United States' Middle East policy is being held hostage by pro-

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

114 Green Military Aff

Israel lobbyists who have painted an enemy image of the dreaded IRGC that is neither accurate nor in tune with the history of US-IRGC interaction.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

115 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming [5/5]
Strikes inevitable-The terrorist label will eventually spin out of control Afrasiabi`7 (Kaveh L, Global Research.org “US steps closer to War with Iran”, August 22, 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6595)

Coming 'war of attrition'? The idea of an all-out military confrontation between the US and Iran, triggered by a US attack on the IRGC, has its watered-down version in a "war of attrition" whereby instead of inter-state warfare, we would witness medium-to-low-intensity clashes. The question, then, is whether or not the US superpower, addicted to its military doctrine of "superior and overwhelming response", will tolerate occasional bruises at the hands of the Iranians. The answer is highly unlikely given the myriad prestige issues involved and, in turn, this raises the advisability of the labeling initiative with such huge implications nested in it. No matter, the stage is now set for direct physical clashes between Iran and the US, which has blamed the death of hundreds of its soldiers on Iranianmade roadside bombs. One plausible scenario is the United States' "hot pursuit" of the IRGC inside Iranian territory, initially through "hit and run" commando operations, soliciting an Iranian response, direct or indirect, potentially spiraling out of control. The hallucination of a protracted "small warfare with Iran" that would somehow insulate both sides from an unwanted big "clash of titans" is just that, a fantasy born and bred in the minds of war-obsessed hawks in Washington and Israel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

116 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel [1/2]
Israel can and will attack Symonds`8 (Peter, World Socialist Website, July 5, 2008, Bush reaffirms “all options on the table” over Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/iran-j05.shtml)

A Financial Times article entitled “Fear over Israel’s threat to strike Iran” on Wednesday cited one Israel official as saying: “If you want to do it [attack Iran] you don’t talk about it.” Then he added rather ominously that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had “adamantly requested that we all shut up”. On Thursday, senior military figures scotched widespread suggestions that Israel did not have the capacity to carry out a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Isaac Ben-Israel, a retired Israeli air force major general and current member of parliament for the ruling Kadima party, told the Financial Times that an air strike “is not a technical problem”. Retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom, a former director of strategic planning, said: “I often read that Israel is not capable of doing it because the number of targets is very large. That is a mistake... You just have to find the critical notes of this [Iranian nuclear] system and hit them.”

Israel will attack Iran-They’re practicing now Nahmias`8 (Roee, Ynet.com Middle Eastern News Agency Website, IDF: Air Force jets aren't training in Iraq, July 11, 2008,
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3566925,00.html)

According to the reports, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network Friday that Israeli fighter jets have been flying over Iraqi territory for over a month in preparation for potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding that the aircraft have been landing in American bases following the overflights. Word of Israel's alleged Air Force maneuvers in Iraq has reached Iran. The sources said the US has boosted security in and around the bases used by Israel during the exercises. According to the Defense Ministry officials, retired Iraqi army officers in the Al Anbar district reported that fighter jets have been regularly entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan and landing at the airport near Haditha. The sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases it would take them no more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr. American officials said recently that more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israeli attack is highly probable Smith`8 (W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Posted: 07/09/2008, Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine riflesquad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon, Will Israel Strike Iran, July 9, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27392&s=rcmc)

Melman’s words seem enough to convince the editorial staffs of publications like the Post and the Nation. But sources inside the U.S. intelligence and Defense communities are telling us, there is an increasing “probability” that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will soon strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The strikes -- if they take place -- will be far more extensive than that which occurred during the strike against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. The new strikes will target much more than just the nuclear sites. The extent to which America will or will not provide support will depend on multiple variables. And the strikes will not be over in a single night. “To hit the number of targets the Israelis need to hit with their force structure would require several days,” Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (U.S. Air Force, ret.), former assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force, tells HUMAN EVENTS. “If they did it in a night -- with, say, 100 airplanes -- they’d probably inflict significant damage to Bushehr and other facilities, but it would be more difficult to hit the deep bunkers at Natanz.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

117 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel [2/2]
The Israelis will attack before the end of 08 Smith`8 (W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Posted: 07/09/2008, Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine riflesquad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon, Will Israel Strike Iran, July 9, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27392&s=rcmc)

The same week Ahmadinejad made his comments to Fukuda, the IAF conducted a massive military airexercise over the Mediterranean, flying and refueling over a distance roughly equal to that which would be required in a strike against Iran. Israel isn’t just saber-rattling. “The only one thing worse than Israel’s having to launch an attack against Tehran's nuclear facilities is an Iranian nuclear bomb,” Brig. Gen. Dieter Farwick (German Army, ret.), the former director of Germany's military intelligence office and the current editor-in-chief of World Security Network, tells HUMAN EVENTS. “An Iranian nuclear bomb would trigger a nuclear arms race in the broader Middle East. Still any attack against Iran should remain a last resort; and timely, limited negotiations should be given a last chance." Closed-door negotiations are continuing. But so is Iran’s nuclear program, its president’s threats, and an uncertain American political landscape: Which is why -- in Israel’s mind -- chances, opportunities, and certainly time may be running out. The big question remains: if Israel with it’s current force structure attacks Iran with only a nod -- and very little direct support -- from the U.S., can the Jewish state pull it off successfully. “Yes, but the timing of this thing is important,” says Vallely. “The Israelis know that politically they have to do it this year, because they and we don’t know who is going to be the U.S. president next year. They also know this thing has to be done as a regime change. If they want this to be successful -- and they do -- they can’t just go in and only take out the nuke sites.”

Israel will attack before the inauguration of the next president Smith`8 (W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Posted: 07/09/2008, Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine riflesquad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon, Will Israel Strike Iran, July 9, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27392&s=rcmc)

Some experts contend such a strike “must be” before the U.S. presidential elections because the Israelis know that any operation prior to the elections would give plausible deniability to either one of the American presidential candidates. After the election, it would be difficult for the president-elect to deny knowing because of the access and leverage held by a president-elect. Others say it may be after the election, but before the inauguration because if Barack Obama is elected the Israelis fear he would not support any form of military action against Iran, whereas the Israelis are confident in both John McCain’s support of Israel and in his willingness to use military force -- either directly or indirectly -- in support of Israel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

118 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – Israel – Draws In U.S.
Israeli strike will draw in the U.S. through Iranian retaliation Smith`8 (W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Posted: 07/09/2008, Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine riflesquad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon, Will Israel Strike Iran, July 9, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27392&s=rcmc) It’s not just the nuclear sites,” Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (U.S. Army, ret.), former deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Pacific, tells HUMAN EVENTS. “It’s regime target sites.” According to Vallely, the approximately 75 regime targets on the tier-one targeting list -- updated daily -- includes Iran’s command-and-control, the country’s air defense network, the various Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps units and positions, as well as the nuclear sites. There are many targets beyond those on the tier-one list. Without getting into specifics, the current plan calls for a

“takedown” that may be supported by U.S. air and naval forces in the both the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighters and refueling tankers will be running back-and-forth through U.S. Central Command–controlled air corridors. Mossad agents and Iranian (anti-government) operatives will help coordinate the strikes from the ground. Meanwhile, home-based Israeli ground forces (with helicopter support) will reinforce defenses in northern Israel and on the Golan Heights; prepared for the possibility of defensive cross-border operations against Hizballah in southern Lebanon and perhaps operations inside Syria along geographic points where -- in recent weeks -- two Syrian mechanized-infantry divisions have been reinforced. Other Israeli ground and air assets will reinforce Gaza positions. If the Iranians -- in retaliation for strikes against their facilities -- make a move against American forces in the region, or if they try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (the strategically vital waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman) as they have threatened to do, U.S. forces will “unleash hell and more than complement what the Israelis are doing,” says Vallely. McInerney says, “The Iranians may try to shut down the Strait, but they are deathly afraid that we’ll get involved.” An intelligence source says, “Iran’s provoking the Americans into the game is exactly what Israel wants, because overwhelming U.S. airpower would be able to finish the job in very short order.” McInerney agrees, adding, “That’s why I believe if the targets are going to be hit, we need to be the ones to do it.”

An Israeli strike would draw in the U.S. Whalen`6 (Charles Whalen 2/12/2006 (Oil Analyst) “The Iran crisis & global peak oil”,
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=75&blogid=189&archive=0)

I wish it were simply as easy as just saying that "hopefully cooler and saner heads will prevail in Washington and Tehran & Qom", for were it only dependent on such, then I think there
might be a decent chance that all of this could be defused and Armageddon avoided, that both sides could slowly back away from the edge of the precipice, from which we are presently staring into the abyss. But of course it is not just dependent on Washington and Tehran & Qom because other parties

are involved and have just as large stakes in all of this, namely the Israelis, who perceive this as an existential life-and-death crisis for them (and I wouldn't disagree with that
perception given the repeated statements of Ahmedinajad over the last several months about wiping Israel off the map, and this from a country that is proudly boasting of its ambition and its right to develop nuclear weapons). My big fear is that the Israelis

-- with their own exigencies, imperatives, and agendas (being very different from ours), including even the relatively moderate Ehud Olmert and his Kadima party, who are likely to win the upcoming March election -- will see

that cooler and saner heads are indeed prevailing in Washington and starting to defuse the crisis, upon which they (the Israelis) will feel compelled to force the issue to a head and force it upon us whether we want it or not by precipitating a full-blown military crisis by launching preemptive air strikes of their own on at least some of Iran's nuclear facilities, whereupon with the resulting mayhem and devastation that will ensue (including Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese-Hezbollah missile strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa), it will be left to the US military to finish the job with massive aerial bombing and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear and military facilities. So I'm afraid that Israel is going to preemptively force our hand in this matter and force us into a war with Iran whether we want it or not.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

119 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – CIA/Covert Ops [1/3]
The CIA’s operations in Iran have been substantially increased AFP`8 (Agence France Passe, International News Service, US gives 'major' boost to covert ops in Iran: report, June 29, 2008,
Lexis)

The US Congress last year approved President George W. Bush's funding request of 400 million dollars for a dramatic increase in covert operations against Iran to undermine Tehran's leadership, a US magazine reported Sunday. The move reveals a "major escalation" in clandestine operations aimed at destabilizing the Islamic republic's religious leadership amid concerns over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, said the report in The New Yorker magazine citing former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. Among the methods being used are increased US support for minority and dissident groups and intelligence gathering about Iran's nuclear facilities, said the article, written and reported by Seymour Hersh. Although such covert activities in Iran are not new on the part of the United States, the magazine said the "scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded." However, US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on Sunday flatly refuted the allegation in The New Yorker that Washington is conducting cross-border operations from Iraq into Iran. "I can tell you flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran," he told CNN television. Congress approved Bush's request for funding late last year, according to sources with knowledge of the top secret Presidential Finding, which by law must be issued when covert intelligence operations get underway. The Presidential Finding is conveyed to a select group of Congressional leaders and their intelligence committees, otherwise known as the Gang of Eight, the report said. "The finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money," the report said, quoting an unnamed "person familiar with its contents." The report said some lawmakers were skeptical of the administration's aims, and there was "a significant amount of high-level discussion" about the Finding before the funding was eventually approved. The Bush administration's request for funding came around the same time as the December 2007 release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which said the Iran halted nuclear weapons work in 2003. The NIE was downplayed by Bush and other officials who called for urgent action to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. Washington suspects Iran is secretly working to build an atomic weapons arsenal. Iran insists its nuclear activities are for civilian energy purposes.

The CIA is working in Iran now Symonds`7 (Peter, World Socialist Website, Bush authorises covert CIA operations to destabilise Iran, May 25, 2007,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iran-m25.shtml)

An ABC News report on Tuesday provided further evidence that the Bush administration is actively engaged in a covert campaign of destabilisation aimed at “regime change” in Iran. According to the American television network, Bush signed a formal “non-lethal presidential finding” earlier this year authorising “a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions”. Based on information from unnamed former and current CIA officials, ABC News reported that Bush approved the plan “about the time that [Admiral William] Fallon took over [as head of the Pentagon’s Central Command]”—that is, about mid-March. It also stated that National Security Adviser Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams both gave the green light for the operation. The timing of the plan coincides with a steady stream of articles, prominently placed in the media, highlighting Tehran’s crackdown on women’s dress, arrest of dissidents, alleged nuclear weapons programs and support for anti-occupation militia operating inside neighbouring Iraq. While it is impossible to know how many of these reports are direct CIA “plants,” they point to a concerted campaign of propaganda and disinformation. Whatever the impact inside Iran, such stories serve to poison public opinion in the US and internationally in preparation for a possible military strike.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

120 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – CIA/Covert Ops [2/3]
The CIA is in Iran, backing opposition group Ritter`5 (Scott, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of
America's Intelligence Conspiracy, Common Dreams.org Published on Monday, June 20, 2005 by AlJazeera The US War with Iran has Already Begun http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm)

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran. The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations. It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror. But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

The CIA and other OPS groups are in Iran now, stirring up trouble Symonds`7 (Peter, World Socialist Website, Bush authorises covert CIA operations to destabilise Iran, May 25, 2007,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iran-m25.shtml)

It would also be wrong to conclude that covert operations are confined to the CIA. According to a number of media reports, including detailed articles from veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the Pentagon and other US agencies have been actively targetting Iran since at least 2004. Unlike the CIA, which—formally at least—requires a presidential finding to mount “black” operations, the US military has, under Bush, increasingly engaged in its own covert activities, including the dispatch of special forces units inside Iran, without any congressional oversight. There is nothing particularly secret about the Bush administration’s campaign for “regime change”. Last year Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought and received $75 million for anti-Iranian propaganda broadcasts and to fund opposition groups inside and outside Iran. In 2005, the figure was just $10 million. Rice also established an Iranian Affairs office last year, initially headed by Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president’s daughter, to coordinate policy and provide “pro-democracy funding” for opponents of the regime. The Boston Globe reported in January that a team of top officials from the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, Treasury and National Security Council, known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG), had been working for some time to strengthen military alliances against Iran, finance Iranian dissidents and undermine the country economically.

Military operative groups are in Iran now Symonds`7 (Peter, World Socialist Website, Bush authorises covert CIA operations to destabilise Iran, May 25, 2007,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iran-m25.shtml)

While the approved CIA activities may at present be “non-lethal,” the same cannot be said of all US activities inside Iran. In his article last November entitled “The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?”, Hersh provided evidence that the Pentagon was covertly supporting minority Kurdish, Azeri and Baluchi tribal groups as a means of undermining Tehran’s authority in northern and southeastern Iran. In particular, the US military was collaborating with Israel in backing a Kurdish armed group—the Party for Free Life—based in northern Iraq to foment opposition inside the Kurdish regions of Iran and to spy on “targets inside Iran of interest to the US”. A series of ABC News reports last month stated that the US was actively backing Jundullah, an armed Baluchi group based in Pakistan, to carry out cross-border attacks inside Iran. It reported on April 3 that the militia had been “secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005”. The group was responsible for the bomb blasts in the southeastern city of Zahedran in February that killed 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

121 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Coming – CIA/Covert Ops [3/3]
The internal operations will lead to escalation and war by strengthening the regime Symonds`7 (Peter, World Socialist Website, Bush authorises covert CIA operations to destabilise Iran, May 25, 2007,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iran-m25.shtml)

Commenting to ABC News about Bush’s secret presidential finding, Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, warned: “I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran. And this covert action is now being escalated by the new US directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow.” A senior US State Department official admitted to the Washington Post that the US was funding oppositionists, albeit indirectly. “We saw early on the problem we would pose if we tried to support them directly. We didn’t want to get them into hot water. That’s why we’re doing it through third countries,” he said. Already the Iranian government has seized on the US campaign to justify its own political witch-hunt, including the roundup of political opponents as “spies” and “US agents”. US-based Human Rights Watch analyst Hadi Ghaemi told the Washington Post last month: “Dozens of Iranian activists are paying the price since the announcement of the $75 million and practically everyone who has been detained over the past year has been interrogated about receiving this money. They [the authorities] are obsessed with the perception that the US is fuelling a velvet revolution through this money.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

122 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Prolif
NUCLEAR IRAN CAUSE MIDDLE EAST ARMS RACE Hanson`5 (Victor, Davis. Senior Fellow Hoover Institute. Stanford) Chicago Tribune, “Who in their right mind would play
nuclear poker with Iran?”, Feb. 11)

A nuclear Iran would ignite a new arms race in the Middle East. The nuclear guild started
amid the ashes of World War II, when the Soviet camp and the West first squared off. Since then new members like India, China and Pakistan expanded the dangers of Armageddon, but at least created a sort of regional deterrence against one another. India was checked by Pakistan and vice versa. China angulated with the Soviets, India and America. All four at times were not necessarily friendlier to any one of the quartet than another, but they matured and showed restraint in their escalating rivalries. But if Iran has nuclear weapons--the first Middle Eastern and Islamic dictatorship to obtain them--then a Saudi Arabia,

Egypt or Syria might rush in to obtain nuclear capability and thus restore a regional balance of power. Arab pride will not tolerate an exclusive Persian bomb, despite all Teheran's rhetoric about a shared anti-Israeli mother of all Islamic weapons. Thus the Middle East will inevitably witness the instability of mutual escalation not unlike the arms race during the early Cold War. IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT WILL LEAR TO MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION Goodby & Weisbrode`3 (James, former U.S. ambassador, currently affiliated with the Brookings Institution , Kenneth,
councilor of the Atlantic Council of the United States) “A nuclear arms race”, The Washington Times, October 20

If Iran joins Israel as a de facto nuclear weapon state, with three other nuclear weapon states — Russia, India and Pakistan — nearby, it is very unlikely that other nations in the vicinity will be able to resist launching or accelerating their own nuclear weapon programs. It is not at all inconceivable that a Middle East with four, five, or six nuclear weapon states — including Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — will be the reality of the early decades of the 21st century. Nobody should want that outcome — least of all those who put their trust in a resurrection of the Cold War model of stability. The U.S.Soviet nuclear standoff was stabilized by very different conditions. The United States and the Soviet Union had no territorial demands against each other and their military forces never engaged in large-scale direct combat with each other. That is not the case in the Middle East. Far from it.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

123 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Miscalc NW
Without strikes Iranian prolif leads to Israeli paranoia, then miscalculated or intentional war Schoenfeld`98 (Gabriel SCHOENFELD 1998 (senior editor) “Thinking About the Unthinkable in the Middle East,”
Commentary)

If preemption is largely ruled out as an option, what then? To reduce its vulnerability--enemy missiles can arrive within ten minutes from firing--Israel may well be compelled to adopt a "launch-on-warning" posture for both its conventional and nuclear forces. For
the purpose of considering this eventuality, we may assume that Israel has indeed developed a secure retaliatory force of the kind Tucker saw as essential to stability. Even so, however, this would not offer much reassurance. Unlike its neighbors, and unlike the U.S., Israel is a tiny country, and in a nuclear

environment it would not have the luxury of waiting to assess the damage from a first strike before deciding how to respond. Thus, in any future crisis, at the first hint from satellite intelligence or some other means that a missile fusillade was being prepared from, say, Iran or Iraq, Israel, to protect its populace, would have to punch first. And it would have to strike not only at missile sites, some of which it might well miss, but at a broader range of targets--communications facilities, air bases, storage bunkers, and all other critical nodes--so as to paralyze the enemy and thus rule out the possibility of attack. These are the implications of launch-on-warning. Clearly, such a posture presents grave problems. Lacking secure second-strike forces of their own, and aware that Israel would no doubt try to hit them preemptively, Iran and Iraq would be under tremendous pressure to launch their missiles first--to "use them or lose them." In other words, what this scenario leads to is the prospect of both sides' moving to a permanent position of hairtrigger alert. It is a nightmarish prospect. The possibility that nuclear war might break out at any moment--by accident, miscalculation, or design--would inevitably place an
intolerable strain on Israel's freedom of military movement, and take a no less heavy toll on civilian morale.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

124 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – Terrorism
Forgoing strikes puts nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist Krauthammer`4 (Charles-Phd. Oxford, McGill, Harvard. Pulitzer Prize.) New York Daily News, July 23) There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities. The country should be ripe for revolution. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either
revolution or preemptive strike. Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away - in Iraq.

Nuclear Armed Iran Would Provide Weapons Of Mass Destruction To Terrorists Hanson`5 (Victor, Davis. Senior Fellow Hoover Institute. Stanford) Feb. 11 2005
Chicago Tribune. “Who in their right mind would play nuclear poker with Iran?)”

A nuclear Iran of any sort is a problem. Yet, a nuclear theocratic Iran is a disaster since its zealous mullahs are unaccountable to either an electorate or censorious press. They are fueled by religious extremism and publicly have praised nuclear martyrdom. One or two such extremists in their dotage could well decide that an entire state should play the role of the lone suicide bomber so frequently canonized in that part of the world. Fourth, Iran is even more likely than a volatile Pakistan to arm terrorists. A nuclear Iran might prove tantamount to an atomic Hezbollah or Al Qaeda--nihilists whose current problem is not their intent, but only their capability, to annihilate.

IRAN WILL GIVE TERRORIST NUKES Clawson`4(PATRICK, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of Middle East
Quarterly) “CHECKING IRAN’S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS” January)

Iran is the poster-child for the nexus of terrorism and WMD. It is the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism, as well as one of the countries most actively pursuing nuclear
weapons. Washington is vigilant about Iran’s support for a network of Islamist terrorist organizations and persistent in pressing Iran to end its financial, political, material, and operational support to them. At the same time, the United States has to come up with effective strategies to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. Were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, there is a grave risk it would be tempted to provide them to terrorists. After all, mass casualty terrorism done by proxies has worked well for Iran to date. Iranian assistance to the terrorists who blew up the U.S. and French barracks in Beirut in 1983 was a grand strategic success, forcing the United States, and for a while France, out of Lebanon while not bringing any retaliation down on Iran. Similarly, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia caused the Saudis to make a strategic reconciliation, and, once again, Iran faced no retaliation.

Iran not only could, but would have incentive to provide terrorist with nuclear weapons Gwynn`5 (Richard, Journalist, Guelph Mercury,) February 11 2005. Lexis.)
The potential nuclear threat that Iran poses is real, and it is exceedingly frightening. The true source of the threat isn't Iran itself, though. It's Al Qaeda-type terrorists. Once it has acquired the bomb, the Iran government would be tempted to pass it to terrorists. It is a supporter of terrorist organizations, such as Hizbollah, (as Iraq when led by Saddam Hussein never was). As well, Iran is the only state in the Middle East to officially refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. Terrorists would have no fears about using a bomb since they themselves are invisible, and, anyway would be delighted to become martyrs. Any military retaliation against Iran becomes incomparably more difficult diplomatically when Iran's involvement can only be suspected rather than proven for certain by the flight track of its missile. The U.S. and Israel thus are quite justified in being exceedingly alarmed. In turn, their aggressive response is wholly justified.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

125 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Too Many Places
We only need to hit two sites Brown`6(Drew Brown 1/26/2006 “No easy military option to stop Iran, experts say”, Knight Ridder Newspapers,
http://www.nineronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/26/43d8fa1950455)

Many analysts say that in that case, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be relatively easy to carry out. With U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with war planes and ships scattered throughout the Persian Gulf, U.S. forces essentially have Iran hemmed in on three sides.

U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft with precision-guided bombs likely would overwhelm Iran's air defenses. The key questions, however, are whether such an attack would be
very effective and how Iran and the rest of the world would respond. Some experts say an attack would delay, not destroy, the Iranian program and would only reinforce Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran, taking lessons from the Israeli air attack that destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981, has dispersed its atomic research and development facilities in dozens, if not hundreds, of locations above and below ground. Regardless of the total number of Iran's nuclear facilities, Isfahan and Natanz

are the most important because they constitute the "two weak links" in Iran's program, Cliff Kupchan, an Iran expert and former State Department official in the Clinton administration
said. Isfahan, a facility that converts uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride gas, could be bombed easily, said Kupchan, now at the New York-based Eurasia Group, a political risk advisory and consulting firm. The other, Natanz, is a research facility where experts are trying to master the technique of converting uranium hexafluoride gas into enriched uranium. Low levels of enriched uranium are used for civilian nuclear plants, and more highly enriched fuel is used in nuclear weapons. International inspectors found the facility after they were tipped off by an Iranian dissident group in 2002. Iran recently resumed research at Natanz and said it was for peaceful purposes, but analysts have expressed doubt because of Natanz's size and the fact that part of it has been constructed underground. During a 2003 visit, Iran advised International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei that it had almost completed construction of a pilot uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, according to a report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. The test plant will consist of 164 centrifuges, machines that spin uranium hexafluoride gas at high speeds, but it isn't fully operational, according to a January report by the Institute for Science and International Security. The group said Iran would need six months to a year to complete the process needed for enrichment. Of greater concern at Natanz are underground chambers that are expected to house an estimated 50,000 gas centrifuges, enough to produce weapons-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons per year, according to experts. While it's unclear what other capacities exist at the site, "what is obvious is that the pilot facility is above ground and would be easy to take out," Kupchan said. Bombing the facilities at the two locations "would set the Iranians back by two to three years," he said. "It wouldn't be that hard to do," said Kupchan. "You'd be picking a helluva fight, though. Iran is a sophisticated country with a very sophisticated leadership. It has a range of retaliatory options that are extremely unpleasant."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

126 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: “Don’t know where they are”
Satellites solve American Thinker`6 (The American Thinker, informational magazine 2/1/2006 “Iran – to bomb or not to bomb?”,
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5210)

In contrast to the facilities required to produce biological and chemical weapons, nuclear fuel cycle and reprocessing plants are not easily hidden nor built surreptitiously during the dark hours of the diurnal cycle. Detection by satellite of such projects is a near certainty. These facilities are large, expensive and, if hidden, still visible
during the construction cycle. You can’t have a major construction site without roads, excavation debris, and a whole lot of activity. To have the building of a nuclear materials processing facility remain undetected would demand a very slow “ship in a bottle” approach to both the excavation and plant construction. Possible, but hardly likely. Also, buried facilities are not necessarily undetectable. The U.S.

has long had the capability to map subsurface geological features using ground penetrating radar. Similar technology will be used to map planetary subsurface features from the Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter. These underground “maps” were used to program guidance and flight path information into cruise missiles before the advent of the GPS system. Unlike surface soil and sand, the subsurface features are stable and unlikely to be affected by natural forces or human activity. This mode of guidance may still be a backup to GPS and/or inertial systems. We may have the whole country of

Iran subterraneanly scouted. A nuclear plant buried under the sand would probably already be on the charts. If a plant is buried in a mountain, well, I don’t believe we have any sensors up to that task. But the Iranians still had to build it. And that would have been extremely expensive and time consuming with the construction cycle still subject to detection. We probably know where the entrances are located. The Iranians and their foreign enablers still have to get themselves and materials in and the product out. Even if one cannot destroy a facility, denying access can be just as effective and may be easier. We can certainly obliterate any surface facilities. We’ve shown ourselves to be quite adept at that task while
minimizing, though not eliminating, collateral damage. The deeply buried bits? Well, supposedly we’ve cancelled the development our mini-nuke, super-bunker-buster bomb program. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have any.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

127 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Fundamentalism
The risk of a nuclear Iran outweighs Kittrie`4(Orde, International Releations Specialist,The Arizona Republic, December 5 2004) Several factors, including Iran’s history of threats and attacks against the United States, provide strong support for the legality under international law of a preemptive strike focused on neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program. The risk of such an attack inciting the “Arab street” or insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would be well worth taking — for an Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat and insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are not.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

128 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: = Radiation
We can strike without releasing radiation EISENSTADT`4 (MICHAEL , senior fellow at The Washington Institute) “CHECKING IRAN’S NUCLEAR
AMBITIONS” January

While it would be preferable to target these prior to start-up to avoid exposing civilians downwind to fallout, there may be ways to disrupt operations or destroy the reactors after start-up without releasing radioactive material into the environment and creating a downwind hazard.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

129 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: U.S.-EU Relations
The EU is cool with strikes Engdahl`6 (F William author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) “A high-risk
game of nuclear chicken”, 31 January, http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/a-high%11risk-game-of-nuclear-chicken200601313615/

That statement led to a sharp acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts, led by Britain, Germany and France, the so-called EU-3, to avoid a war. The three told Washington they were opposed to a military solution. Since then we are told by German magazine Der Spiegel and others the EU view has

changed, to appear to come closer to the position of the Bush administration.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

130 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Deterrence Solves
Conventional Nuclear Arms Theory Does Not Apply To Iran Hanson`5 (Victor, Davis. Senior Fellow Hoover Institute. Stanford) Feb. 11, Chicago Tribune. “Who in their right mind
would play nuclear poker with Iran?”)

Autocracy and weapons of mass destruction are a lethal mix. Many Arab nations point to Israel and allege Western hypocrisy, since it is small and alone in the Middle East with nuclear capability. Well, aside from its unique creation from the ashes of the Holocaust and the proven record of its neighbors' efforts to destroy the Jewish people, Israel--unlike North Korea and Iran --is also singularly democratic in the region. Because consensual governments, as a rule, are hardly likely to attack like kind, their possession of terrifying weapons tends to prove less of a threat to global peace. The old Soviet Union was more dangerous than is contemporary Russia, despite a mostly intact nuclear arsenal. China's liberalization raises the hope that its nukes are less prone to be dropped today than during Mao's Great Leap Forward. A nuclear Iran of any sort is a problem. Yet, a nuclear theocratic Iran is a disaster since its zealous mullahs are unaccountable to either an electorate or censorious press. They are fueled by religious extremism and publicly have praised nuclear martyrdom. One or two such extremists in their dotage could well decide that an entire state should play the role of the lone suicide bomber so frequently canonized in that part of the world.

Deterrence Cannot Solve Iran Kittrie`4 (Orde, The Arizona Republic.December 5 2004)
Deterrence – which is predicated on the other side’s unwillingness to sustain heavy casualties – worked during the Cold War because the United States and Soviet Union both had a sense of self-preservation that caused them to fear mutual assured destruction. This is not true of Iran’s leadership, whose beliefs embrace death and martyrdom. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, this same Iranian regime sent thousands of its own schoolchildren — each armed only with a small plastic “key to heaven” — to their deaths in human waves across minefields to clear a path for its adult troops. These schoolchildren were members of the Basij militia, known for its religious zealotry and direct allegiance to the supreme Ayatollah. Three weeks ago, at a peak of U.S. and European pressure on Iran to modify its nuclear program, Iran’s leadership gathered tens of thousands of young Basij militia members together south of Teheran to chant “No to Compromise,” “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” The spirit of the human wave attacks is still strong.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

131 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: UN Solves [1/2]
RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE BLOCKING ANY UN ACTION ON IRAN Chicago tribune`6 (“Diplomats at odds over Iran nuclear issue”, March 21, 2006 ln) Britain has suggested imposing UN sanctions on Iran unless it allays suspicions about its nuclear program, but Russia and China remained at odds with Europe and the U.S. on Monday night on the best way to confront Tehran. Senior diplomats from six nations convened for a 4 1/2hour meeting at UN headquarters in New York to discuss how to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, the radioactive material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon. But they still could not overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to tough UN Security Council action. RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL BLOCK UN ACTION TO PRESERVE ECONOMIC TIES WITH IRAN Magnier`6 (Mark, Times Staff Writer, “Economic Ties to Top Agenda at Hu-Putin Talks” LA Times, March 21, 2006 ln) On political issues, the two leaders should find little to argue about. Putin and Hu are expected to confer on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs, on which their positions are relatively similar. Both nations have historical ties to North Korea and sizable economic interests in Iran, leading them to favor a diplomatic solution over United Nations sanctions or possible military options. UN WILL NOT SANCTION IRAN- RUSSIA IS BLOCKING ANY UN ACTION AVNI`6 (Benny, “As U.N. Talks Stall, Iran Advances Nuclear Program”, March 21, 2006 The New York Sun ln) Reports on a new round of diplomacy stemming from a British initiative for negotiations with Tehran were denied yesterday. And far from advancing the unity among members of the Security Council, yesterday's high-level meeting at the British mission to the United Nations might be a "step backward," as one Western diplomat described it.
According to reports from Vienna, meanwhile, Iran was on the verge of running a cascade of 164 centrifuges of uranium hexafluoride gas, known as UF-6. Earlier this year, putting UF-6 into one centrifuge at Iran's Nantanz facility was considered a step toward enrichment at levels needed for weapons. Iran later was able to string cascades of 10, and then 20 centrifuges. "Iran is on the verge of operating a 164-centrifuge cascade with UF6," an unnamed Western diplomat at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency told AFP yesterday. Once they learn the technique, Iranian nuclear scientists will be able to cascade thousands of centrifuges, nuclear experts agree. "Once you learn how to make one washing machine, you can make a thousand washing machines," a senior American official told reporters recently, describing advances in Iran's weapons program. Acknowledging Iran's pace toward weapon capabilities, top diplomats flown here from capitals of the five permanent members of the Security Council nevertheless failed to reach an agreement on how diplomacy should proceed. "All of us agree that Iran is now traveling down the road towards enrichment and reprocessing that is fundamentally detrimental to the interest of the world of non-proliferation and peace and security," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns after the meeting. But he acknowledged no agreement was reached on a unified Security Council statement. "It may take a little bit of time, but it's going to be worth the time," he said. "All of us agreed that we should stay united and stay together to send one message to the Iranians." Yesterday's 4 1 /2-hour meeting brought Mr. Burns together with foreign ministry directors from three European powers - France, Germany, and Britain - as well as their Russian and Chinese counterparts.

Despite the high level, some diplomats said that now the main players were even less united than in the last few weeks, when U.N. ambassadors were negotiating a united council
statement. "The discussion was on how the Council must put its weight to reinforce the authority of the IAEA and on the level of precision of the message to be sent to Iran," French U.N. ambassador, Jean Marc de-la Sabliere said after the meeting. "France's opinion is that this message must be strong and precise." "It's a step backwards," said another Western diplomat, who requested anonymity. The sticking point remained Russia's refusal to get tough with the Iranians, he added. Russia has opposed creating an IAEA reporting mechanism to the Security Council to record Iran's failure to comply with the nonproliferation treaty and with the agency's inspectors. Moscow insists that the main diplomatic efforts should

be conducted at the IAEA in Vienna, and not at the Security Council, where sanctions could eventually be imposed.

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: UN Solves [2/2]

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

132 Green Military Aff

UN HAS NOT COME TO AGREEMENT- RUSSIA AN CHINA ARE OPPOSED TO ANY UN ACTION Lynch`6 (Colum, staff writer “Security Council Fails To Reach Accord on Iran” Washington Post, March 21, 2006) The Security Council's five permanent members and Germany failed to reach agreement at a meeting Monday on how to respond to the Iranian nuclear crisis but said they
would forge ahead in the coming days to break the impasse. The deadlock comes as U.S. and European officials confirmed that Britain had presented the United States with a paper outlining a possible diplomatic strategy to resolve the crisis, including new talks and concessions. But the British representative at Monday's talks, John Sawers, said Britain had not made such a proposal at the meeting. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said the United States is not going to participate in direct negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue. Top foreign policy coordinators for the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany issued a joint statement that echoed an agreement Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had reached with those five governments in January. The statement expressed "deep concern" that Iran has "failed to respond positively" to requests by the United Nations' Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and allow for more intrusive U.N. inspections of its nuclear energy program. The impasse follows weeks of negotiations over how to respond to Iran's behavior. The United

States, France and Britain believe the threat of Security Council sanctions is required to pressure Iran to meet international calls to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, which Iran insists are for peaceful purposes. Russia and China oppose sanctions, and they want the Iranian crisis to be handled by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is
considered more likely to pursue a negotiated settlement.

NO UN SANCTIONS COMING- RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL BLOCK Shakeel`6 (Mohammed, “International Powers Fail to Agree Strategy on Iran Nuclear Programme” World Markets Analysis
March 21, 2006)

Foreign ministry officials from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and Germany have failed to agree on a strategy to combat Iran's controversial nuclear programme, despite four hours of talks yesterday. The participants, who met at the British mission at the UN, confirmed that discussions would continue, including those over a British-French statement currently up before the UNSC that urges Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. A Western diplomat told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that 'the talks were difficult' owing to Russian and Chinese opposition to proposals setting out a timeline for Iran to comply. According to British Foreign Ministry official John Sawers, the participants were agreed on the fundamental issue of putting the brakes on Iran's nuclear activities. 'There was a lot of common ground between us...It's essential that Iran takes the steps required in order to start the process of rebuilding confidence in its nuclear intentions,' Sawers said. However, marking Iran's new year yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad warned that no-one had the right 'to take back' his country's nuclear technology. Significance: The UNSC is expected to resume deliberations later today on the British-French proposals. Given Russian and Chinese opposition, the likelihood of a

stinging rebuke against Iran, or even the potential for punitive sanctions, remains a somewhat distant prospect at this stage. The UNSC will no doubt continue deliberating until a
compromise statement can be agreed. With Iran thus far showing little sign of backing down, a protracted international fall-out is certainly in the offing.

RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL VETO SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION Ince`6 (Basil, 3.19.06“Actors in uranium enrichment fandango” Trinidad & Tobago Express
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=144154494)

The major actors in this fandango are the United States and the European powers, but Russia, China, India, and Israel are involved in this fast-paced dance. Russia and China who have the power of veto in

the Security Council would prefer that the matter be returned to the 35-member Governing Board of the IAEA. They fear that any sanctions imposed on Iran would further aggravate Tehran.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

133 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [1/3]
SANCTIONS WILL NOT SOLVE- IRAN WILL NOT GIVE UP THE BOMB Eland`6(Ivan Eland 1/25/2006 “Military Action Against Iran?”, Media Monitors Network
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/25758)

First, only mild international economic sanctions will likely be placed on Iran. Here the United States will fall victim to the first consequence of its invasion of Iraq. Other countries are suspicious that a hard-line approach against Iran will encourage the United States to do what it did against Iraq. Yet economic

sanctions, no matter how strong, will be unlikely to compel the Iranian government to get rid of its nuclear program, which has wide public support in Iran. The second
consequence of the invasion of Iraq, a country that was not even close to getting a nuclear weapon, was that Iran, which was much closer to that goal, saw how the U.S. superpower treated non-nuclear

“rogue” states and accelerated its nuclear program to acquire the ultimate deterrent against the United States and Israel. No wonder Iran has been unwilling to accept Western trade and investment goodies to negotiate away its nuclear program. SANCTIONS NOT STOP PROLIFERATION Ash`6 (Timothy Garton, professor of European studies at the University of Oxford Globe and Mail, “Iran's playing nuclear
chess”, February 2http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=9666)

Even if it goes to the UN, there will probably be more elaborate moves before sanctions are imposed. It's very unclear what sanctions China and Russia would agree to. This Persian chess game is multidimensional and exemplifies the reality of a multipolar world. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denounces the assaults of "false superpowers," but the real point is that they are multiple great powers, with diverse interests. Even if they agree to sanctions, those may not stop the Iranian regime going ahead, overtly or covertly, with its nuclear program. Fortunately, nuclear experts reckon it will take from three to eight years for Iran to reach the point at which it can decide whether to go hell-for-leather for the weaponization of its nuclear capacity.

SANCTIONS DO NOT SOLVE Kagan`6(Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German
Marshall Fund “It's the Regime, Stupid”, Washington Post 1/29)

But the inadequacy of the military strike option does not mean we can simply turn to diplomacy. Diplomacy by itself has no better chance of success. The present Iranian regime appears committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon. It has been undeterred by the prospect of international isolation or economic sanctions and apparently deems these hardships an acceptable cost. If so, even bigger carrots will not persuade it to forgo a program it considers vital to its interests. Fear of U.S. military action is probably the only reason Iran even pretended to negotiate with the Europeans (and a big reason why the Europeans have negotiated with Iran), but it has not been enough to stop their program.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

134 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [2/3]
IRAN WILL RIDE OUT SANCTIONS- THEY WILL NOT SOLVE Engdahl`6(F William, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) “A high-risk
game of nuclear chicken”, 31 January, http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/a-high%11risk-game-of-nuclear-chicken200601313615/)

It's undeniably clear that Ahmadinejad has a more confrontational policy than his predecessor. The Iranian ambassador to Vienna, speaking at a conference in Austria where this author was
present last September, shocked his audience by stating essentially the same line of confrontational rhetoric: "If it comes to war, Iran is ready ..." Let's assume that the Western media are correctly reporting the strident militant speeches of
the president. We must also assume that in that theocratic state, the ruling mullahs, as the most powerful political institution in Iran, are behind the election of the more fundamentalist Ahmadinejad. It has been speculated that the aim of the militancy and defiance of the US and Israel is to revitalize the role of Iran as the "vanguard" of an anti-Western theocratic Shi'ite revolution at a time when the mullahs' support internally, and in the Islamic world, is fading. Let's also assume Ahmadinejad's actions are quite premeditated, with the intent to needle and provoke the West for some reason. If pushed against the wall by growing Western pressures, Ahmadinejad's regime has apparently calculated that Iran has little to lose if it hit back. He is also no rogue agent in opposition to the Iranian clergy. According to the Pakistani newspaper Dawn of January 24, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the Guardian Council of the Constitution, stressed Iran's determination to assert its "inalienable" rights: "We appreciate President Ahmadinejad because he is following a more aggressive foreign policy on human rights and nuclear issues than the former governments of Mohammed Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani," the ayatollah reportedly said. "President Ahmadinejad is asking, 'why only you Western powers should send inspectors for human rights or nuclear issues to Iran - we also want to inspect you and report on your activities'." The paper's Tehran correspondent added,

"The

mood within the country's top leadership remains upbeat and the general belief was that it would be possible to ride out international sanctions - if it comes to that." SANCTIONS DO NOT SOLVE- IRAN WILL SIT THEM OUT Engdahl`6(F William, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) “A high-risk
game of nuclear chicken”, 31 January, http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/a-high%11risk-game-of-nuclear-chicken200601313615/)

Iran also apparently feels well-prepared to sit out any economic sanctions. The country is the second-largest Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil producer (4.1 million barrels per day in 2005) next to Saudi Arabia (9.1 million.) Russia with 9.5 million bpd production in 2005 takes claim to being the world's largest oil-producing country. Iran has also accumulated a strong cash position from the recent high oil price, earning some $45 billion in oil revenue in 2005, double the average for 2001-03. This gives it a war chest cushion against external sanctions and the possibility to live for months with cutting its oil exports, all or partly. That is clearly one of the implicit weapons Iran knows it holds and would clearly use in event the situation escalated into UN Security Council economic sanctions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

135 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Strikes Good – A2: Sanctions Solve [3/3]
TALKS AND SANCTIONS WILL NOT WORK- IRAN WILL DEVELOP THE BOMB Ledeen`4(Michael A. Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) “Defusing the Iran Dilemma”, The Australian,
November 29

The European "solution" to the threat of Iranian atomic bombs is likely to join the Mideast "peace process" as the most hysterical running gag in the history of show biz. Every few months, the elegantly dressed diplomatic wizards from London, Paris and Berlin race across a continent or two to meet Iranians dressed in turbans and gowns, and after some hours of alleged hard work, they emerge with a new agreement, just like their more numerous counterparts engaged in the "peace process". The main difference is that the peace process deals seem to last for several months, while the schemes hammered out with the mullahs rarely last more than a week or two. Otherwise, it's the same sort of vaudeville
routine: a few laughs, with promises of more to come. The latest Iranian shenanigan may have set a record for speed. Last Monday, they announced they had stopped the centrifuges that were enriching uranium. Then, on Tuesday, they asked for permission to run the centrifuges again. The Europeans sternly said "no". The next scene will be at Turtle Bay, with brief interruptions for somewhat off-colour remarks about sexual harassment at high levels (so to speak) of the UN. No serious person can believe that the

negotiations are going to block, or even seriously delay, the Iranian race to acquire atomic bombs. The European posturing is the Western counterpart of the Iranian deception, a ritual dance designed to put a flimsy veil over the nakedness of the real activities. The old-fashioned name for this sort of thing is "appeasement", and was best described by
Churchill, describing Chamberlain's infamous acceptance of Hitler's conditions at Munich in 1938. Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonour, opted for the latter and got the former as well. That is now the likely fate of Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. They surely know this. Why do they accept it? For starters, they have huge financial interests tied up with the Iranian regime (billions of dollars worth of oil and gas contracts, plus other trade agreements, some already signed, others in the works). Iran, furthermore, is the last place in the Middle East where they can play an active diplomatic role. This is particularly acute for France, which knows it will long be a pariah to free Iraqi governments and views Iran as its last chance to thwart the dominant U.S. role in the region. Sad to say, there is no evidence that the Europeans give a tinker's damn either about the destiny of the Iranian people, or about Iran's leading role in international terrorism, or about the Islamic Republic joining the nuclear club. I think they expect Iran to "go nuclear" in the near future, at which point they will tell George W. Bush that there is no option but to accept the brutal facts: the world's leading sponsor of terrorism in possession of atomic bombs and the missiles needed to deliver them on regional and European targets--and "come to terms" with the mullahcracy. But if Bush found a way to prevent Iran from acquiring atomic bombs, it might well wreck the Europeans' grand appeasement strategy. There is certainly no risk that the UN will do anything serious, which is why the Europeans keep insisting that it is the only "legitimate" forum for any discussion of the Iranian nuclear menace.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

136 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iran Adv – Air Power Key
Air Force key to a successful Iran strike Plesch`5 (Dan, Open Democracy.com, Political website, March 21, 2005, Iran: the coming war,
http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-2383.jsp)

The military strategy adopted under President Bush’s father, continued under President Clinton and accelerated under the current administration is based on the idea that the US should have “full spectrum dominance” of all aspects of warfare and be so far ahead that, in the words of the current national security strategy, any state will be “dissuaded” from even trying to compete. An attack on Iran would have to take into consideration a number of risks. But from the perspective of those considering a military option, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons merely makes all of these problems harder – and in that sense provides an additional argument for pre-emptive action. Perhaps more importantly, none of the arguments made about the consequences of an attack on Iraq – whether or not they proved true – influenced the decision to go to war; some, such as the need to provide enough troops to prevent the outbreak of disorder, were simply ignored. Fourth, it is sometimes claimed that the US does not have enough troops to attack Iran. But the US army is engaged in a reorganisation to provide more frontline forces from headquarters and training units, and in any case the US air force is wholly available for the task of blowing up Iran – and it was barely used in Iraq beyond the first few weeks. Fifth, it is argued that the Iranians may have hidden their activities in inaccessible parts of their huge country. This is likely to be the case – though whether these are banned WMD programmes or permitted activities is an open question. However, as Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker, special forces are already in Iran preparing the target list. An aerial attack would not involve a ground invasion and would leave the Iranians to pick up the pieces.

Air superiority is a prerequisite to a successful Iranian campaign Lopez`7 (Bernardo V. Lopez February 1, 2007 Thursday UPSHOT; Will the US invade Iran?, Lexis)
Wayne White, a top Middle East analyst for the US State Department said "I've seen some of the planning (in the Pentagon?) ... We're not talking about just surgical strikes ... We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by neutralizing the Iranian Air Force at the onset. This saber-rattling, conveniently aired by the Western press, whether psy- war bluff or an "announcement" to feel the global mood for or against invasion, is a repeat of Iraq. For the Pentagon planners drawing up the blueprint for a possible invasions, a successful strike against Iran requires paralyzing its air force before it gets off the ground. No single quick American attack can do this. The Iranian air force is by far superior to Iraq's. This means a protracted air war will cost the US billions of dollars in aircraft even if the US prevails. The US will not orchestrate a ground initiative without air superiority, otherwise a lot of lives will be lost. A quick conquest of Iran like that of Iraq will not be that easy, and the Pentagon knows it. Will America take the risk? Even the most aggressive and creative generals have butterflies in their stomachs. The US has made a lot of successful bluffs before. Saber-rattling is a bad habit of US foreign policy, which is natural for the lone superpower, like a gorilla pounding its chest. For the gorilla it is a bluff to ward off enemies, but for the US we never know until invasion happens or not.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

137 Green Military Aff

***China Adv***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

138 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat (1/3)
China is an emerging military power Frost et al. 08 (Strategic Forum, April, 2008 by Ellen L. Frost, James J. Przystup, Phillip C. Saunders, China’s rising
influence in Asia; Implications for U.S. policy, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_231/ai_n25434277/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)

China's military power has increased significantly over the last decade, creating both respect and heightened concerns in other Asian countries. The PLA has enjoyed double-digit real budget increases every year since 1997. The official 2007 budget was approximately $45 billion, but estimates including military-related and off-budget spending suggest that total 2007 spending may range from $97 billion to $139 billion. (14) This money has underwritten higher salaries, expanded training and facilities, and the acquisition of advanced Chinese and Russian arms. Many of these weapons appear to be focused primarily on deterring possible U.S. intervention in a Taiwan crisis, but some significantly expand PLA ability to project power within Asia. These include development of more accurate short-range and medium-range conventional ballistic missiles, acquisition of Kilo-class submarines and Sovremenny destroyers, deployment of tankers and air-refueling technology to extend the range of Chinese fighters, and efforts to improve airlift and sealift capability. Chinese military officials are now openly discussing building an aircraft carrier. China's accelerated military modernization program has been accompanied by efforts to reassure its neighbors that a more powerful PLA will not threaten their security. China has not repeated the military activities that alarmed its neighbors in the mid-1990s and has behaved with relative restraint to various provocations from Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian. China has sought to demonstrate that its military and paramilitary forces can make useful contributions to regional and global security, including via increased participation in UN peacekeeping missions. China has also offered to increase regional cooperation on nontraditional security issues such as disaster relief, counterterrorism, and counterpiracy. Although the resources committed to these missions have been modest, they are intended to showcase a constructive role for Chinese military power. In addition, China has made modest efforts to increase its
transparency on military issues as a confidence-building measure. China began publishing biannual white papers on national defense in 1998 and has recently begun to participate in military exercises with neighboring countries.

China’s building up it’s military, and it has U.S. attack capability Micheal`7 (William, DoD: China seeking to project military power, May 25, 2007, Marine Times,
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/military_china_dodreport_070525w/)

According to the report, China wants to advance its interests into the “greater periphery” of Central Asia and the Middle East. It wants to secure access to resources and markets in the developing world, and secure safe
passage through critical sea lanes such as the Strait of Malacca. As it grows, it more urgently needs metals and fossil fuels. How China might employ its military to protect those interests or pursue other national goals is somewhat unclear, but China’s military

wants to build a force that can win “local wars under conditions of informatization,” the report states. In other words, it recognizes the role of modern information technology as a force multiplier, allowing the People’s Liberation Army to operate with precision at greater distances from the homeland. The U.S. estimates that China’s military budget grew an inflation-adjusted average of 11.8 percent annually from 1996 to 2006. On March 4, China announced a 17.8 percent increase in its military budget, bringing its official total for 2007 to about $45 billion. “This development continues a trend of annual budget increases that exceed significantly growth of the overall economy,” the report states. China is developing and
testing a formidable array of missiles, including the road-mobile, solid-propellant intercontinental-range DF-31, which achieved initial threat availability last year and “will likely” become operational if it isn’t already, the report states. China’s primary nuclear

forces are contained on 20 silo-based, liquid-fueled ICBMs that could reach the U.S., along with more than 80 shorter-range ballistic missiles and 10 to 14 submarine-launched missiles. As of late last year, China also had roughly 900 short-range ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan, at least 100 more than in late 2005, the report states. And it is acquiring conventional medium-range ballistic missiles that possibly could be used to target distant naval ships. China’s navy, according to the report, includes 58 attack submarines, about 50 medium and heavy amphibious lift vessels and roughly 41 coastal missile patrol craft. Late last year, China took delivery of its second Russian-made guided missile destroyer, a ship equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles and wide-area air defense systems. It also is building and testing second-generation nuclear submarines, and took delivery of two Kilo-class Russian diesel subs. Some analysts, the report states, predict that China could have an operational aircraft carrier asearly as 2015. China has more than 700 combat aircraft “based within un-refueled operational range of Taiwan,” according to the report. While many of its aircraft are older models that have been upgraded, newer aircraft “make up a growing percentage” of the inventory. These include the multi-role F-10 fighter and the multi-role Su-27SMK Flanker, the latter under a licensed coproduction agreement with Russia.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

139 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat (2/3)
China’s rising militarily-They’ll be able to challenge the U.S. Tkacik`7 (John Tkacik is a Senior Research Fellow in Asian Studies at The Heritage Foundation, A Chinese Military
Superpower?, March 8, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1389.cfm)

On March 4, China's National People's Congress announced that it would increase the country's military budget 17.8 percent in 2007 to a total of $45 billion.[1] Despite the fact that this was the biggest single annual increase in China's military spending,[2] the Chinese government reassured the world that this spending hike was normal and need not worry anyone. "China is committed to taking a path of peaceful development and it pursues a defensive military posture," a spokesman said.[3] But the evidence suggests instead that China's intent is to challenge the United States as a military superpower. A closer look at China's military spending raises profound questions about China's geopolitical direction. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China's effective military spending is far greater than $45 billion, or even the U.S. Department of Defense's $105 billion estimate.[4] In fact, it is in the $450 billion range, putting it in the same league as the United States and far ahead of any other country, including Russia.[5] This figure reflects the reality that a billion dollars can buy a lot more "bang" in China than in the United States. Within a decade, perhaps much sooner, China will be America's only global competitor for military and strategic influence. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate on February 27 that the Chinese are "building their military, in my view, to reach some state of parity with the United States," adding that "they're a threat today, they would become an increasing threat over time."[6] Nor is this a revelation to Washington policy-makers. McConnell's predecessor John Negroponte testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2006 that "China is a rapidly rising power with steadily expanding global reach that may become a peer competitor to the United States at some point."[7] In June 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed that the U.S. must help integrate China into the international, rules-based economy before it becomes a "military superpower."[8] Rice, with a doctorate in Soviet studies and years of experience in the White House during the last days of the Cold War, would not use the term "superpower" lightly.

Despite discourse, China’s military rise shows it’s not peaceful Tkacik`7 (John Tkacik is a Senior Research Fellow in Asian Studies at The Heritage Foundation, A Chinese Military
Superpower?, March 8, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1389.cfm)

It remains to be seen whether China's now massive stake in the global economy will result in Beijing becoming a responsible stakeholder in global affairs, but Beijing seems poised for true global status as a "military superpower." The latest figures from the econometricians at the Central Intelligence Agency— whose data come from the World Bank—peg China's 2006 GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, at $10 trillion, with a nominal exchange-rate value of $2.5 trillion.[9] Despite the Chinese Communist Party leadership's espousal of China's "peaceful rise," the unprecedented peacetime expansion of China's military capabilities betrays a clear intent to challenge the United States in the Western Pacific and establish itself as the region's predominant military power. With China's massive GDP and military spending at an estimated 4.5 percent of GDP, the resources that Beijing now devotes to its armed forces surely make it a top global power.[10] The exact methodology that U.S. intelligence agencies use to arrive at this estimate is classified, but it reportedly takes into account the fact that China's budget figures do not include foreign arms purchases, subsidies to military industries, any of China's space program (which is under the command of the Central Military Commission), or the costs of the 660,000 strong "People's Armed Police."[11] It appears that some defense spending sectors that are not counted in the defense budget have increased much faster than the budget itself.[12]

China’s rising militarily-They’re integrating their domestic production with international weapons Maples`8 (Congressional Testimony of MICHAEL D. MAPLES, DIRECTOR, February 27, 2008 Wednesday NATIONAL
SECURITY THREATS, Lexis)

China is strengthening its ability to conduct military operations along its periphery on its own terms. It is building and fielding sophisticated weapon systems and testing new doctrines that it believes will allow it to prevail in regional conflicts and also counter traditional U.S. military advantages. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is building its own sophisticated aircraft, surface combatants, submarines and weapon systems while still buying others overseas. For example, China is integrating Russian-produced

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

140 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat (3/3)
KILO-class submarines and SOVREMENNY- class destroyers into the navy as well as S-300 PMU2 surface-to- air missiles and Su-27 aircraft into the air force. China has developed and begun to deploy indigenous SAM systems which, together with SAMs imported from Russia, provide Beijing with a modern, layered, groundbased air defense capability to defend important assets. China bought four S300 PMU-2 (SA-20) air defense battalions and intends to buy four more. This increases its engagement range out to 200 km. China is developing a layered maritime capability with medium-range anti-ship ballistic missiles, submarines, maritime strike aircraft and surface combatants armed with increasingly sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles. The PLA has achieved moderate success in introducing these new weapons. Additional integration probably will accelerate as the PLA explores the full potential of new weapons.

China’s rising militaristically now-Weapons capability Maples`8 (Congressional Testimony of MICHAEL D. MAPLES, DIRECTOR, February 27, 2008 Wednesday NATIONAL
SECURITY THREATS, Lexis)

Moving away from its historical reliance upon mass conscription, China is trying to build a more professional military workforce - one able to engage successfully in modern warfare. The PLA seeks to rejuvenate its officer corps, strengthen military education, reform its non-commissioned officer corps, improve military quality of life and combat corruption. However, the PLA still appears to be encumbered by centralized control and a lingering mistrust of individual initiative. China is developing missiles of all ranges. The CSS-10 Mod-X-2 (DF-31 A) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) can strike the continental United States and is joining China's operational inventory along with the less-capable DF31. Other future ICBMs could include some with multiple, independently-targeted reentry vehicles (MIRVs). Development continues on the conventional DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) variants which can hold U.S. regional assets at risk. China's deployed missile inventory includes nuclear-armed intercontinental, intermediate and medium-range ballistic missiles, conventional medium- and short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. China's nuclear force is becoming more survivable with the deployment of DF-31 and DF-3I A roadmobile ICBMs and the eventual deployment of the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile. China currently has less than 50 ICBMs capable of targeting the United States; however the number of ICBM warheads capable of reaching the United States could more than double in the next 15 years, especially if MIRVs are employed. China has also fielded over 1000 CSS-6 and CSS-7 conventional short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan. It also is developing more capable conventional missiles able to range U.S. and allied military installations in the region. Chinese conventional missile upgrades may include maneuvering reentry vehicles with multiple constellation, satellite-aided navigation and terminal guidance. China's nuclear weapon stockpile likely will grow over the next 16 years as new ballistic missiles are activated and older ones are upgraded. China likely has produced enough weapon-grade fissile material to meet its needs for the immediate future. In addition, China likely retains the capability to produce biological and chemical weapons. Growing capabilities in counter-space, cyber warfare, electronic warfare and long-range precision strike could help China achieve strategic surprise. Nevertheless, China's security strategy emphasizes strategic defense, which integrates diplomacy, economics and information with conventional military operations. If Beijing adheres to this strategy, we will have indications of Beijing's concerns along with warning of imminent crises. While Chinese security strategy favors the defense, its operational doctrine does emphasize seizing the initiative through offensive action, including possible preemptive action. China does not view an offensive operational doctrine within the context of a strategic defense as contradictory. China's total military-related spending for 2007 could be as much as $85 to $125 billion. China has made marginal improvements in military budget transparency, but the PLA's disclosed budget still does not include large costs for strategic forces, foreign acquisitions, military-related research and development and paramilitary forces. China's accounting opacity reflects a lack of institutional capacity as well as an unwillingness to comply with international standards for reporting military spending. China also remains reluctant to share details about its growing ASAT capabilities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

141 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China is a Threat – AF
China’s air force is growing to challenge the U.S. Tkacik`7 (John Tkacik is a Senior Research Fellow in Asian Studies at The Heritage Foundation, A Chinese Military
Superpower?, March 8, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1389.cfm)

China's power in the air and in space is also on the rise. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force has about 300 Russian-designed fourth-generation Sukhoi-27 Flankers and a number of Chinese-built Jian-11 planes and 76 Sukhoi-30 multi-role jets. With Russian and Israeli assistance, the PLA Air Force has acquired an additional 50 or so Jian-10 fighters based on U.S. F-16 technology and reportedly plans to build 250 more.[16] China's rocket forces are also expanding at an unprecedented pace, with production and deployment of short-range ballistic missiles targeted at Taiwan increasing from 50 per year during the 1990s to between 100 and 150 per year today.[17] Presumably, output from Chinese ICBM factories is expanding at a similar pace. Most recently, China's January 12 test of highly sophisticated direct-ascent "kinetic kill vehicle" (KKV) technology, coupled with attempts to blind or laser-illuminate a U.S. reconnaissance satellite in 2006, are convincing evidence of the PLA's intention to neutralize the United States' military assets in space in any conflict. Indeed, China's 2006 "White Paper" on national defense describes a China that is moving onto the offensive: The Army aims at moving from regional defense to trans-regional mobility, and improving its capabilities in air-ground integrated operations, long-distance maneuvers, rapid assaults and special operations. The Navy aims at gradual extension of the strategic depth for offshore defensive operations and enhancing its capabilities in integrated maritime operations and nuclear counterattacks. The Air Force aims at speeding up its transition from territorial air defense to both offensive and defensive operations, and increasing its capabilities in the areas of air strike, air and missile defense, early warning and reconnaissance, and strategic projection. The Second Artillery Force aims at progressively improving its force structure of having both nuclear and conventional missiles, and raising its capabilities in strategic deterrence and conventional strike under conditions of informationization.[18] The ultimate question must be whether Beijing's leaders have any purpose in assembling a military machine worthy of a superpower other than to have the strength to challenge the United States' strategic position in Asia. It is time to take China's military expansion seriously.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

142 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit (1/3)
U.S.-Sino War is inevitable-Interdependence is irrelevant Nyquist`5 (renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, JR Geopolitical Global Analyst "Recent China
Revelations" WeeklyColumn July 1] [ct] [http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0701.html]

China’s war preparations are deliberate, and the implications should not be passed over lightly. China is a highly secretive country, like all communist countries. The objective of communism is world revolution, the overthrow of global capitalism, the destruction of the free market, the elimination of the international bourgeoisie and the disarming of the United States. We should be puzzled, indeed, if Chinese policy did not follow the communist line (however deviously). Given all this, it is difficult to account for the dismissive attitude of U.S. intelligence experts when regarding Chinese intentions. The China problem is a serious one. “The people … of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite,” said Chairman Mao in 1964. “The people of all continents should unite … and so form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to defend world peace.” In terms of today’s peace movement, Mao’s sentiments are up-to-date. They are, I think, a founding inspiration. The supposed “death of communism” may have eliminated a few soiled terms, but not the main idea. The label on old hatreds may be changed, but the content remains the same. And because America is asleep, and the market is buzzing with Chinese goods, the U.S. government has turned a blind eye. The truth about China is worse than inconvenient. It is painful. So a special context

has been devised for dismissing inconvenient facts. This context is inculcated at graduate schools, think tanks and in government. The context for understanding
international affairs must not admit the existence of a coordinated, secretive and dangerous combination of countries motivated to overthrow the United States. In other words, the existence of a “communist bloc” cannot be admitted. And China’s role within this bloc – above all – must be rated as a “crackpot notion.” And yet, the existence of something identical to the old communist bloc – whatever we choose to call it – is indicated by actions across the board by Russia, the East European satellite countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and China. Some ideas fall from fashion. But truth is always true, fashion or not. U.S. experts failed to connect the dots regarding China’s development of a long-range cruise missile, a new attack submarine, new ground-to-air missiles, a new anti-ship missile (for sinking U.S. aircraft carriers) and more. China is preparing for war against the United States, specifically. As absurd as it sounds to the economic optimists who think trade with China guarantees peace, the U.S. and China are bound to collide. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t have a sense of history, doesn’t understand communist thinking or the overall policy Beijing has consistently followed since 1949. Communist countries periodically experiment with capitalism, they always seek trade with the West, and they always sink the money and technology they gain thereby into a military buildup. Ultimately, they don’t care about the prosperity of their people, the state of the national infrastructure, personal or press freedom. Some believe that we mustn’t say that China is a threat. Such a statement would be akin to self-fulfilling prophecy. But an honest appreciation of Chinese actions should not be disallowed by an appeasing diplomacy or wishful thinking. The job of the analyst is not to guarantee good relations with countries that are preparing for destructive war. The job of the analyst is to see war preparations, diplomatic maneuvers and economic policies and draw a common sense conclusion about them. If world peace depends on hiding China’s military buildup, then world peace is like your fat uncle dressed in a Santa Claus suit. Saying it’s your fat uncle may ruin Christmas for your little sister, but Santa Claus isn’t a real person – and never will be.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

143 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit (2/3)
Planning to engage the U.S. with asymmetric warfare Hubbard`7 (Zachary, retired Army officer residing in Upper Yoder Township, Cambria County. He holds a master’s degree
in military art and science from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff CollegeIs China preparing for war with U.S., http://www.tribune-democrat.com/editorials/local_story_236133107.html)

All eyes in Washington are focused on the Middle East as the war there continues, the troop surge in Iraq nears its climax and the ever-elusive Osama bin Laden, assuming he’s still alive, continues to evade capture. Iran is rattling its sword and the hawks in Washington are demanding satisfaction. The 2008 election countdown has started and politicians on both sides of the aisle have begun the traditional blame game of finger pointing, name calling and jockeying for political advantage. The American political process is once again paralyzed by the politicians’ lust to retain power. Forget the business of running the nation; there’s an election to be won! And so it will go until November of next year. Meanwhile, in a country far, far away, the political, military and economic downfall of the United States is being planned by an intelligent, patient, industrious enemy who hopes never to fire a shot in anger, yet fully expects to win. Its goal: To replace the United States as the world’s reining superpower. The war, by all indications, may have already begun. China’s grasp of history China counts its history in millennia. It has seen enemies come and go, yet one thing remains constant – China continues. Why should the Chinese expect America to be different from their enemies of yore? Chinese politicians and military officers study history. They know the writings of Sun Tzu, a legendary warrior-philosopher whose 6th century BC military treatise “The Art of War” is mandatory reading for military officers worldwide. Sun Tzu has dozens of notable quotes, but the greatest may be, “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” The Chinese may have already begun a campaign to subdue the United States following Sun Tzu’s model. As Sun Tzu said, you can subdue an enemy without fighting. In fact, it is best to win without having to go to war. Some would argue that this is what diplomacy is about. Certainly, diplomacy is part of the strategy, but there is far more to the Chinese game plan. Reflecting Sun Tzu’s philosophy, many recent Chinese writings have focused on asymmetric warfare as a means of defeating a militarily superior enemy. Asymmetric warfare uses political, economic, informational and military power. Military power is the least emphasized. A different kind of war Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, two colonels in China’s Peoples’ Liberation Army, published a treatise in 1999 titled “Unrestricted Warfare.” The treatise was not an official publication of the Chinese government, but it was published by the official PLA publishing house, indicating at least some degree of acceptance. “Unrestricted Warfare” contains chilling instructions on how to defeat an enemy using asymmetric attacks in such a manner that the enemy may not even realize they are under attack until it is too late to respond effectively. The techniques they describe include cyber warfare, attacks against financial institutions and critical infrastructure, terrorism, manipulating the media, biological warfare, chemical warfare and a variety of other ruthless methods. Developments since “Unrestricted Warfare” was published seem to suggest that China may be waging such warfare today. China now faces many of the same problems that Germany faced in the buildup to World War II. Like Nazi Germany, China has a booming economy, a growing population and a hunger for energy and other resources to fuel its economic growth. The Germans needed to expand their “lebensraum” (living space) to attain the natural resources needed to fuel their economy. China appears to be implementing a sort of “lebensraum” program of its own. As the United States was engaged in returning the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, China was busy establishing a beachhead there. Through land deals with Panama, the Chinese have gained control of both ends of this critical waterway, today controlling port facilities in Balboa, the canal's only Pacific port, and a major Atlantic port in Cristobol. The agreements allow China to run them for the next half-century.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

144 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit (3/3)
War with China is inevitable-Oil Luft`4 (Gal, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and publisher of the online publication
Energy Security, L.A. Times, February 2, 2004 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0202collision.htm)

Sixty-seven years ago, oil-starved Japan embarked on an aggressive expansionary policy designed to secure its growing energy needs, which eventually led the nation into a world war. Today, another Asian power thirsts for oil: China. While the U.S. is absorbed in fighting the war on terror, the seeds of what could be the next world war are quietly germinating. With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal 8% to 10% a year, China, already a net oil importer, is growing increasingly dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto sales grew 70% and its oil imports were up 30% from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By 2030, China is expected to have more cars than the U.S. and import as much oil as the U.S. does today. Dependence on oil means dependence on the Middle East, home to 70% of the world's proven reserves. With 60% of its oil imports coming from the Middle East, China can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines of the tumultuous region. Its way of forming a footprint in the Middle East has been through providing technology and components for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to unsavory regimes in places such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. A report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress to monitor U.S.-China relations, warned in 2002 that "this arms trafficking to these regimes presents an increasing threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East." The report concludes: "A key driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade." Optimists claim that the world oil market will be able to accommodate China and that, instead of conflict, China's thirst could create mutual desire for stability in the Middle East and thus actually bring Beijing closer to the U.S. History shows the opposite: Superpowers find it difficult to coexist while competing over scarce resources. The main bone of contention probably will revolve around China's relations with Saudi Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil. The Chinese have already supplied the Saudis with intermediate range ballistic missiles, and they played a major role 20 years ago in a Saudi financed Pakistani nuclear effort that may one day leave a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Taliban-type regime in Riyadh or Islamabad. Since 9/11, a deep tension in U.S.-Saudi relations has provided the Chinese with an opportunity to win the heart of the House of Saud. The Saudis hear the voices in the U.S. denouncing Saudi Arabia as a "kernel of evil" and proposing that the U.S. seize and occupy the kingdom's oil fields. The Saudis especially fear that if their citizens again perpetrate a terror attack in the U.S., there would be no alternative for the U.S. but to terminate its long-standing commitment to the monarchy - and perhaps even use military force against it. The Saudis realize that to forestall such a scenario they can no longer rely solely on the U.S. to defend the regime and must diversify their security portfolio. In their search for a new patron, they might find China the most fitting and willing candidate. The risk of Beijing's emerging as a competitor for influence in the Middle East and a Saudi shift of allegiance are things Washington should consider as it defines its objectives and priorities in the 21st century. Without a comprehensive strategy designed to prevent China from becoming an oil consumer on a par with the U.S., a superpower collision is in the cards. The good news is that we are still in a position to halt China's slide into total dependency. Unlike the U.S., China's energy infrastructure is largely underdeveloped and primarily coalbased. It has not yet invested in a multibillion-dollar oil infrastructure. China is therefore in a better position than the U.S. to bypass oil in favor of next-generation fuels.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

145 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan
Sino-Taiwanese war is inevitable-China reserves the right to strike, while Taiwan prepares for war Goodspeed`8 (Peter, June 14, 2008 Saturday National Edition, An uneasy detente; Despite talk of peace, Taiwan and China
are flexing their military might, Lexis)

Diplomats from Taiwan and China held historic meetings in Beijing this week to end nearly six decades of tensions, but military planners in Taipei are also putting the final touches to a computerized war game that envisions an all-out Chinese attack on Taiwan. From June 22 to 27, Ma Yingjeou, the Taiwanese President, will preside over a simulated war game, code-named Hankuang (Chinese Glory) 24, in which Chinese warplanes bomb the island's airports, harbours, power stations and bridges. A blizzard of ballistic missiles will target its political, military and economic infrastructure, as special-operations troops infiltrated into Taiwan stage sabotage raids and assassinations before an amphibious and airborne invasion by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). In the war game, the Taiwanese military will counter-attack to prevent China from taking over. The chaos of the computerized combat stands in stark contrast to dreams of diplomatic detente that surround this week's negotiations in Beijing, but it underlines the fact the Taiwan Strait remains one of the world's major flashpoints. Although it has never ruled Taiwan, the People's Republic of China claims the island as an inalienable part of China. It reserves the right to use force to reunite it with the mainland if Taiwan ever declares independence, is occupied by a foreign power, acquires nuclear weapons or indefinitely delays unification through negotiations. Taiwan was occupied in 1949 by Chiang Kai-shek's retreating Kuomintang (Nationalist) army after losing a civil war to Mao Zedong's Communists. Today, it is a chaotic democracy where almost half the people regard themselves as Taiwanese, rather than Chinese. Relations between Taiwan and the mainland have been hostile and uncompromising for decades, as China sought to rein in what it regards as a rebellious province by swinging from military intimidation to economic enticement, and from verbal attacks to diplomatic charm offensives.

China’s military advancement makes war with Taiwan inevitable Siong`3 (Fan Sui Siong, Kelvin, CPT Fan Sui Siong Kelvin is a Weapons System Officer (ADA) by vocation and is currently
serving as Tactical Control Officer at an Air Defence Artillery Squadron, Will China Attack Taiwan, June 2003, http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2003/Vol29_2/7.htm)

Will war occur? The China-Taiwan military balance has been extensively covered in many excellent studies. However, most of these articles focus on current military capabilities, while neglecting the dynamic aspect of military procurement as well as the political will dimension. While this essay argues that PRC is unlikely to attack Taiwan in the near future, a war is still plausible if political circumstances favour PRC and when PRC has fully acquired the military capabilities for invasion. In light of the impact a PRC-ROC conflict could bring to Singapore, it is important for Singapore to understand the Straits stand-off in the right military and political context. For brevity, one important aspect of this potential standoff was neglected in the analysis that of the possible nuclear conflict which could erupt. A nuclear conflict is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, Taiwan would be destroyed in a nuclear attack and would be utterly useless to China, even if she were to be returned. Secondly, the use of nuclear weapons would destroy all that China has worked for in building its international reputation and integrating itself into the economic and diplomatic communities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

146 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – China War Inevit –Taiwan – US Intervention
The U.S. would intervene in a Sino-Taiwanese war Lejun`4 (Tang, Asia Times, US, Taiwan military exercises ominous signals, July 29, 2004,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG29Ad04.html)

Massive US military exercises are taking place worldwide, including the Western Pacific. At most there will be two carrier battle groups near the Taiwan Strait at some time. China's and Taiwan's military maneuvers have been concluded. The political purposes of these exercises by the three parties are different but clear: mainland China wants to show in its exercises that it is determined to stop Taiwan from gaining independence, even if force is required, even with strong military resistance from Taiwan and military intervention from the US. Taiwan wants to send a signal that it is determined to get independence even by military means, as it has the encouragement and protection of the US. The US obviously wants to say to Taiwan, "Get what you want and we will help you and protect you," and to mainland China, "Let Taiwan be independent, or we will intervene."

The U.S. would enter a cross straits war O'Hanlon`2k (Michael O’Hanlon specializes in U.S. national security policy. He is senior author of the Iraq Index. A former
defense budget analyst who advised members of Congress on military spending, he specializes in Iraq, North Korea, homeland security, the use of military force and other defense issues, Can China Conquer Taiwan, Brookings, 2000 http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2000/fall_nationalsecuritycouncil_ohanlon.aspx)

Any war between the two Chinas could easily involve the United States. Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, official U.S. law stipulates that the United States would view any conflict over Taiwan with "grave concern."5 The 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis showed that the United States does not take its interest in Taiwan's security lightly. A 1995 visit by Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui to his American alma mater, Cornell University, provoked China to conduct military exercises and fire missiles near Taiwan, leading the United States to send an aircraft carrier through the strait that same December for the first time in seventeen years. In March 1996, the PRC launched more missiles near Taiwan; in response, the United States deployed two carriers in the vicinity as a show of strength.6 Largely as a result of the 1995-96 crisis, much of the U.S. Congress has lost patience with the existing U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity—by which Washington suggests to both Taipei and Beijing that it might help Taiwan defend itself, but does not commit itself to doing so—preferring an unambiguous commitment to defend Taiwan instead.7 War over Taiwan could take a number of forms. An attempted PRC invasion of the TAIWAN is the most dire possibility, and my primary focus in this article. Some Pentagon analysts believe China could prevail in such an attack. As a 1999 Department of Defense report puts it, a "campaign would likely succeed—barring third-party intervention."8 China's true views on the feasibility of the invasion option are unclear, but worrisome.9 Notably, when threatening Taiwanese voters not to choose Chen just before their March 2000 presidential elections, Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji suggested that China's resolve would overcome whatever material shortcomings PRC armed forces might face. As he put it, "People making such calculations [that China could not take Taiwan] don't know about Chinese history. The Chinese people are ready to shed blood and sacrifice their lives to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the motherland."10 On the other side of the strait, many Taiwanese defense planners believe they could not hold off a Chinese assault indefinitely without U.S. help.11

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

147 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – A2: Deterrence Checks
The Chinese aren’t too afraid to use missiles Kagan`2k (Robert, Robert Kagan is currently based in Brussels. Robert Kagan is senior associate at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. How China Will Take Taiwan, March 12, 2000, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=232)

Nor are the Chinese daunted by American military superiority. As former Pentagon official Michael Pillsbury notes, Chinese strategists are developing tactics of "asymmetrical" warfare that allow an inferior power to prevail against a stronger enemy in a "local war under high-tech conditions." Surprise is a critical factor in Chinese strategic thinking. If the Chinese are contemplating a missile attack on Taiwan sometime in the next few years, what can the United States do to prevent it? Clinton officials pray that the March 18 elections will produce a government in Taiwan willing to accommodate Beijing's demands. That is unlikely. Polls show a majority of Taiwanese oppose reunification: A growing percentage no longer even consider themselves Chinese. The next Taiwanese president will probably maintain the status quo that Beijing considers unacceptable.

Detterence is irrelevant-The U.S. will strike first Zweig & Jianhai 5 (David, director of the center on China’s Transnational Relations at the Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, and Bi, postdoctoral fellow at the same location, Foreign Affairs, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy”, September/October, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84503/david-zweig-bi-jianhai/china-s-global-huntfor-energy.html)

China's resources hunt has been a boon to some states, especially developing countries, as it has allowed them to exploit as yet untapped resources or gain leverage to negotiate better deals with older customers. But for other states, particularly the United States and Japan, China's insatiability is causing concern. Some governments worry as Beijing enters their spheres of influence or strikes deals with states they have tried to marginalize. In some quarters in Washington, including the Pentagon, the intelligence services, and Congress, the fear that China could challenge U.S. military dominance in East Asia and destabilize the region is rising. Whatever the prognosis, China's boom can no longer be understood in regional terms alone; as Beijing's economic influence brings it international political influence and the potential for more military power, China's growth will have worldwide repercussions. Although China's new energy demands need not be a source of serious conflict with the West in the long term, at the moment, Beijing and Washington feel especially uneasy about the situation. While China struggles to manage its growing pains, the United States, as the world's hegemon, must somehow make room for the rising giant; otherwise, war will become a serious possibility. According to the power transition theory, to maintain its dominance, a hegemon will be tempted to declare war on its challengers while it still has a power advantage. Thus, easing the way for the United States and China -- and other states -- to find a new equilibrium will require careful management, especially of their mutual perceptions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

148 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – General
An effective Air Force is key to check China Donnelly & Sullivan`8 (Thomas & Tim, a resident fellows at AEI, April 30, 2008 Wednesday
AEI: NATIONAL SECURITY OUTLOOK APRIL 2008, States News Service, Lexis)

Responding to the rise of China as a global power with growing military strength presents an increasingly complex operational puzzle. The immediate focus is the balance of military power in maritime Northeast Asia--a problem set that engages not only naval and air power issues, but also space and cyberspace--but it is clear that the size of the potential "battlespace" will expand in fairly short order. Yet it is likely that, as the Fulda Gap defined the strategically and symbolically central front during the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union, maritime Northeast Asia will occupy a central role in hedging against China's rise. This puts increasing demands on the ability of the United States to project elements of naval, air, and space power to the region, combining the problems of persistence and sustainment with those of lethality and firepower.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

149 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – Taiwan [1/2]
An improvement in Air Force readiness is key to deter China and preclude conflict over Taiwan Mastro`7 (Oriana Skylar Mastro, Junior Fellow in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment.States News
Service, July 17, 2007 Tuesday CHINESE MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND TAIWAN'S SECURITY, Lexis)

Roger Cliff spoke last about his chapter The Implications of Chinese Military Modernization of U.S. Force Posture in a Taiwan Conflict. According to Cliff, U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific region may soon be inadequate to protect Taiwan against a Chinese use of force. Much of China's military hardware is inadequate by modern standards and these limitations are paralleled by challenges in China's intelligence, logistics, etc. However, geography works in China's favor, with its forces much closer to the Taiwan theater than are U.S. forces. Furthermore, China's defense industry, after years of backwardness, is starting to produce weapon systems that are comparable to similar systems coming out of the United States. China's economic growth also means that China will have increasingly more money to acquire and develop weapons systems. Because of these trends, the US needs to make a few changes in US force posture in the region. For example, the United States must follow through with currently planned enhancements to U.S. force posture in the region; must improve its capabilities to detect a surprise use of force; it must increase the readiness levels of air and naval forces in Hawaii and on the west coast of the United States so that they can be surged to the Western Pacific on short notice; the United States must ensure that its most capable new weapon systems are deployed first to the Pacific theater as they are fielded. Cliff closed with the comment that conflict in the Taiwan Strait is not inevitable, but as long as China reserves the right to use force, and the United States is committed to deterring this use of force, the United States needs to improve its force posture in the region. Michael D. Swaine explained the overall conclusions of the volume. On balance, this volume does not confirm the argument that the balance of power has shifted; instead, China still faces many daunting challenges to its military power, especially in terms of seizing Taiwan outright. China will not be able to maintain air superiority or a naval blockade in the foreseeable future. However, this volume reaffirms concern that China is acquiring new and large capabilities in some areas that are narrowing the gap in ways that could over time weaken deterrence and undermine the cross-strait military balance. This especially applies to area denial capabilities, missile forces, submarine forces, etc. Therefore, there is a need to assess how these capabilities apply to different contingencies and how the Chinese leadership believes these capabilities apply to a Taiwan conflict. For example, these capabilities might encourage the Chinese leadership to take preemptive action to force Taiwan to capitulate before the U.S. has time to intervene. However, this is a very risky option, and there is no indication that China is currently preparing for this option; most of these capabilities the Chinese view as deterrence. Furthermore, there are features of the U.S., China, and Taiwan military doctrine and crisis management that could lead to unintended escalation and consequences that undermine regional stability. In order to reduce the potential for conflict, the United States needs to continue to improve its ability to reply swiftly to a Chinese attack without striking the Chinese mainland early on. This is difficult given that much of U.S. military doctrine is offensive oriented. The U.S. should also continue to support Taiwan's acquisition of defense capabilities-this is a critical element of the maintenance of deterrence because there may be a period of time in which Taiwan needs to hold on until the U.S. can intervene. Taiwan cannot defend itself unaided against China and Taiwan's primary strategic objective should be to resist a Chinese attack until U.S. forces can arrive to repel such an attack. The book also offers a series of recommendations that China and the United States should implement in order to improve crisis management capabilities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

150 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – China Adv – Air Force Key – Taiwan [2/2]
China must control the air before it can even think about invading Taiwan-A strong Air Force kills that thought Siong`3 (Fan Sui Siong, Kelvin, CPT Fan Sui Siong Kelvin is a Weapons System Officer (ADA) by vocation and is currently
serving as Tactical Control Officer at an Air Defence Artillery Squadron, Will China Attack Taiwan, June 2003, http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2003/Vol29_2/7.htm)

Military Drawbacks Islands have a natural defence barrier because of the difficulty of securing beachheads when the shores are well defended. The British Isles, for instance, have not been successfully invaded since 1066. By virtue of the 80 mile Taiwan Strait between mainland China and Taiwan, Taiwan is accorded similar protection from mainland China's large army. However, successful landings have been staged in recent years, with the Normandy landing on D-day being the most prominent example to date. According to O'Hanlon(2000),14 three key elements are necessary for a successful amphibious assault (i) air superiority, (ii) initial superiority in troops/firepower at point of attack, and (iii) reinforcement advantage at point of attack. To add to this list, a successful assault will require (iv)well-trained, well-equipped troops who are properly coordinated in the battlefield. However, to quote the Pentagon, "China probably has never conducted a large scale amphibious exercise which has been fully coordinated with air support and airborne operations."15 Air Superiority To invade Taiwan, China would first have to win control of the air before she could begin transporting its troops and equipment across the Straits without overly strong resistance. Air superiority can be gained with a well-coordinated surprise attack on Taiwanese key assets such as airfields, C2 facilities, and aircraft. This could be done by simultaneously launching China's 200 ballistic missiles and her 800-1000 attack aircraft to target Taiwan's key assets. However, both options face limitations. As argued, Chinese ballistic missiles, already limited in number, are also known to be inaccurate. The option of using attack aircraft to weaken Taiwanese resistance fares no better. Firstly, mobilising so many aircraft to bases near Taiwan could alert Washington and Taipei to an imminent attack, thus negating the surprise element. Secondly, her aircraft are unlikely to attack effectively and efficiently. Taiwan possesses three times as many 4th generation fighters as China.16 Chinese aircraft are mostly obsolete and slow, travel at barely supersonic speeds17 and lack radar, thus limiting their ability to attack at night and rendering them vulnerable to beyond visual range attacks from radar-guided missiles of Taiwanese modern fighters. Thirdly, according to O'Hanlon, even with a well-coordinated first strike by China, at least half of Taiwan's combat aircraft would survive and be used to frustrate China's amphibious assault.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

151 Green Military Aff

***Iraq Adv***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

152 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Pullout Coming (1/2)
Iraq pullout coming in September-Afghan casualties Rueters`8 (Rueters, International News Service, U.S. could step up Iraq pullout in September - NYT
Sat Jul 12, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN12371064)

- The Bush administration is considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq beginning in September, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions, citing administration and military officials. The withdrawal, which the Times said would constitute a marked reversal from the war's darkest days of 2006-2007, stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters. U.S. and allied casualties there have outpaced those in Iraq in recent months. No final decisions have been made, but at least one and as many as three of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the administration in January, the Times said, citing officials. The White House declined to discuss the withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while the president hoped to bring more troops home, he would await the recommendation in September of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Times said. "For now," Johndroe said, "we will continue discussions with the Iraqis on our shared goals of a reduced U.S. troop presence," it quoted him as saying.

Pullout coming now-Optimism and improved security situation Michaels`8 (Jim, USA Today, July 7, 2008 Monday FINAL EDITION Gains in Iraq may lead to pullouts; U.S. military and
Iraqi premier hail progress, Lexis)

WASHINGTON -- Security in Iraq continues to improve even after the withdrawal of nearly 25% of U.S. combat brigades, increasing the prospects of further cuts in American forces. Although U.S. commanders are cautious about predicting further withdrawals, interviews with military experts and recent official statements indicate growing optimism about the potential to pull out more forces. "I believe the momentum we have is not reversible," said Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff who helped develop the Iraq strategy adopted by President Bush in January 2007. There will be "significant reductions in 2009 whoever becomes president," said Keane, who regularly consults with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki echoed Keane's optimism Saturday by declaring that "we defeated" the terrorists in Iraq. U.S. commanders remain cautious. Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, said recently that "our progress is fragile, and we continue to work to make this progress irreversible." Such encouraging reports could benefit both presidential candidates. Republican John McCain has been a major supporter of Bush's policy to temporarily increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. Democratic candidate Barack Obama said he wants to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months, although he said any pullout would be determined by conditions there. Violence in Afghanistan is growing, increasing pressure to shift more troops there from Iraq. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he wants to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but he doesn't want to sacrifice gains in Iraq by shifting troops too soon. About half of the 60,000 allied forces in Afghanistan are American. Four of the five extra brigades sent to Iraq last year have left the country; the last unit is preparing to leave this month. The extra brigades increased U.S. troop levels to about 160,000 from 130,000. Even after five combat brigades leave, about 140,000 U.S. service members will remain in Iraq. The average number of weekly attacks in Iraq has dropped to 200, an 80% reduction since June 2007, according to Multi-National Corps-Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi casualties have also dropped significantly. The State Department said in a recent report that Iraq has met 15 of 18 congressional benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq. The improved effectiveness of Iraq's security forces will make it easier to withdraw U.S. troops, said California Rep. Duncan Hunter, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. "I think it might surprise some people how fast we can come out of Iraq as the Iraqi army matures," Hunter said. "I think we passed the tipping point as far as the Iraqi army maturing."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

153 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Pullout Coming (2/2)
Pullout inevitable-Both the U.S. and Iraqi governments agree it’s necessary Aljazeera`8 (Aljazeera, Prominent Middle Eastern News Service, Iraq presses US for pullout date, July 9,2008,
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/07/20087823316609879.html)

The Iraqi government has said there can be no final deal regarding American forces staying in the country unless the US agrees to a firm timeline for troop withdrawals. "We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," national security adviser Muwaffaq alRubaie told reporters in the Iraqi city of Najaf on Tuesday. The comments were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal under negotiation with Washington. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the military deal with the US to have some sort of timetable for withdrawal. In a meeting with Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates on Monday, Nuri alMaliki said Iraq had proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating. "Negotiations are ongoing with the US side and the current attitude is to reach a memorandum of understanding either for immediate US forces withdrawal or timetable withdrawal," he said on Monday. But the US state department rejected a demand for a "hard date", saying any withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground. "The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," Gonzalo Gallegos, a state department spokesman, said. "We're looking at conditions, not calendars here," he said.

Pullout inevitable-Iraq’s army will be functioning by 2009 Tyson & Eggen`8 (Ann Scott Tyson and Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writers, U.S. General: Iraqi Forces to Be Fully
Ready in '09, July 10, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/09/ST2008070902270.html)

Iraq's army and police will be fully manned and operational by mid-2009, possibly as early as April, the top U.S. general in charge of building Iraqi security forces said yesterday, signaling the prospect that Iraqi forces could assume primary combat responsibilities in the country while U.S. troops shift to a supporting role. Asked when Iraqi ground forces could handle security so U.S. troops would not have to, Lt. Gen. James Dubik told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the strength of Iraq's ground forces had grown significantly. "The ground forces will mostly be done by middle of next year; their divisions, brigades and battalions are on a good timeline," Dubik said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. "Could be as early as April. Could be as late as August," said Dubik, who until last week led the effort to train Iraqi forces. While U.S. commanders' predictions on Iraqi security forces have proven excessively optimistic in the past, the general's assessment is central to the debates in Washington and Baghdad over a timeline for when Iraqi forces can take charge of security, allowing the bulk of the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to withdraw. Dubik's projection came as Iraqi leaders this week pressed for a firm timetable for the departure of U.S. troops as part of a long-term security agreement the two countries are negotiating.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

154 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Spillover
Iraqi instability will spill over Phillips 7 [James, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, “Proposed Timetables for U.S. Withdrawal Would Sabotage
Reconciliation in Iraq,” September 21, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1632.cfm]

Forcing a withdrawal of U.S. troops would hamstring efforts to consolidate bottom-up political progress in Iraq. Several National Intelligence Estimates have pointed out the grave implications of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces—not only for Iraq but also for the entire region—due to the destabilizing spillover effects of a failed Iraqi state. Congress has also been warned by Iraqi officials of the dire consequences of a premature withdrawal. Yet many in Congress continue to turn a blind eye to the disastrous consequences of a rush to exit.

An Iraqi conflict attracts regional powers Dallas News`7 (Regional News service “Beware Expedience in Iraq”,
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DNiraq_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.4367f31.html,July 7, 2007)

The growing chorus of dissent in Congress makes clear that fear – specifically the fear of a voter backlash in 2008 – is driving legislators to choose the most expedient route over one that accounts for America's, as well as Iraq's, best long-term interests.Nobody, except our enemies, is happy with the 3,600-plus U.S. death toll. Nobody can tolerate Iraqi leaders' ongoing failure to get their house in order. But just because key Republicans, including Sens. Pete Domenici and Richard Lugar, are ending support for the administration's troop-surge strategy does not mean that the Democratic plan for a pullout is the best or only solution. We think it's a bad idea that risks repeating the same mistakes that the Bush administration made when it launched the Iraq war. The administration was seriously misguided to think that it could rush troops in, oust a dictator and then step aside as democracy flourished and all of Iraq's problems disappeared. Because the administration had no realistic postwar plan, it created the security vacuum that American troops have had to fill over the past four years. It is equally foolish today for Congress to think all of our problems in Iraq will be solved simply by forcing the president to agree to a pullout. Congress offers no realistic plan to fill the new security vacuum that a U.S. withdrawal would undoubtedly create. The likely outcome is an unacceptable mix of civil war, chaos, massive bloodshed and potentially direct military confrontation involving Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Do our best thinkers on Capitol Hill really believe that's preferable to the status quo? President Bush has demonstrated the danger of launching a war based on half-baked plans. Troop-withdrawal advocates have yet to convince us their strategy won't make the mess worse.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

155 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: NW (1/2)
Iraqi instability spills out and goes nuclear Washington Times`6 (WASHINGTON TIMES, April 5, 2006, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060404085855-8325r.htm)

The negative ramifications of dropping the Iraq enterprise -- and with it the Bush initiative to encourage free market democracy throughout the Middle East -- would be enormous. Imagine the terrorist recruiting bonanza and their reinvigorated efforts to topple other regional regimes; envision Saudi oil and Pakistani nuclear arms in extremist hands. Then, think of the United States, with its porous borders and millions of illegal aliens, thousands among them Muslims. U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- and, thence, the region -would put 35-45 percent of the world's oil supply (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, plus Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) at the whim of West-hating fanatics and leave the region exposed to Pakistani nuclear attack. Goaded by maniacal Iranian mullahs, attacks in the U.S. would follow. Whatever one's preinvasion view of the liberation of Iraq, the cost to freedom worldwide is simply too great to envision. This is especially true, as the Iraqis are on the cusp of creating a functioning government. Iraq is close to civil war, but not there yet. Virtually every Shia and Sunni leader has spoken in genuine outrage at the unrest since the Samarra mosque attack in February, calling on their flocks to resist the Ba'athist sucker game, which seeks finally to drive the Shia majority to full-fledged war. When Shia firebrand leader Muqtada alSadr speaks feelingly about reaching out to Sunnis, including worshipping together with them, it is clear even he understands hopes for peace are on the brink of disappearing, with civil war the disastrous result. Iraq is not Vietnam, but withdrawal can make it worse. America's no-win, defensive Vietnam strategy foreordained the humiliating outcome. In Iraq, we won the main Iraq military campaign, trained a core military, guided a series of interim governments, constitution-writing and elections, and are encouraging final talks to form a permanent government. However, if we leave Iraq now, our efforts will collapse, rendering the Vietnam debacle a minor negative moment. In short, this is precisely not the time for the United States to accept defeat, to cut and run. Bloody, costly and frustrating as it has been, Iraq is successfully rebuilding. To leave now -- or at any time before we have fully supported reconstruction of the government, infrastructure and security forces -- would be more than craven. Throughout the Middle East, America would be seen as defeated by the terrorists we pledged to eliminate; U.S. respect from London, Berlin and Moscow to Beijing, Tokyo and Sydney would be decimated. Besides completely losing credibility with foe and friend alike, the United States and the entire world would be at grave risk. The battle in Iraq is not lost. However, if we depart, the country, the region and very probably the world will be. Afghanistan will be next, then Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE and -- the biggest prizes -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. What then? The terrorist enemy will have emotional and nearly total political dominion over 1.2 billion Muslims, at which point, it will be extraordinarily difficult to avoid -- not just civil war in Iraq -- the bloodiest cultural-religious conflict the world has seen.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

156 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: NW (2/2)
Middle Eastern instability goes nuclear Evron`94 (Yair Evron, Professor of International Relations at Tel Aviv University, 1994
[“Israel’s Nuclear Dilemma”, p. 123-4])

The potential risks involved in the functioning of the superpowers’ C3 may recur in the Middle East and, in some cases, with apparently greater intensity. The probability of erroneous decisions is therefore higher. These factors center on technical failures of warning systems, or the combination of technical failure and human error, deriving from misperception of the enemy’s behavior. There also exist processes of escalation that are totally distinct from technical failure, and which derive exclusively from human error. The latter case is most often the function of the erroneous interpretation of various enemy actions. These factors are liable to yield disastrous outcomes. The outcomes can be divided into two major categories of events: misperception of an enemy action that is mistakenly understood as a conventional or nuclear attack on the state’s nuclear bases or on the state in its entirety. Such a misperception could cause a rapid escalation. The second category comprises the escalation from a conventional war to the use of nuclear weapons. The persistence of intense conflicts in the Middle East will of course contribute to the potential danger of misperceptions. Hence, for example, if the Arab-Israeli peace process fails to advance and in particular were the situation to return to the level of conflict that preceded the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement, the intensity of the conflict could reinforce the potential for errors of perception among decision-makers. A high level of conflict tends to promote the tendency of decision-makers to view the other side’s actions with great concern.

Middle Eastern war goes nuclear Steinbach`2 (John Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO
PEACE, March 2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html)

Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

Civil wars in the Middle East go nuclear Blank`1(Stephen Blank, professor, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, WORLD & I, February 2001, p. 118)
After seven or more years of America's best efforts, we now should see with whom we are dealing and the multiple fronts of the real Middle East war. In today's Middle East, every form of conflict along the spectrum from rock throwing to nuclear war can take place. Governments there have long since used weapons of mass destruction in other states' civil wars. Further opportunities to start these civil wars or use such weapons must be firmly deterred and discouraged. Rather than choose peace and democracy, Arafat and his allies have chosen war and hatred. Israel and the United States should act together to make sure that they never get to make another similar choice.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

157 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Civil War (1/2)
An early withdrawal causes internal instability, because of a lack of enforcement-Air support key to solve Cole`5 (Juan, President of the Global Americana Institute, Consensus Growing in Iraq for a Withdrawal Timetable, January 20,
2005, http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/consensus-growing-in-iraq-for.html)

One con is that a precipitous withdrawal of coalition troops could lead to the total breakdown of security and give the guerrilla insurgents the run of Iraq. This sort of factor has stood in the way of previous US bids to begin drawing down the number of troops. Another con is that in colonial situations setting a firm deadline for withdrawal beforehand can be disastrous. The imperial power becomes a lame duck. Why should anyone care if they are arrested if they know the arresting officers will be gone in 6 months? Plus, such deadlines can encourage massive communal violence as ethnic groups jockey to take over as the imperial power departs. The British in India announced a deadline for August of 1947, and helped provoke the Partition of the country into Indian and Pakistan, an event that led to population displacements and rioting that cost between half a million and a million lives. Likewise, the May, 1948, deadline the British set for withdrawal from Palestine led to the outbreak of the 1948 War and the expulsion of nearly a million Palestinians from their own country. One solution to this latter problem might be to set a timetable for withdrawal of Coalition land forces, but for the US and its allies to continue to offer the new Iraqi government's army close air support in any battles with the neo-Baathists and jihadis that might try to take advantage of the withdrawal to make a coup and institute a bloodbath.

Failure in Iraq leads to Iraqi civil war and Middle Eastern instability Yaukey`5 (John, National Comisson on Energy Policy, Iraq pullout would have resounding impact,
ttp://www.energycommission.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/2442/pid/501/cat_id/1294, July 6, 2005)

President Bush has been trying to rally war-weary Americans by pounding home the message that staying the course in Iraq is strategically and morally necessary. On the flip side of that argument are the considerable costs of failure. In interviews and panel discussions, experts in military strategy, foreign policy, energy markets and national security overwhelmingly conclude that failure in Iraq — either because of U.S. mistakes or a loss of will to stay — would have far-reaching effects on Americans. It wouldn't take long, they say, for the shock wave from a faltering Iraq to rumble through U.S. living rooms. Oil prices would skyrocket, Islamic extremists and terrorists would rejoice in a historic victory, and Americans would face a new world of security threats while morale among U.S troops likely would sink. "Let me remind you that Iraq is centered in an area with 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and 40 percent of its gas," Anthony Cordesman, author of "Iraq's Evolving Insurgency," said. "In very narrow, selfish strategic terms, what happens in Iraq will affect the global economy, our economy and every job in this country for years to come." CIVIL WAR If the U.S. were to lose its resolve in Iraq and pull out early, civil war is a real possibility. But what would happen in such a conflict? Iraqis fighting each other — much like they are now? Much worse, experts say. A civil war would split Iraq along ethnic, tribal and religious lines. That could draw in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Jordan, turning the Middle East into a sectarian battleground between Shiites and Sunni Arabs. Whatever number of U.S. troops remained in Iraq would be faced with a collapsing house of cards and possibly wider regional tensions to contend with. "If there were an ethnic cleansing fight for Baghdad, you could have some outside intervention," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution who has closely studied the Iraq war. A key test of U.S. resolve for staying the course in Iraq could come as early as this summer as the Iraqis try to write a constitution under the daily threat of what is often sectarian violence. If the constitutional process bogs down in debate, or worse, "it will serve as a great stage on which to launch sectarian violence," said Thomas Sanderson, deputy director of the Transnational Threats Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

158 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Civil War (2/2)
A failed Iraq pullout would cause a civil war, spilling over into greater regional instability Feldman 5 (Noah Feldman is an expert on Islam and democracy and a former constitutional adviser in Baghdad. “Feldman: U.S. Must Not
Leave Iraq Before Security Is Ensured, Hopes Sunni Political Involvement May Reduce Insurgency” http://www.cfr.org/publication/9107/feldman.html) I was on Capitol Hill about a month ago and noticed that. One of the problems that always dogs U.S. foreign policy is the argument we’re too short term in our orientation to complete substantial projects; that because of the election cycle that is brewing right now, we have a short-term view of foreign policy instead of a long-term view. And it’s crucial if we’re going to undertake foreign-policy projects with any kind of ambition that we be able to maintain commitment to projects that we’ve begun. Now you may think the Iraq war was a terrible idea, a lot of people on Congress do. Even if that were the case, it doesn’t follow that the

United States can, consistent with its own interests or values, walk away from a place like Iraq. So, it’s all well and good to want to have a strategy to reduce the number of troops—obviously everyone wants that, myself included—but that has to come via the creation of a relatively stable situation in Iraq where peacekeeping troops from other countries can be brought in and our own troops could be reduced in numbers. Until there is that kind of stability and security in Iraq, until the Iraqi military is capable of defending itself and defending the country, until there is a police force that is capable of policing and keeping the peace, the United States really can’t, again consistent with its interests and values, simply say we made a mistake in Iraq, too bad, now we’re going home. The costs locally will be a civil war; the civil war will spill over regionally, a lot of people will die, and it will be our fault for having taken a half-measure, not a fullmeasure. That’s not acceptable with respect to the prestige of the United States in the world, our capacity to get things done, and it’s certainly not acceptable from an ethical perspective because we were the ones who went into Iraq by choice; we did not have to go into Iraq and we did it, and we didn’t have to depose Saddam but we did it. So now we have a responsibility, a deep responsibility to the people in Iraq.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

159 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy
Failure in Iraq kills democracy Yaukey`5 (John, National Comisson on Energy Policy, Iraq pullout would have resounding impact,
ttp://www.energycommission.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/2442/pid/501/cat_id/1294, July 6, 2005)

Failure in Iraq, either by leaving too early or by losing control of the country, would embolden warring Muslim radicals across the Middle East and confirm what Osama bin Laden has preached: The United States doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight. The idea of Arab democracy would collapse with American credibility, experts say. Americans would face a host of new security threats. "A lot of the military recovery under (the first President) Bush and Reagan and Desert Storm — a lot of that would be lost," Brookings' O'Hanlon said. "If we lose in Iraq and you look back several decades, you'd see more defeats than victories — Somalia, Beirut, Vietnam."

Iraq is key to global democracy Feldman 5 (Noah Feldman is an expert on Islam and democracy and a former constitutional adviser in Baghdad. “Feldman: U.S. Must Not
Leave Iraq Before Security Is Ensured, Hopes Sunni Political Involvement May Reduce Insurgency” http://www.cfr.org/publication/9107/feldman.html) I think that it will be still too soon to speak of at the broader level. I think though that the production

of democratic institutions that succeed is a very slow, piece-meal affair, it’s not achieved overnight, and it’s not achieved just by getting rid of undemocratic governments; nor is it achieved by just one or two elections. But each election inIraqthat garners significant participation and each move away from violence—which we have not yet seen in Iraq at all, but if we did see significant movement away from it—would be meaningful. Each move in that direction is a step toward the possibility of the production of some reasonably democratic, reasonably
stable state. And I think it’s a huge mistake to think any one milestone is going to tell us that we’re there. It’s going to take years. We’ll know if we’re not there if the violence continues. Meanwhile, other countries in the region are watching very closely what’s going on in Iraq and they’re wondering whether democratization is a viable strategy or whether the dangers of democratization, specifically in the form of radical instability, are worth the risk. So, if Iraq can begin to stabilize,

that will be a lesson to democratizing individuals or governments that maybe democracy is not the end of the world, that you can have effective and functioning democracy in the region. But, if violence in Iraq
continues, and even as elections go on, the message will be that you might be able to have a democracy, but it comes at such a degree of instability and loss of life and violence that it’s not worth taking the chance of democratizing. So, over the next five years, what

happens in Iraq will be hugely significant for the twenty-five-year process of seeing whether democracy is going to take root in the Middle East. I certainly continue to believe broader democratization is possible,
but it has to be democratization that shows ordinary people that there’s something in it for them. And most ordinary people are not going to want democracy if it comes with an increased degree of violence in their daily lives.

Democracy in Iraq is key to middle east peace/democracy Phillips 2 (David L. Phillips is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations,
July 25, 2002, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4685/in_iraq_taking_steps_on_a_road_to_democracy.html) Re "Is Fighting Iraq Worth the Risks?," by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Philip H. Gordon (Op-Ed, July 25): During my visit this month to northern Iraq, I met with a group of lawyers and jurists who are preparing a package of political principles to guide the country's democratic development. They are working hard on constitutional models to establish a federal democratic republic in Iraq, and developing power-sharing arrangements between Iraq's ethnic and religious communities. The United States would not be

solely responsible for establishing a new government in Baghdad. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has the means to pay for reconstruction and to subsidize an internationally supervised transitional authority. In addition, opposition leaders are ready and willing to help. Regime change has rewards, not only risks. A pro-Western government in Baghdad would advance the Middle East peace process; encourage democracy in front-line states; and provide a reliable energy supply to fuel America's economic recovery.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

160 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – NW
Democracy prevents nuclear warfare, ecosystem collapse, and extinction Diamond 95 (Larry Diamond, a professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and democracy, “Promoting
Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives: a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict”, December 1995, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm)

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia

nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

161 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – Terrorism
Oppressive governments are the root cause of terrorism – democratic reform solves Diamond 95 (Larry Diamond, a professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and democracy, “Promoting
Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives: a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict”, December 1995, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm)

Terrorism and immigration pressures also commonly have their origins in political exclusion, social injustice, and bad, abusive, or tyrannical governance. Overwhelmingly, the sponsors of international terrorism are among the world's most authoritarian regimes: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan. And locally within countries, the agents of terrorism tend to be either the fanatics of antidemocratic, ideological movements or aggrieved ethnic and regional minorities who have felt themselves socially marginalized and politically excluded and insecure: Sri Lanka's Tamils, Turkey's Kurds, India's Sikhs and Kashmiris. To be sure, democracies must vigorously mobilize their legitimate instruments of law enforcement to counter this growing threat to their security. But a more fundamental and enduring assault on international terrorism requires political change to bring down zealous, paranoiac dictatorships and to allow aggrieved groups in all countries to pursue their interests through open, peaceful, and constitutional means.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

162 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Impact: Democracy – War etc.
Democratic governance is key to international stability – prevents terrorism, genocide, and environmental destruction Diamond 95 (Larry Diamond, a professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and democracy, “Promoting
Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives: a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict”, December 1995, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm) The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do

not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

163 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Air Force key [1/3]
Effective air force is key to success during and after a pullout Sirak`6 (Michael, April 14, 2006 FridayAir Force Chief Sees U.S. Airpower Supporting Iraq For a 'Long Time', Lexis)
The U.S. Air Force will continue to be a presence in Iraq even after the withdrawal of major portions of U.S. and coalition land forces from there, the service's top military official said yesterday. "I believe that the air component will be there a long time," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley told reporters at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington, D.C. Exactly how long is difficult to say, he said. "In a way, you have asked an unanswerable question," he said to the reporter who raised the issue. But he equated the potential duration of the Air Force's presence in the region after the pullout of major ground forces to the decade-long mission that the Air Force and coalition aircraft carried out in enforcing the United Nations-imposed No- Fly Zones after the 1990-91 Gulf War. "As the Iraqi forces become much more capable and we are able to reduce our footprint of land component activities, I don't see the air component coming out of there quick[ly]," he said. Moseley said Air Force aircraft will continue to be needed in Iraq to haul cargo and personnel, serve as eyes and ears in the sky in the search for anti-coalition insurgents, and to carry out attacks on time-sensitive targets. He said these platforms will also support the fledgling Iraqi Air Force. The latter stood up its first operational location in March at the New Al Muthana Air Base outside of Baghdad and has three C-130E medium transport aircraft and a variety of smaller airplanes. Moseley said the Air Force intends to reduce the number of bases that it maintains in the region to support activities in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. "I see that number coming down," he said. Currently there are 18 bases. Moseley said the Air Force is not sure yet how many locations will be phased out. The Air Force presence in the region is also important to continue the training with allies in the region, such as the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and conduct joint exercises with them, he said. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, operates the Gulf Air Warfare Center at Al Dhafra Air Base that provides opportunities for joint activities, he noted. "Remember, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all operate U.S. [aircraft] systems," he said. "So we have pilots..and maintainers who are embedded in those squadrons. I see a continuing dialogue and interface with those countries as well."

The Air Force is key to success in Iraq-They’re doing more jobs than normal, and the Iraqi Air Force sucks AP`6 (Associated Press, Air Force's Role Changing in Iraq January 3, 2006,
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,84287,00.html)

The main aerial hub for the war in Iraq has 1,500 airmen doing convoy operations in Iraq and 1,000 working with detainees, training Iraqis and performing other activities not usually associated with the Air Force, said Col. Tim Hale, commander of the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing. "Every one of us has learned that we are in a nontraditional state in our armed forces," he said, standing outside an auditorium at an air base in Kuwait. The dangers of the new roles were highlighted when the expeditionary wing lost its first female member in the line of duty in Iraq. Airman 1st Class Elizabeth Jacobson, 21, was killed in a roadside bombing while providing convoy security in September near the U.S. detention center at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. "More and more Air Force are doing Army jobs," said Senior Master Sgt. Matt Rossoni, 46, of San Francisco. "It's nothing bad about the Army. They're just tapped out." Air Force security forces are traditionally associated with base defense. But Chief Master Sgt. Tom McDaniel, 41, of Winston-Salem, N.C., said his squadron is happy to provide security for patrols and to deliver supplies. "It's all about getting the mission done," he said. "These are different roles we find ourselves in . ... This is probably the forefront of things to come." The Navy is seeing the same trend, using its fighter aircraft to escort convoys and protect oil infrastructure and sending sailors in boats to contact fishermen from Saudi Arabia and even Iran for tips on terror suspects. "In the last three or four years we've done a lot more of that," Rear Adm. James A. Winnefeld, commander of Carrier Strike Group 2, said aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The Air Force also is keeping up with its traditional duties. In November, the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing delivered its 1 millionth passenger to Iraq since October 2003, Hale told service members gathered Monday for a holiday concert with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace. Those missions included transporting troops, casualties and cargo flights. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps flew thousands of missions in support of U.S. ground troops in Iraq this fall, including attacks by unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, military records show. American and allied refueling, transport and surveillance planes also are in the air. Airstrikes have been largely in areas where the insurgency is strongest, like Balad, Ramadi and in the vicinity of Baghdad, according to

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

164 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Air Force key [2/3]
the U.S. Central Command. At least 2,179 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. Brig. Gen. Allen G. Peck, deputy commander of American air forces in the Middle East, said that while the U.S. has been focusing on training Iraqi ground forces, it also is helping Iraqis improve their air force, giving them training and C-130 cargo planes. The Iraqis have about 50 aircraft and some 700 people trained in the air force, among some 180,000 security forces overall, he said at an air base near Qatar. "It's relatively small right now, but it's getting bigger," he said. Peck said the near-term focus was training in maintenance, reconnaissance, transport and counterinsurgency tactics, but the Iraqis also should eventually become capable of defending their own air space. "It's not a matter of months, but a matter of years," he said. "We're moving in the right direction."

Air Force is key to keeping Iraq from falling into shambles-It’s key to surveillance and security and the Iraqi air force won’t solve Hanley`7 (Charles J., Air Force Quietly Building Iraq Presence, July 15, 2007,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/15/2547/)

The demand for air support is heavy. On one recent day, at a briefing attended by a reporter, it was noted that 48 requests for air support were filled, but 16 went unmet. “There are times when the Army wishes we had more jets,” said F-16C pilot Lt. Col. Steve Williams, commander of the 13th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, a component of Balad’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. In addition, the Air Force is performing more “ISR” work in Iraq - intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. “We have probably come close to doubling our ISR platforms the past 12 months,” said Col. Gary Crowder, a deputy air operations chief for the Central Command. Those proliferating reconnaissance platforms include Predator drones, highflying U2s and AWACS, the technology-packed airborne warning and control aircraft, three of which returned to the Persian Gulf in April after three years’ absence. The F-16Cs and other attack planes also do surveillance work with their targeting cameras, keeping watch on convoy routes, for example. By Oct. 1, Crowder said, all squadrons will have “ROVER” capability, able to download real-time aerial video to the laptop computers of troops on the ground - showing them, in effect, what’s around the next corner. “They love it. It’s like having a security camera wherever you want it,” said Col. Joe Guastella, the Air Force’s regional operations chief. Air Force engineers, meanwhile, are improving this centrally located home base, which supports some 10,000 air operations per week. The weaker of Balad’s two 11,000-foot runways was reinforced - for five to seven years’ more hard use. The engineers next will build concrete “overruns” at the runways’ ends. Balad’s strategic ramp, the concrete parking lot for its biggest planes, was expanded last fall. The air traffic control system is to be upgraded again with the latest technology. “We’d like to get it to be a field like Langley, if you will,” said mission support chief Reynolds, referring to the Air Force showcase base in Virginia. The Air Force has flown over Iraq for many years, having enforced “no-fly zones” with the Navy in 1991-2003, banning Iraqi aircraft from northern and southern areas of this country. Today, too, it takes a long view: Many expect the Army to draw down its Iraq forces by 2009, but the Air Force is planning for a continued conflict in which it supports Iraqi troops. “Until we can determine that the Iraqis have got their air force to sufficient capability, I think the coalition will be here to support that effort,” Lt. Gen. Gary North, overall regional air commander, said in an interview. The new Iraqi air force thus far fields only a handful of transports and reconnaissance aircraft - no attack planes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

165 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Iraq Adv – Air Force key [3/3]
Air power empirically solves sticky withdrawals, and will prevent civil war Weinberg`5 (Bill, Juan Cole weighs in on Iraq withdrawal, From Iraq scholar Juan Cole's Informed Comment website
8/28/2005 http://ww4report.com/node/1000)

So those who want the troops out also do have a point. So here is what I would suggest as a responsible stance toward Iraq. Others, including Iraqi politicians, have already suggested most of these things, but I think the below hang together and could avert a tragedy while allowing us to get out. 1) US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to do the policing. We are no good at it. If local militias take over, that is the Iraqi government's problem. The prime minister will have to either compromise with the militia leaders or send in other Iraqi militias to take them on. Who runs Iraqi cities can no longer be a primary concern of the US military. Our troops are warriors, not traffic cops. 2) In the second phase of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily be brought out of Iraq. 3) For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces. (I.e. we would replicate our tactics in Afghanistan of providing the air force for the Northern Alliance infantry and cavalry.) I concede that this tactic will get some US Blackhawks shot down from time to time, and won't be painless. But it could prevent the outbreak of fullscale war. This way of proceeding, which was opened up by the Afghanistan War of 2001-2002, and which depends on smart weapons and having allies on the ground, is the major difference between today and the Vietnam era, when dumb bombs (and even carpet bombing) couldn't have been deployed effectively to ensure the enemy did not take or hold substantial territory. [I am not advocating bombing civilian neighborhoods of cities; I am talking about intervening in set-piece battles of the sort that will become possible in the absence of US ground troops.] 4) With the agreement of the elected Iraqi government, the US would prevent any guerrilla force from fielding any large number of fighters for set piece battles. Such large units of militiamen attempting to march from Anbar on Baghdad, e.g., would be destroyed by AC-130s and other US air weaponry suitable to this purpose. This tactic cannot prevent the current campaign of car bombings, but it can stop a full-scale Lebanon or Afghanistan-style civil war from erupting.

Air support is a crucial part of a successful withdrawal-Someone has to protect the remaining troops Wood`7 (David, Baltimore Sun Reporter, The long, hard haul from Iraq Withdrawal of troops, supplies could take at least 20
months, officials say, July 15, 2007, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-te.withdraw15jul15,0,1684709,full.story)

Apart from politics, the beginning of a withdrawal may be triggered then when many of the combat brigades in Iraq are scheduled to be rotated home, since the Army says it will have difficulty finding fresh units to replace them. Already, six National Guard ground combat brigades are set to deploy to Iraq next spring; to sustain current levels, even more active or Guard units would have to be pressed into service called up in a presidential election year. For that reason, and for the sake of stability in the region, many in Washington favor a phased troop withdrawal. One idea gaining ground is to withdraw all "combat forces" and reassign the remaining troops to fighting insurgents and training and advising Iraq's forces. But those missions would require almost as many troops as there are in Iraq today, officers said, and would hardly remove Americans from the fight. Those who remained would still require the full spectrum of support: food, housing, medical care, intelligence support and the air cover provided by U.S. strike fighters. As they do now for resupply, all would depend on dozens of daily truck convoys, which themselves require ground troops and air support for protection. Some officers here worry about the ripple effects a limited withdrawal could start. "You start pulling the string," said one senior officer who asked not to be identified, "and things start to unravel."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

166 Green Military Aff

***Air Pollution Adv***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

167 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves General (1/2)
CTL massively reduces air pollution Chemical & Engineering News 6 (1-16)
"The principal environmental benefits associated with coal gasification are significantly lower air pollution emissions in the short term," Ferguson said, "and more cost-efficient carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in the long term." Because coal gasification is a chemical process, it is possible to remove the sources of many air pollutants-including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and particulate matterbefore combustion, he explained, when it is much easier and thus less expensive to do so.

More ev…and it doesn’t produce more lifecycle CO2 USA Today 7 (6-19)
Coal-to-liquid fuel is clean. Government tests show that when emissions are measured against the life cycle of other fuels, coal-to-liquid fuel produces no more, and possibly less, greenhouse gas than the fuel it will replace. Coal-to-liquid fuel also emits far less harmful pollutants known to have health effects -- such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates -- regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

More evidence… Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
In addition to these conclusions, other environmental benefits of the combination of coal and biomass conversion to synthetic fuels using the gasification / Fischer-Tropsch process include significantly reduced emissions of sulfur and other acid rain and ozone pollutant precursors and complete control of mercury and other toxic metal emissions.

More ev… Hydrocarbon Processing 7 (Mar, p.23)
A new report researched by Energy Business Reports examines how coal liquefaction offers environmental benefits, cost savings and energy security. Road trials of coal-based fuels have shown that significant local air quality improvements can be achieved through the reduction of tailpipe emissions. Some studies suggest particulate emissions can be up to 75% less than with traditional diesel, and NOx can be reduced up to 60%. Optimizing new engines for these fuels will offer even greater reductions, particularly of NOx, according to this analysis. New engine design, such as direct injection, will offer yet greater efficiencies.

More ev… Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
But the benefits of Rentech’s fuels are not limited to CO2. Rentech fuels will be the cleanest liquid transportation fuels available. F-T diesel and jet fuel are pure paraffinic hydrocarbons. This means that they inherently contain essentially no sulfur and aromatics, two fuel components that have long been the focus of federal and state environmental protection policies. The fuels are clear, non-toxic, biodegradable and completely fungible with current fuels and fuel transportation infrastructure. This means that no changes are needed to fuel distribution pipelines or engines to use F-T diesel and jet fuel.

More ev… Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
Indirect coal liquefaction fuels derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process, in particular, contain substantially no sulfur and also exhibit lower particulate and carbon monoxide emissions. These fuels also contribute less to the formation of nitrogen oxides than petroleum derived fuels and they are readily biodegradable.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

168 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves General (2/2)
CTL reduces air pollutioni Geiselman 6 (Bruce; Waste News, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; October 23, Pg. 26, Lexis)
The U.S. Air Force within 10 years wants to cut in half its use of jet fuel produced from crude oil and replace it with cleaner-burning, domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Air Force already has large numbers of cars running on alternative fuels, but now it wants to find alternative fuel sources for its aircraft. A B-52 bomber
containing a blend of synthetic and regular jet fuel took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California on Sept. 19, marking the first time the U.S. military has attempted to fly a plane with nontraditional fuel. ``This test flight sets the stage for a more comprehensive

plan the Air Force has toward conservation,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Ronald Sega, a former test pilot who flew with crew members aboard the plane. ``This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels.'' The plane appeared to function normally using a liquid fuel produced from natural gas by Syntroleum Corp., of Tulsa, Okla., according to company and Air Force officials. Particularly appealing to the Air Force is the fact that domestically produced coal, available in abundant supplies in the United States, could also be used to produce the fuel. ``The feedstock for this process could include natural gas or it could be coal or oil shale,'' Sega said. ``The United States has significant reserves in coal and oil shale, something on the order of 2 trillion barrel equivalents.'' Using a domestically produced fuel would make the Air Force less vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies. Also appealing are the environmental characteristics of the fuel. The Air Force initially tested a blend of synthetic fuel with 50 percent normal jet fuel. However, tests have revealed that jet engines burning pure synthetic fuel produce about 90 percent less particulate matter and soot emissions, which also improves engine performance. ``This test is a significant milestone for Syntroleum and is a result of more than four years of research and development efforts with the DOD,'' said Jack Holmes, company president and CEO.

More ev… Energy Business Reports 7 (2-5, http://energybusinessdaily.com/?s=liquefaction)
What’s more, road trials of coal-based fuels have shown that significant air quality improvements can be achieved through the reduction of tailpipe emissions. Some studies suggest particulate emissions may be up to 75% less than with traditional diesel, and oxides of nitrogen may be reduced by up to 60%. Improved engine designs, such as direct injection, will offer yet greater efficiencies. That’s good news for global warming, and good news for President Bush’s aggressive fuel use reduction plan.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

169 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Solves Airlines
CTL solves air pollution from commercial aircraft Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
F-T fuels offer numerous benefits for aviation users. The first is an immediate reduction in particulate emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown in laboratory combustors and engines to reduce PM emissions by 96% at idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other turbine engine emissions is still under way. Concurrent to the PM reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel. F-T fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy content per carbon content of the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load of fuel.

( ) Aircraft are the major source of air pollution. Holzman 97 (David, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 105, Number 12, December, http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html)
In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of VOCs and NO x during landing and takeoff cycles, more than double 1970 levels, according to the NRDC report. These two classes of compounds are precursors of groundlevel ozone, which can interfere with lung function. "During the summer . . . between 10% and 20% of all East Coast hospital admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," says the NRDC report. Airports are among the greatest sources of local air pollution. A major airport's idling and taxiing planes can emit hundreds of tons of VOCs and NO x annually. John F. Kennedy International Airport is the second largest source of VOCs in New York City. LaGuardia is among the major sources of NO x .

( ) More ev. Goran 82 (Morris Herbert, Author of Environmental Design & Research Ctr,
http://books.google.com/books?id=MWhPTuIv4R0C&dq=%22airplane%22+pollution&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0)

The exhaust from a commercial jet airplane is equivalent to that from ten thousand automobiles. In 1968 the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District made some preliminary studies of jet engine pollution. They found that about one-fifth of the particulate matter in their atmosphere could be traced to the aircraft; about one-fifth of the hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides could be assigned to jet engine emission. In November, 1970, the National Air Pollution Control Administration asked airlines to stop dumping jet fuel into the air after takeoff. The material discarded is a residue that seeps into holding tanks when jet engines are stopped and these tanks are emptied automatically within minutes after the next takeoff. About two million gallons of fuel are so disposes of every year.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

170 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – US Key to World
( ) U.S. spreads pollution to other areas – mercury polices with Europe proves. Watson 5 (Traci, Staff Writer for USA Today, March 14, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm)
Despite the influx of dirty air from abroad, the bulk of USA's air pollution comes from U.S. tailpipes and smokestacks. So scientists such as Jaffe say cleaning up domestic emissions is still the most important step the United States can take to clean up its air. Europeans probably would approve of that advice, because air pollution from the USA crosses the Atlantic to choke the Old World. In 2001, for example, a cloud of fumes from the eastern USA traveled far enough to cause high levels of ozone in the Alps, according to a study in the January issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. Aware that it gives as well as gets air pollution, the United States has taken steps to address the two-way flow. In 2000, Canada and the United States signed a treaty requiring both nations to reduce ozone-forming gases. Air-quality managers from El Paso, and Juarez, Mexico, work on how to control ozone and particle pollution that crosses the border both ways. But at talks in the past year, the U.S. government opposed a stringent treaty to control mercury, which is emitted by coalburning power plants and factories. Several European countries support mandatory mercury limits. The United States argued instead for technical aid to teach countries how to control their mercury emissions. As for the national parks, Bachmann says the United States wants "to work with the international community" to clean up pollution. But no global binding treaties are in the works. That will have to change, some scientists say. The recent research "really points to the need for global cooperation," Jaffe says. "It's only one planet, and we've got to learn to live on it."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

171 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine (1/3)
( ) Air pollution alters precipitation patterns resulting in wide-spread famine. CBC 2 (CBC News, July 22, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html)
Air pollution from Europe and North America may have helped set the scene for a devastating African famine that killed at least 1 million people. The 1970-85 drought that stretched through the Africa's Sahel region from Senegal to Ethiopia may have been worsened by tiny particles called aerosols from the industrial world, Canadian and Australian scientists say. Sulphur dioxide aerosols from coal burning seem to contribute to drought by altering cloud formations. The researchers said the particles remain suspended in the clouds instead of falling as rain, and the heavier clouds reflected more of the sun's energy back to space. Canadian pollution could contribute to famines in Africa The aerosols add to conventional causes of drought, such as the overuse of land and natural atmospheric changes. Model match Researchers used a computer to simulate atmospheric conditions first with, and then without the sulphur dioxide aerosols. They found the aerosol model matched the shift in precipitation that occurred during the drought. What's more, the rains happened to return at the same time clean air acts kicked in throughout Europe and North America. During the late 1970s and 1980s, industrial countries began reducing sulphur dioxide pollution to limit acid rain. The cleanup "goes hand-in-hand with the increase in precipitation in the Sahel," said Prof. Ulrike Lohmann of the Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax. The study by Lohmann and atmospheric scientist Leon Rotstayn of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia will be published in the August issue of the Journal of Climate.

( ) The dimming caused by severe air pollution caused the death of millions of people and afflicted 50 million more with starvation, BBC 5 ( News, Horizon Documentary on Global Dimming, January 15,
http://www.innovatieplatformnoordnederland.nl/cms/content.asp?contentId=247&catid=77)

The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive. Climatologists studying this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern Africa. In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never quite understood why they had failed. The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more” with hunger and starvation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

172 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine (2/3)
( ) Air pollution caused a 50% precipitation reduction in the Sahel region, resulting in 1.2 million deaths and millions more starved. Verrengia 2 (Joseph B., Staff Writer for the Associated Press, July 21, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm)
Nearly two decades after one of the world's most devastating famines in Africa, scientists are pointing a finger at pollution from industrial nations as one of the possible causes. The starvation brought on by the 1970-85 drought that stretched from Senegal to Ethiopia captured the world's attention with searing images: skeletal mothers staring vacantly, children with bloated bellies lying in the sand, vultures lurking nearby. Before rains finally returned, 1.2 million people had died. Now, a group of scientists in Australia and Canada say that drought may have been triggered by tiny particles of sulfur dioxide spewed by factories and power plants thousands of miles away in North America, Europe and Asia. The short-lived pollution particles, known as aerosols, didn't have to travel to Africa to do their dirty work. Instead, they were able to alter the physics of cloud formation miles away and reduce rainfall in Africa as much as 50 percent, say the researchers, who used a computer to simulate the atmospheric conditions.

( ) Emissions show a direct correlation of rainfall strengthening the Sahel theory – more rainfall means less famine. Verrengia 2 (Joseph B., Staff Writer for the Associated Press, July 21, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm)
The process, known as teleconnection, continues in the atmosphere today. Some scientists suspect it might help explain the drought gripping parts of the United States, although that question has not been specifically examined. And while pollution may affect the behavior of rain clouds, scientists stopped short of solely blaming industry's effluent for the famine and starvation that wracked the region of Africa called the Sahel. "It's more subtle than that," said atmospheric scientist Leon Rotstayn, lead author of the study on the subject. "The Sahelian drought may be due to a combination of natural variability and atmospheric aerosols," said Rotstayn, of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a government research agency in Australia. The CSIRO study will be published in the August Journal of Climate. Over the years, the disastrous lack of rainfall over the Sahel has been blamed on everything from overgrazing to El Nino. Many scientists still argue those are chief culprits. One interesting clue: In the 1990s, rain returned to the Sahel. During the same period, emissions laws in the industrialized West reduced aerosol pollution. A coincidence? Scientists don't think so. "Cleaner air in the future will mean greater rainfall in the region," Rotstayn said. Some researchers say the CSIRO study is intriguing, but that the computer simulation is too simple to solve the mystery by itself. "It is quite a plausible argument," said atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan of Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

173 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine (3/3)
Air pollution leads to famine: Africa proves. CBC News 2 (July 22, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html)
Air pollution from Europe and North America may have helped set the scene for a devastating African famine that killed at least 1 million people.
The 1970-85 drought that stretched through the Africa's Sahel region from Senegal to Ethiopia may have been worsened by tiny particles called aerosols from the industrial world, Canadian and Australian scientists say.

Sulphur dioxide aerosols from coal burning seem to contribute to drought by altering cloud formations. The researchers said the particles remain suspended in the clouds instead of falling as rain,
and the heavier clouds reflected more of the sun's energy back to space.

The aerosols add to conventional causes of drought, such as the overuse of land and natural atmospheric changes.

( ) Air pollution stops photosynthesis and poisons plants. Plant Sciences 1 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3408000030.html)
Our industrial society produces large amounts of pollution. Sulfur dioxide is produced by the combustion of a variety of high sulfur fuels, especially coal. Acid rain is produced from sulfur dioxide. Aluminum and glass factories produce fluoride, a pollutant that can accumulate in plants. Ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate, both produced in the presence of sunlight, nitrogen oxides, and VOCs, are major components of smog and together are the most serious air pollution problem faced by plants. Pollution enters the plants through stomata, tiny pores used by leaves for gas exchange. Yellow or brown coloration along leaf edges and veins are signs of pollution damage. Cell membranes are destroyed and the biochemical reactions of photosynthesis are slowed or stopped. Air pollution itself does not usually kill plants, but it can severely reduce crop yields and makes plants more susceptible to diseases and insects. The damage created by pollution depends on the concentration of the pollutant as well as on the duration of the pollution event. For example, long-term exposure to low pollution levels may be less damaging than short, intense pollution events. Long-term processes such as acid rain, though, can damage forests by changing soil acidity over many years. Plants vary greatly in their ability to resist pollution. In some cases, plants are resistant to sulfur dioxide, but not to ozone. In Australia, radiata pines are usually more resistant to sulfur dioxide than broadleaf eucalyptus trees. Yet in Sweden, broadleaf trees resist ozone better than the conifers. There is also tremendous variation in ozone resistance within the Eucalyptus genus.

( ) Air pollution stops plant growth, diminishes health of plants, stops reproduction,a nd slows their ability to heal. VCAPD 6 (Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, http://www.vcapcd.org/health.htm)
Ground level ozone can have several environmental impacts: Ozone impairs the ability of plants to produce and store food. This inhibits plant growth and reproduction and diminishes plant health, which in turn, weakens the ability of plants to survive disease, insect attacks, and extreme weather. Ozone can reduce agricultural yields and damage economically important crops - including soybeans, kidney beans, wheat and cotton. In Ventura County, there are some crops that can no longer be grown due to ozone air pollution. Ozone can have long term impacts on forests and ecosystems - including disruption of ecological functions (such as water movement and mineral nutrient cycling) and adverse impacts on the natural habitat of plants and animals.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

174 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Famine – O/W War
Systemic impacts of food security outweigh war. Naylor and Falcon 5 (December 1, Rosamond and Walter, "Rethinking Food Security for the 21st Century,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5062778/Rethinking-foodsecurity-for-the.html) Popular and academic discourses are awash in discussions of wars and uprisings around the world. Data from numerous sources are in general agreement on the magnitude of deaths that have occurred during the past two decades as a result of interstate and civil wars. The latter greatly exceed the former, and in many years there were as many as thirty-five ongoing civil uprisings (Fearon and Laitin, Holloway and Stedman, COW). During the 1990s, approximately 1 million lives were lost annually in wars of all sorts (UN 2004). Two thirds of those killed were civilians, with women and children more than proportionately represented (Smith). Although the AK-47 remained the weapon of choice, it is likely that more people were killed by machetes than bombs. About 60% of all deaths were in Africa, and more than 25% were in Asia (Smith). More recently--between May 2003 and May 2005-1,850 members of the coalition forces were killed in Iraq, as were at least ten times that many Iraqi soldiers and civilians (ICCC). Grim as the conventional security data are, they pale in comparison to the food security situation. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2004b) estimates that 5 million children die from hunger-related causes per year. The World Health Organization and other sources put the total number of hunger-related deaths at about 8 million annually (Hunger Project). This estimate has large error bars, which arise from both definitional and empirical causes. What, for example, is the "cause" of death of a starving person, caught in a civil war, who ends up in a refugee camp, and then dies of measles? Even if the official estimates are off by 20%, several things are clear. Food insecurity deaths outnumber war deaths by a factor of at least 5 to 1. As in the case of war casualties, food-related deaths are concentrated among civilians, especially women and children. About 20,000 persons per day die globally as a result of food insecurity, the majority in Africa and Asia. That number is approximately seven times the number killed in the 9/11 attacks--and it happens every day. If forty fully loaded 747s were to crash on a daily basis, would the world take notice? And if the answer is yes, why is media coverage and concern so much more ambivalent with respect to the comparable havoc caused by hunger?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

175 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Marine Species
Air pollutions causes ocean acidification which crushes marine ecosystems WHOI 7 (Woods Hole Oceanic Institution, Acid Rain Has a Disproportionate Impact on Coastal Waters
Research Suggests Sulfur, Nitrogen Emissions Play a Role in Changing Chemistry Near the Coast, September 7, 2007, http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=9779&tid=282&cid=31286&ct=162)

The release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere by power plants and agricultural activities plays a minor role in making the ocean more acidic on a global scale, but the impact is greatly amplified in the shallower waters of the coastal ocean, according to new research by atmospheric and marine chemists. Ocean “acidification” occurs when chemical compounds such as carbon dioxide, sulfur, or nitrogen mix with seawater, a process which lowers the pH and reduces the storage of carbon. Ocean acidification hampers the ability of marine organisms—such as sea urchins, corals, and certain types of plankton—to harness calcium carbonate for making hard outer shells or “exoskeletons.” These organisms provide essential food and habitat to other species, so their demise could affect entire ocean ecosystems. The findings were published this week in the online “early edition” of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; a printed version will be issued later this month. “Acid rain isn’t just a problem of the land; it’s also affecting the ocean,” said Scott Doney, lead author of the study and a senior scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). “That effect is most pronounced near the coasts, which are already some of the most heavily affected and vulnerable parts of the ocean due to pollution, over-fishing, and climate change.” In addition to acidification, excess nitrogen inputs from the atmosphere promote increased growth of phytoplankton and other marine plants which, in turn, may cause more frequent harmful algal blooms and eutrophication (the creation of oxygen-depleted “dead zones”) in some parts of the ocean.

( ) Air pollution will cause the next apocalypse – the world will run out of saltwater fish unless pollution trends are reversed. De Noon 6 (Daniel, CBS News Staff Writer, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml)
The apocalypse has a new date: 2048. That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change.The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world.The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise."I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release."This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release."If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds.Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries.But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide."A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say.The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments.They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe.Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems.And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest. But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say. Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more. "It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now." Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

176 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Species
SO2 emissions poison the entire food chain, rippling to humans MEIA 6 (Manitoba Enviromental Industrial Association, Prairies get first taste of acid rain, September 20, 2006,
http://www.meia.mb.ca/WeeklyFYIforSeptember252006.html)

Sulfur dioxide emissions from vehicles, smelter companies and pulp and paper mills are corroding soil, Pip said, and causing irreversible damage to plants and organisms. Acid rain makes it easier for plant species to absorb metals like lead, copper and mercury, and can make its way down the food chain causing health effects in humans. Her research into vegetation in the Flin Flon area found tomatoes had 500 times the acceptable level of metals in food."You can see it really damages the trees and the basic vegetation," she said. "They die and they're very important as builders of the soil." Acidic pollution is a greater problem in Eastern Canada, but emissions there have been declining due to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement of 1991. The agreement doesn't cover the West.

Air pollution results in chemical imbalances, threatening the ecosystem. FOEN 8 (Federal Office for the Environment, Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communications,
http://www.bafu.admin.ch/luft/00575/00580/index.html?lang=en)

At elevated concentrations, air pollutants exert direct effects (both acute and chronic) on plants. High ozone concentrations in the summer, for example, inflict visible damage on leaves and needles. More prolonged high-level exposure to ozone results in reduced growth, which in agricultural crops can translate into lower yields. But air pollutants are also transported over great distances and eventually deposited - in a wet or dry form - in sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Inputs of sulphur and nitrogen, for example, give rise to acidification not only of alpine mountain lakes and higher-altitude rivers, but also of forest floors at any altitude. As a result of overfertilization, elevated nitrogen inputs also adversely affect a wide range of nitrogen-sensitive ecosystems such as forests, species-rich natural pastures and dry grassland, alpine heathland, raised bogs and fens. One example of what can happen when forests are overburdened with nitrogen is that nitrogen may be leached from the forest floor (in the form of nitrate) into the groundwater. Around two thirds of the nitrogen inputs currently affecting sensitive Swiss ecosystems are attributable to ammonia released from agriculture, while approximately one third can be traced back to nitrogen oxides from combustion processes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

177 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer
Conventional jet fuel destroys the ozone layer Levy 8 (Yeshayahou, Associate Professor, Mc Graw Hill’s Access Science, accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=20&questionID=5018)
Conventional aeronautical vehicles are driven by jet fuel, which is a form of high-grade kerosene. Fuel is burned in the combustion chamber and releases its chemical energy as heat. All large airplanes are driven by jet engines, and all medium- and large-size helicopters are driven by turbo-shaft engines, which are a different form of jet engine. Hence, jet fuel combustion is the driving power for most aeronautical transportation. Space propulsion systems are driven by multistage engines that, in the initial stages, are powered by heat released from combustion of solid propellant (fuel). The solid propellant is composed of a hydrocarbon compound and an oxidant. The fuel, a polymer, acts as a binder where the oxidant (in the form of particles) is embedded. The propellant can be a hard solid (for example polyester, epoxy, or polystyrene), and it forms the solid propellant when combined with the oxidant. There is also the option of a more elastic, soft, rubberlike material, based on polyethylene, polyurethane, or
polybutadiene, which is cast within the rocket engine cavity. Solid oxidants are mainly based on perchloric acid (HCLO4) and nitric acid (HNO3). In order to increase the energy density of the fuel, small metal particles, mainly aluminum, can be added to the fuel. Large rockets such as those driving the space shuttles are also powered by heat released through the combustion of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

Hence, all forms of aerospace propulsion are powered by heat generated mainly from the chemical reaction between hydrocarbon fuel and oxygen. The widespread use of air transportation requires very large quantities of jet fuel. As all combustion products remain in the atmosphere, aerospace propulsion affects the globe by altering its gaseous composition. Knowledge of the detailed combustion process inside the engine is very important in order to design efficient engines and to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere. Hence, while analyzing the chemical processes associated with aerospace propulsion, one should consider both the chemical reaction within the combustion chamber of the jet engine (or rocket/missile) and the chemical interaction between the combustion products and the atmosphere. Considering that airplane propulsion is the dominant type of aerospace propulsion, we
shall focus our attention on its chemical process. Jet fuel is classified as a fossil fuel and contains a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules (CxHy). In fact, it is a homogenized mixture of hundreds of different molecules of predetermined chemical and physical characteristics. The critical parameters of jet fuel are the calorific value which determines the amount of heat released during combustion, density, viscosity, naphthalene content, flash point, boiling and freezing points, smoke point, sulfur content, thermal stability, as well as corrosivity, lubricity, electrical conductivity, and more. Most of the hydrocarbons in jet fuel are members of the paraffin, naphthene, or aromatic classes, which are types of hydrocarbon molecules with different structures and properties. The properties of jet fuels from different sources may vary slightly, because they contain slightly different proportions of compounds from these three classes. The total aromatic content of Jet A and Jet A-1 is limited to 25%, and total naphthalene content is limited to 3%. In order for the chemical reaction to occur in the combustion chamber of the jet engine, several conditions have to be met. First, there should be a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules and air (oxygen) in the right proportions. Thus, fuel has to be atomized to small droplets that will rapidly vaporize and mix with the surrounding air. Two additional conditions should also be met: a hot environment and sufficient time for the reactance (fuel and oxygen) to remain within the hot environment. The latter conditions are met through the incorporation of a stabilization flow region within the combustor (region with very low flow velocities), typically formed by internal swirling of the flow. Given these three conditions, the hydrocarbon molecules and oxygen molecules will react and convert, through a series of intermediate reactions to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The nitrogen in the air can, at first approximation, be considered as a passive component. When the amount of oxygen is exactly that needed to burn all the fuel, the mixture is considered as stoichiometric and a stable flame can be maintained. In such a case the heat released will raise the temperature of the combustion products to the highest possible value. In the jet engine combustor configuration, where air is compressed before it is introduced to the combustor and its temperature is increased by the compression, the temperature can be as high as 2300°C. Such high gas temperature is beyond the permissible operational condition of the turbine (following the combustor), and therefore combustion gases are cooled downstream by mixing with additional air from the compressor. Hence, the temperature at the inlet of the combustor is about 300-600°C (depending on the engine’s compressor), it rises quickly to above 2000°C, and it is cooled to about 1100-1300°C. The combustion regimes and the associated temperature profile within the combustor have a direct effect on the pollutant emitted from the engine into the atmosphere. Jet engine manufacturers are trying hard to minimize pollutants, however, all engines emit pollutants harmful to the environment, mainly NOx and unburned hydrocarbon (UHC). At ground level, the

engine produces nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, commonly termed NOx). The absolute amounts formed are small and measured in parts per millions (ppm) - the portion of NOx within the exhaust gases. However, even at such quantities, these oxides are harmful, and attempts are made to limit NOx to below a few tens of ppm. The NOx results mainly from reaction between the air nitrogen and the oxygen. Its generation depends mainly on the temperature, and it starts forming at above about 1500°C. At ground level, the NOx combines with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), especially on warm and sunny days, to create ozone smog. Ozone smog is a highly reactive form of oxygen. It is corrosive and harmful to humans and plants. At high flight levels, NOx has the potential to attack the atmospheric ozone (O3) layer and, hence, contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer which protects the Earth from harmful solar UV radiation. This chemical reaction process is expressed, in a simplified way, as a two-step process where ozone can be destroyed by nitric oxide and forms nitric dioxide and oxygen. The resulting nitrogen dioxide breaks down into nitric oxide and thereby continues destroying the ozone layer.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

178 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Ozone Layer – Survival
Ozone holes lead to disease and famine and represent a threat to human survival. Tarasova 5 (March 2, Natalia, Russian Mendeleev University, http://www.owl.ru/eng/womplus/1997/ecol_e.htm)
Ozone hole is an atmospheric area with ozone concentration reduced by 10—15%. The

hazard associated with ozone hole comes from high levels of hard ultra-violet radiation coming through and reaching the surface wherever the ozone layer has thinned. It badly affects human health and is harmful to other species as well. The first surge of diseases associated with exposure to hard ultra-violet was observed in 80s in Australia. Unlike aborigines, white Australians could not properly adapt to relatively high levels and fluctuation of radiation
intensity; two centuries are not enough for a population to adjust to new environments.

Ozone holes result even in harvested crops reduction! For example, one per cent decrease of ozone concentration leads to 2% fall in output of barley, corn, cucumber, beans, etc. The reason is that, once exposed to ultraviolet rays, plants stop growing and begin synthesizing protective chemical compounds to compensate negative effects of exposure. All these plants had existed billion years before humans evolved. Actually, they
had existed before the ozone stratum formation completed. That is why they successfully adjust to changing levels of ultraviolet radiation. And we lack such instruments.

Ozone holes are dangerous to the extent that in 70s military laboratories considered projects of ‘the most clean’ mass weapon which would kill by destroying the ozone layer over target areas...

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

179 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Endocrine Disruption
( ) Air pollution interferes with the endocrine system, reducing sperm quality and making conception impossible. Nordqvist 5 (Christian, Staff Writer for Medical News Today, September, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/31212.php)
Scientists have found a link between exposure to air pollution and a reduction in the quality of sperm. You can read about this study in the journal Human Reproduction. (Human Reproduction Journal) The researchers say the damage is temporary. If you move away from the pollution your new sperm will be of better quality. However, they found a clear link between exposure to high air pollution and sperm damage. IF YOU ARE MALE AND WANT TO CONCEIVE, STAY AWAY FROM HIGH AIR POLLUTION. This study took place in the Czech Republic in a town called Teplice. Teplice has high levels of air pollution during the winter months. 35 males were monitored for 24 months. Scientists found that their sperm quality deteriorated during the winter and improved significantly during the months when air pollution was low. Researchers say the pollution damages the sperm's DNA - raising the risk of miscarriage and making conception less likely. The good news is that the deterioration is temporary. As soon as the pollution levels go down, the quality of the new sperm goes up. It takes three months to produce a new sperm. The following may help a man produce the best quality sperm possible: 1. Stay away from high air pollution. 2. Eat healthily. 3. Do some exercise (avoid very intense exercise) 4. Quit smoking. 5. Avoid heavy drinking of alcohol. 6. Avoid wearing very tight underpants. 7. Avoid situations where the temperature around the testicles is too high. 8. Avoid marijuana.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

180 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen (1/2)
Air pollution kills lichen. Kourik 8 (Robert, Author of Roots Demystified, March 29, http://robertkouriksgardenroots.blogspot.com/2008/03/tattletale-lichens.html)
In 1866, William Nylander, a Finnish naturalist, was the first to link the disappearance of lichens and air pollution. He noticed that some lichen species present within Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, were missing in other parts of the city. He attributed these differences to air quality. Over the next thirty years, fumes from coal-burning industrial furnaces gradually led to the eradication of the lichen population within the park. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), the result of industrial and urban emissions, does

the most widespread damage to lower plants, even though it is only one of several air are lichens sensitive to air pollution? Since lichens lack roots, surface absorption of rainfall is the only means of obtaining vital nutrients which are dissolved in rainwater. Lichens act like sponges, taking in everything that is dissolved in the rainwater, and retaining it. Since there is no means of purging the SO2, the sulfur content accumulates within the lichen and reaches a level where it breaks down the chlorophyll molecules which are responsible for photosynthesis in the algae. When the photosynthetic process stops in the algae, the algae die and this leads to the death of the fungus. Since it is known that different species of lichens vary in sensitivity to air pollution, scientists can use these organisms as monitors of air
pollution components in the atmosphere. Why pollution and as indicators of air quality. This is very useful because modern air quality instruments cannot measure the effects air pollution has on living cells and they are limited to measuring present conditions.Most

importantly, the lack of lichens on fruit trees would be a sure indicator that their orchard is not free from the harsh chemical sprays that harm and kill lichens. I
could readily tell that the air quality was fine in their backyard just by looking at what is growing on the bark of older trees. Take some time and look at the bark of some of your older trees. Hopefully, a few scattered patches of gray or orange lichens can be seen growing on the bark. Near a city, there is an obvious change in what is growing on tree trunks. Here there are areas where lichens don’t exist, such areas are termed "lichen deserts". As the air quality in

Lichens are sensitive to air pollution and have disappeared from many metropolitan and industrial areas over the last century. Lichens’ sensitivity to pollutants are actually used as biomonitors—like a green version of a canary in the coal mine.. Lichens are valuable research tools and through the information they provide, we can have a better understanding of the impact
these lichens deserts improve, lichens will begin to reappear in a slow process of recovery.

air pollution has on the environment.

( ) We win two internals to lichen extinction. First, air pollution and second is acid rain. Hardman 3 (Staff Writer for Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Winter,
http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/winter2003/lichens.html) Many living things depend on lichens for food, including spiders, caterpillars, moths, snails, and even some mammals. Insects often use lichens for shelter, while local birds use lichens in nest-building. The hummingbird and the blue-gray gnatcatcher line the outside of their nests with the foliose, or flaky and leaf-like, lichen Parmelia sulcata. Humans have found uses for lichens as well. Native Americans have used lichens to make medicine and dyes, and now ecologists are using lichens as indicators. Because many lichens are sensitive to air pollution, they are effective natural monitors of air quality. Unfortunately, this sensitivity has led to their decline in urban and industrial areas with high levels of air pollution. Additionally, because each species does best in a specific set of conditions, ecologists can follow their population patterns to detect shifts and disturbances in natural communities. Another threat to lichen health is acid rain. According to Hyerczyk, acid rain collects inside a lichen and kills off the algae, causing the fungus to die as well.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

181 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen (2/2)
( ) Lichens are sensitive – high levels of pollution are absorbed by them which will poison those who consume it. Sharnoff and Rosentreter 98 (Stephen Sharnoff and Roger Rosentreter, Bureau of Land Management, http://www.lichen.com/fauna.html)
One disadvantage of eating lichens, particularly for human hunters who eat the meat of caribou and deer, is that lichens absorb and accumulate radioactive fallout far more than vascular plants and pass them along in the food chain. As Richardson and Young (1977) put it, "Liden (1961)...showed that reindeer meat contained 280 times the 137Cs level of beef produced in the same general area." In a study in Alaska (Viereck, 1964) it was found that "Lichens have concentrations of strontium-90 and cesium-137 of from 10 to 100 times that of most other plants from either temperate or northern regions...Caribou and reindeer have concentrations of strontium-90 in meat and bones that are about 25- 30 times that found in meat in the average U.S. diet. Cesium-137 levels are from 3-300 times that found in beef...Strontium-90 in bone in caribou-eating Alaskan Eskimos is being laid down at about four times the rate of that of the average U.S. citizen...Inland Alaskan Eskimos at Anaktuvuk in the summer of 1962 had whole body counts of cesium-137 ...approximately 50-100 times the concentration of cesium-137 in people of temperate latitudes." After the Chernobyl disaster many reindeer in northern Europe had to be destroyed without their meat being consumed.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

182 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Lichen: Keystone
( ) Lichens are critical to the ecosystem: 6 reasons. Scott et al 97 (GAM, TJ Entswile, TW May, and GN Stevens, University of Otago, http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjb/1971/54.php)
1. Lichens play an important role in the water cycle of the ecosystem, and their loss can upset this process; they are also important in nutrient cycling in some communities. 2. Where they occur on rock, lichens form a pioneer vegetation, creating soil by breaking down the rock. Soil-crust lichens bind the topsoil and prevent erosion and so play an important role in the ecology of semi-arid and arid lands. 3. Lichens are utilised by some birds and insects; e.g. birds collect foliose and fruticose lichens to make or decorate their nests; some insects or their larvae cover themselves with pieces of lichen or with the vegetative spores of lichens. Mites feed on lichens and some gastropods include lichens in their diet. 4. Lichens produce a wide range of unique secondary metabolites. In other countries these substances are being examined for new pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, as well as commercially valuable enzymes for use in biosensors, biotransformation reactions and diagnostic kits. Recent work has identified compounds with marked anti-tumor properties (terpenes), and anti-amoeba activity (fatty acids) and nematocidal activity. 5. Lichens can be used as environmental indicators for pollution monitoring around cities and factories (e.g. G.N. Stevens & C. Scarlett, Gladstone Lichen Survey, unpublished report, Fisheries Dept, DPI, Brisbane, 1980). Their potential has not been realised in Australia as yet because there are so few lichenologists to carry out surveys using lichens as bioindicators.

( ) Lichen have multiple functions – plants are dependent upon their existence. USFS 98 (United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/summary/gtr_385d.pdf)
The key ecological roles of lichens include contributing mass and nutrients to litter and duff, increasing canopy and soil moistureholding capacity, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, serving as food for animals, and acting as bioindicators for air quality. Some species are important to American Indians. The 736 lichen species were divided into 40 functional groups based on ecological relations. The groups occur on four main substrates: dead organic matter; corticate and decorticate wood; rock; and soil. Lichens are major components of native rangelands and provide critical soil functions, but have been threatened by exotic grasses, increased fire frequency, conversion of rangelands, and livestock trampling. Lichens are part of microbiotic crusts and are susceptible to damage from livestock grazing and trampling. One lichen, Texosporium sancti-jacobi, is listed as a Category 2 (C2) candidate species. Providing clumps of old trees and uneven-aged stands for their legacy of lichens can improve conservation of lichens.

( ) Lichens are key to survival – provide vital means of hydration and insulation during harsh conditions. Sharnoff and Rosentreter 98 (Stephen Sharnoff and Roger Rosentreter, Bureau of Land Management, http://www.lichen.com/fauna.html)
Lichens are generally regarded as low in protein but high in carbohydrate, and this is true for the species most sought after by caribou and deer. The fruticose Cladonia, Cladina, and Cetraria genera, and the arboreal Alectoria, Bryoria, and Usnea, all of which are the favored forage of caribou, contain a rough average of 2% crude protein, not enough for a complete year-round diet for either caribou or deer. Most researchers feel that a variety of other plants possessing a higher protein content is necessary for caribou, although they apparently can sustain themselves for extended periods on lichens alone. Interestingly, some of the foliose
lichens, such as Peltigera spp. and Lobaria spp. have much more protein. Scotter (1964), found several species of Peltigera containing from 17% to 21% crude protein. In spite of this, these foliose lichens are less preferred by caribou, presumably because other species are more important for their energy content. On the other hand some reports suggest that mountain goats in some areas eat considerable quantities of Lobaria (Fox 1989). Scotter found that Stereocaulon, a genus whose palatability to caribou he found to be moderate, had a fairly high protein content of 7.28%. Digestibility

of lichens is considered by most researchers to be high, although tests done with animals not used to eating them pointed to a very low digestibility. Hanley et. al (1989) found the in-vitro dry matter
digestibility (IVDMD) of Usnea and Alectoria to be 15-26%, but points out that among animals whose rumens contained microorganisms specifically adapted to lichens the IVDMD was as high as 85.2%. Certainly,

caribou (and many deer) in northern forests are used to eating lichens. Lichens may be an important dietary supplement to deer in another way. Rochelle (1980) says, "Overall digestibilities of mixtures increased beyond expected levels as increasing amounts of Alectoria sarmentosa were added, suggesting that presence of this highly digestible species enhances the degree to which the entire diet is utilized." Apart from their food value, lichens may be important as a source of free water during periods of cold temperatures. The arboreal lichens in the genus Bryoria are dark-colored and therefore a good absorber of solar radiation. They probably provide liquid for the northern flying squirrel and other animals (Thomas and Rosentreter, 1994.) Both birds and small mammals who use lichens for nest building undoubtedly benefit from the lichens' insulating properties.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

183 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – Health Harms
( ) Air pollution causes two million premature deaths every year – also a major cause of respiratory illnesses and heart disease. ENS 6 (Environmental News Service, October 6, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-06-01.asp)
Air pollution in cities across the world is causing some two million premature deaths every year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Thursday, urging nations to adopt stricter air pollution standards. The international health agency's new air quality guidelines call for nations to reduce the impact of air pollution by substantially cutting levels of particulate matter, ozone and sulfur dioxide. "By reducing air pollution levels, we can help countries to reduce the global burden of disease from respiratory infections, heart disease, and lung cancer which they otherwise would be facing," said Maria Neira, WHO director of public health and the environment. "Moreover, action to reduce the direct impact of air pollution will also cut emissions of gases which contribute to climate change and provide other health benefits." WHO cautioned that for some cities meeting the
targets would require cutting current pollution levels more than three fold. The organization noted that many countries don't have any air pollution standards. Existing standards vary greatly, WHO said, and most fail to ensure sufficient protection of human health. Particulate

matter is the major concern, WHO said, and cutting this type of air pollution can produce the greatest health benefits. Produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels, particulate matter has been increasingly linked to respiratory illness and heart disease. Air pollution is a major concern for cities worldwide - none moreso than China's Beijing. (Photo by Edwin Ewing, Jr. courtesy CDC) Most cities currently have levels of coarse particulate matter - known as PM10 - in excess of 70 micrograms per cubic meter. The guidelines recommend cutting levels of PM10 to 20 micrograms, a reduction WHO says can reduce deaths from air pollution by 15 percent a year. WHO recommends cutting the daily limit for ozone, a key ingredient in smog, from 120 to 100 micrograms per cubic meter. The organization notes that this will pose a challenge for many cities, especially in developing countries, and particularly those with numerous sunny days when ozone concentrations are highest, causing respiratory problems and asthma attacks. The guidelines call for reducing levels of sulfur dioxide from 125 to 20 micrograms per cubic meter and note that cutting this pollutant will result in lower childhood death and disease rates. WHO first created air quality guidelines in 1987, but they were originally developed just to address pollution in Europe. The guidelines were originally created to address only Europe but were expanded to focus on all regions and provide standardized targets for air quality. WHO said the increasing evidence of the health impacts of air pollution prompted the organization to were expanded its guidelines to address all regions of the world and provide uniform targets for air quality The new guidelines ere established after consultation with more than 80 leading scientists and are based on review of thousands of recent studies from all regions of the world. Dr. Roberto Bertollini, European director of WHO's special program from health and environment, said the guidelines reflect the "most widely agreed and up-to-date assessment of health effects of air pollution, recommending targets for air quality at which the health risks are significantly reduced." "We look forward to working with all countries to ensure these guidelines become part of national law," Bertollini added.

McClure 1 (Robert, Seattle Post-Intelligence Reporter, 2001, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/grow05.shtml)
Standing at the brink of the new millennium, it looks like mankind is rapidly overtaking the Earth's capacity to support humans, and it's possible we are on a path toward extinction, according to a sweeping study to be published today. The report reviews a wide array of environmental indicators during the past century, including public health, food supply, fresh water, oceans and forests. "In the past decade, in every environmental sector, conditions have either failed to improve, or they are worsening," says the report, titled "Population
and the Environment: The Global Challenge." It was written by Don Hinrichsen, a consultant to the United Nations Population Fund, and Bryant Robey, editor of the Johns Hopkins University journal Population Reports. Robey, as the journal's editor, reviews dozens of population studies annually. "Without practicing sustainable development, humanity faces a deteriorating environment and may even invite ecological disaster," the authors wrote. "Are we setting the stage for our own extinction?" Among the evidence cited: Increasing water use that accompanies development of modern societies. While population tripled in the 20th century, water use increased sixfold. Coastal wetlands that nourish many varieties of sea life are rapidly disappearing in the face of development. Their extent was reduced by half in

Seagrass beds that shelter fish and other marine life also are vanishing, along with coral reefs that are called the "rain forests of the ocean" because they nurture so many varieties of fish and other creatures. Forests, which conserve water and produce oxygen, among other benefits, are being cut down. In the past 50 years, nearly half the world's forest cover was lost -- about 7.4 million acres. About 5,200 species of animals are threatened with extinction. Plants also are at risk; about 30 percent of 16,000 known plant species in the United States are at risk of dying off. Air pollution kills more than 2.7 million people annually. Food is growing more scarce. While the worldwide population grew 1.7 percent from 1990 to 1997, grain production increased by just 1 percent. About 2 billion people -- a third of the world's population -- don't have enough to eat.
the past century.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

184 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Low-Level
( ) There is no “safe” level of pollutants – even low levels of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon will severely hamstring human health. Roberts 3 (Bernie Fischlowitz, Staff Writer for the Earth Policy Institute, September 17, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm)
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 gasoline-powered 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. The air in most urban areas typically contains a mixture of pollutants, each of which may increase a person's vulnerability to the effects of the others. Exposure to carbon monoxide slows reflexes and causes drowsiness, since carbon monoxide molecules bind to hemoglobin, reducing the amount of oxygen that red blood cells can carry. Nitrogen dioxide can aggravate asthma and reduce lung function, as well as making airways more sensitive to allergens. Ozone also causes lung inflammation and reduces lung function and exercise capacity. Smaller particulates, especially those 10 micrometers in diameter (1/2,400 of an inch) or smaller,
can become lodged in the alveolar sacs of the lungs. They are associated with higher admissions to hospital for respiratory problems and with increased mortality,

As particulate concentrations in the air rise, so do death rates. When people inhale particulates and ozone at concentrations commonly found in urban areas, their arteries become more constricted, thus reducing blood flow and oxygen supply to the heart. This is why air pollution aggravates heart conditions and asthma. Unlike some pollutants that have threshold levels below which no health effects are seen, ozone and particulates have negative health effects even at very low levels. Thus no "safe" level of such pollutants exists. Research published in Science in 2001 noted that in industrial as well as developing countries, exposures to
particularly from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. current levels of ozone and particulates "affect death rates, hospitalizations and medical visits, complications of asthma and bronchitis, days of work lost, restrictedactivity days, and a variety of measures of lung damage."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

185 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Air Pollution Adv – A2: Inefficient
Gasification plants are more efficient and environmentally friendly than current coal combustion systems. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Because gasification-based power generation is a relatively new technology with few operating plants, its unique operating features and its environmental performance capability, relative to the above topics, are not well known. However, based on the available

data presented in this report, gasification-based energy conversion systems are capable of providing stable, high-efficiency energy supply with reduced environmental impact compared with competitive technologies. They can provide flexibility in the production of a wide range of products including electricity, fuels, chemicals, hydrogen, and steam, while utilizing low-cost, widely available feedstocks, such as coal and petroleum coke. In particular, gasification of abundant U.S. coal provides an alternative to coalfired combustion systems that is more efficient and environmentally friendly. Coal gasification is a well-proven
technology that started with the production of coal gas for urban areas, progressed to the production of fuels, such as oil and synthetic natural gas (SNG), chemicals, and most recently, to large-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation.

Gasification better than coal. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Gasification-based energy conversion systems are capable of providing a stable, affordable, highefficiency energy supply with a minimal environmental impact. They can provide flexibility in the production of a wide range of products including electricity, fuels, chemicals, hydrogen, and steam, while utilizing low-cost, widely available feedstocks. In particular, gasification of abundant U.S. coal provides an alternative to commercial coal-based combustion systems that is generally more efficient and environmentally benign. Coal gasification is a wellproven technology that has had many applications, starting with the
production of coal gas for urban areas, progressing to the production of fuels, such as oil and synthetic natural gas (SNG), chemicals, and most recently, to large-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation.

Two turbines increase efficiency in coal gasification plants. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

In IGCC systems, the cleaned syngas is used, in whole or in part, to fuel a combustion turbine. The combustion turbine drives an electric generator, may provide compressed air to the air separation unit or gasifier, and produces heat (exhaust) to generate steam for a steam turbine. This combined use of combustion and steam turbines significantly boosts generation efficiency.

CTL burns cleaner than petroleum and allows for more fuel efficient engines Blackwell 7 (Kristine, National Defense Fellow, “The Department of Defense: Reducing Its Reliance on Fossil-Based Aviation Fuel”
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA470250&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

There are many positive qualities associated with Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) and Gas-To-Liquid (GTL) fuels produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process. The most frequently cited advantage is that it burns cleaner producing fewer carbon emissions as a result of its consumption in the aircraft. F-T fuels produce approximately 2.4% less carbon dioxide, 50%-90% less particulate matter, and 100% less sulphur than traditional petroleum-based fuels. Other positive attributes of F-T fuels include excellent low temperature properties that improve high altitude operations and low temperature starting; and “superior” thermal stability, which makes possible the development of highly fuel efficient engines.29

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

186 Green Military Aff

***Solvency***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

187 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (1/8)
25-year contracts are the most important incentive for commercialization of CTL NYT 7 (5-29)
But the most important guarantee, many coal producers said, is the prospect of signing 25-year purchase contracts with the Air Force. The Air Force consumes about 2.6 billion gallons a year of jet fuel, and Air Force officials would like to switch as much as 780 million gallons a year to coal-based fuels. Air Force officials strongly support the idea of extremely long contracts, but others at the Defense Department worry that the military could be left holding the bag for years if oil prices dropped significantly.

Long-term contracts are critical to CTL viability Defense News 7 (10-8)
Ward said coal-to-fuel plants are planned in some 20 states, and the majority of them hope the Pentagon will become a major customer. But without price guarantees and long-term contracts by Congress, financing for the projects will be difficult, if not impossible, he said.

Long-term purchasing is critical to commercial viability of CTL plants WSJ 7 (9-11)
The problem is the plants that do the job are expensive to build and are profitable only if the price of crude oil stays well above $40 per barrel, according to industry estimates. Benchmark light, sweet crude is currently trading above $70 a barrel on New York futures markets, but the oil markets over the long term have proven susceptible to spikes and drops. Yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, crude for October delivery rose 1% to settle at $77.49 a barrel. The plants, therefore, need military support to get built, Mr. Boyce said. "Lining up the $8 billion worth of capital without baseload off-take agreements is a challenge today." A commitment from the Defense Department to buy fuel above the break-even production cost could ease doubts about the technology. That would require a change to federal procurement laws, an effort backed by the coal industry and some Pentagon officials, but challenged by skeptics and some lawmakers.

25-year contracts critical to marketability WSJ 7 (9-11)
The effort nevertheless has some backers at the Pentagon. The Air Force, which consumes the most fuel of the military services, supports using coal-to-liquids fuel. It recently certified the B-52 bomber to run on a blend of Fischer-Tropsch fuel and normal fuel. The Air Force plans to do the same for its entire fleet by 2011. The Air Force intends to buy about 400 million gallons annually by 2016. The service supports legislation that would allow it to sign 25 year contracts for supply, even at historically high prices above $50 per barrel, said William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. "If the legislation helps spur on a market that is necessary, we believe, to ensure our long term national security, we believe it's something that has a lot of merit," Mr. Anderson said. The military faces a five-year limit on how long it can sign contracts for supplies. Without the certainty that the military will be there to buy this product, regardless of what happens to oil prices, investors are unlikely to back coal-to-liquids plants.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

188 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (2/8)
Long-term contracts are critical Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
Mr Bollinger stressed that the current five-year limit on military energy contracts must be expanded to allow DOD to sign, at a minimum, 15-20 year supply contracts. Long-term contracts would make it easier for developers to secure the financial backing needed to construct FT plants, as developers could point to the lengthy contracts as evidence of a viable marketplace for such fuels.

More ev… Mac Pherson 7 (James, Associated Press Writer, The Bismark Tribune,
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/10/07/news/state/140507.txt)

Syntroleum spokesman Gary Gamino said the company has "mothballed" its demonstration plant in Oklahoma that produced the fuel. "Basically, we could not afford to keep it running," Gamino said. The company now is focused on manufacturing synthetic jet fuel made from animal fats, greases, and vegetable oils, he said. The company is supplying 500 gallons of the fuel to the Department of Defense for testing. Billings
said the coal-based synthetic fuel to be tested in the C-17 and B-1 over the next year was purchased in Malaysia, from Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The Air Force said it paid $1.3 million for 290,000 gallons of the fuel, 9,000 gallons of which will go to NASA for emissions testing. Ward, of Headwaters, said his company's proposal for a North Dakota plant to convert coal into diesel and jet fuel has been changed to produce only gasoline. Headwaters, along with Great River Energy, of Elk River, Minn., and Dallas-based North American Coal Corp. have formed American Lignite Energy LLC to oversee the $4 billion project in North Dakota. Ward said coal-to-fuel plants are planned in some 20 states, and the majority of them hope the Pentagon will become a major customer. But without price guarantees and long-term contracts by

Congress, financing for the projects will be difficult, if not impossible, he said.

More ev… Dreazan 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)

Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December. He estimated that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil. But many in the field say they're unwilling to invest the necessary billions until they can sign longterm contracts with the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It has asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek congressional approval for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson says. "These plants are not likely to get built without government help" such as guaranteed long-term contracts, says Mr. Berg, who recently retired. "And they may not get built even then."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

189 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (3/8)
DOD needs long term contracts to create alternative energy American Energy Security 6 ( “Authorize Military and Other Government Entities to Purchases Alternative Fuels Under Long-term Contract”
http://www.americanenergysecurity.org/leg_12initiatives.html Accessed July 8, 2008)

Total oil consumption by U.S. military forces is approximately 400,000 barrels per day. Through the development of BUFF specifications, it is believed that a substantial portion of this requirement can be met with domestically produced alternative liquid fuels. The DoD desires to enter into long term contracts for the purchase of alternative fuels made in the U.S. from domestic resources. This is part of DoD’s Total Energy Development Program (TED), with a stated mission to “catalyze industry development and investment in [alternative] energy resources.” Congressional support is encouraged for DoD’s TED program, including extending its long-term contracting capabilities from five to as long as 25 years. Appropriate and necessary authorizations and funding should be give high priority. DoD fuels purchases under long-term contract can help establish a foundation on which to build a new alternative fuels industry. And secure, high quality U.S. made alternative liquid fuels will help our military.

Long term alternative energy contracts provide price security and encourage investment Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog
new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

Long-term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there
were a long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they would otherwise pay for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15- or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC, Senator Bunning addressed the

issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for high quality, clean, domestic fuel. Longterm contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts.” Secretary Wynne also addressed price stability at the Energy Forum. “Last year, the AF spent about $6.6 billion on aviation fuel; 1.6 billion dollars more than budgeted. In 2005, the fuel budget was $1.4 billion more than the previous year. We could have paid for a supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense. Maybe then we could have a predictable cost
for fuel.”

Longer term military contracts key to alternative energy Wall Street Journal 8 (May 21, 2008 “U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)
Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December. He estimated that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel

refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil. But many in the field say they're unwilling to invest the necessary billions until they can sign long-term contracts with the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It has asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek congressional approval for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson says.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

190 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (4/8)
Long-term contracts would be used by the DOD Schmidt 7 (Mike; COLUMN; Pg. 9 Vol. 85 No. 50, Platts Oilgram News, March 23)
Motivated by a $3 billion increase in its energy tab and fear of an oil shock, the US Air Force served notice March 8 that it would try to use its influence as the government's largest energy consumer to lead a national transition away from oil. The military branch's leaders said at an energy forum that they would work especially hard to establish a domestic coal-to-liquids industry, which would help as a "hedge" against oil. They said they would also continue testing alternative fuels in jets and making renewable energy technologies a growing presence at its bases. Due to the rise in oil and gasoline prices the last two years, the Air Force spent $6.6 billion on fuels, an extra $3 billion that it did not plan for under its budget. That forced it to go back to Congress for supplemental funding and gave it additional impetus to cut its oil habit. The service, which uses 2% of all US oil, intends to have an impact nationally, if not globally. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said the goal was to "change the environment in which we operate,” one in which high oil prices empower anti-US Iran and Venezuela, to give the president a "sovereign option" on energy. Wynne called for a "genuine government partnership" to bring this about, which was music to the ears of several hundred representatives from aerospace companies, automakers and energy producers, all interested in obtaining big military contracts for their products. The Air Force's goals include cutting fossil energy use 2% per year; increasing renewable use 10% by 2015; and getting 50% of the fuel it expects it will need in the US in 2016, about 325 million barrels, from domestically produced alternatives. To help get coal-to-liquids or other Fischer-Tropsch plants built in the US, the Air Force plans to continue testing alternative and synthetic fuels so it can certify by 2010 that they can work well in military jets and vehicles. The commercial airline industry expects to help establish its demand for the fuels by doing the same a year sooner. The Air Force also wants to enter into long-term contracts, with terms of up to 25 years, to create a market for synfuels. Air Force officials say they lack authority to enter the long-term deals,
and are lobbying Congress to pass legislation (S. 154) affirming the Pentagon's contracting authority. Top Defense Department officials as recently as October said it was doubtful that DOD would sign long-term contracts because of uncertainty over prices and CTL technology. But they did not rule out the possibility that the Pentagon might enter long-term contracts for Fischer-Tropsch diesel or jet

fuel if Congress passed new language on military contracts.

25 Year gurantees are key to ensuring a stable market and commercial spread of CTL Matthews`7 (William, Air Force Times, Coal states see boon in Air Force alt-fuel push, Jun 17, 2007
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_coalfuel_070616/)

The Air Force burns 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, said Paul Bollinger, special assistant to the service’s assistant secretary for installations, environment and logistics. Ensuring that it has a reliable fuel supply is a key Air Force concern, he said. The Air Force hopes to spend $38 million on synthetic fuel research and testing in 2008, but only $1 million was requested in the 2008. The remainder is an “unfunded priority,” Bollinger said. So the $10 million in Davis’ amendment is significant. If the Air Force becomes a reliable synthetic fuel consumer, that could justify investment in coal-to-liquid plants, which could, in turn, “accelerate development of the technology and production capacity needed for largescale commercial deployment of this type of alternative fuel,” Davis’ amendment says. To push the Air Force further in that direction, Davis proposed a separate amendment permitting the service to sign purchasing contracts lasting as long as 25 years for buying coal-based fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

191 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (5/8)
25 -Year guarantees help the military stimulate the market SSEB`6 (Southern States Energy Board, American Energy Security, December 2006,
http://www.sseb.org/currentprograms/cpa_aes.htm)

Fund the Military Alternative Fuels Testing and Development Program The U.S. Department of Defense has a development program underway to evaluate, demonstrate and certify turbine fuels from alternative energy resources for use in tactical vehicles, aircraft and ships. Fuel sources include FischerTropsch (F-T) fuels made from domestic coal, refined fuels derived from oil shale kerogen and renewable/biobased fuels. The ultimate goal is to develop a single Battlefield Use Fuel of the Future (BUFF). At the center of this development effort is a DoD fuel testing program. Congress should fully fund this critical program through FY2013. The military need is approximately $500 million over a five to six-year period, beginning in 2007. Authorize and Fund Military Purchases of Alternative Fuels Under Long-term Contract Total oil consumption by U.S. military forces is approximately 400,000 barrels per day. Through the development of BUFF specifications, it is believed that a substantial portion of this requirement can be met with domestically produced alternative liquid fuels. The DoD desires to enter into long-term contracts for the purchase of alternative fuels made in the United States from domestic resources. This is part of DoD’s Total Energy Development Program (TED), with a stated mission to “catalyze industry development and investment in [alternative] energy resources.” Congressional support is encouraged for DoD’s TED program, including extending its long-term contracting capabilities from five to as long as 25 years. Appropriate and necessary authorizations and funding should be given high priority. DoD fuel purchases under long-term contracts can help establish a foundation on which to build a new alternative fuels industry, and secure, high quality U.S.-made alternative liquid fuels will help our military.

Contracts will stimulate the growth of the synthetic market-Shell proves Landry`7 (Cathy, US awards Shell contract to supply synthetic jet fuel, June 7, 2007, Lexis)
Shell on June 6 won a contract to supply 315,000 gallons of synthetic jet fuel in August to the US Air Force and NASA as part of a Pentagon program to test the product for widespread military use. The US Defense Energy Support Center, the Pentagon's fuel buying arm, said the contract was worth about $1.1 million and involves deliveries by tank truck from Houston to several US Air Force locations and a NASA facility. DESC, which buys 8.7 billion gal/year of fuel and is the largest fuel buyer in the world, is hoping to jump-start the synthetic jet fuel industry by purchasing up to 200 million gallons over the next several years. The ultimate goal would be to lessen US dependence on crude oil, particularly from trouble spots in the Middle East. "The acquisition of these 315,000 gallons of synthetic fuel this year is one more step toward meeting the Air Force goal of testing and certifying the entire fleet for use of the fuel by 2010," William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, said in a statement. "Additional acquisitions of synthetic fuel will be made for testing and certification over the next three years. The ultimate goal of the Air Force is to acquire 50% (of its jet fuel) by 2016 from domestic sources producing a synthetic fuel-blend and using carbon capture and sequestration technology." The US Air Force has successfully completed its first two tests of a 50:50 blend of synthetic jet fuel and crude-derived jet in its B-52 bombers. Synthetic jet fuel is currently derived from either natural gas or coal, while traditional jet fuel is refined from crude oil. Shell produces synthetic jet using the FischerTropsch process by converting natural gas to liquids. Companies are hoping to eventually develop the synthetic fuel using biomass. While the Defense Department's long-term objective is to bolster US domestic fuel use, particularly of alternatives, US synthetic jet fuel plants probably will not be ready for another three years at the earliest. US companies that have expressed interest in supplying synthetic jet fuel to the military have indicated they would pursue coal-to-liquids plants, rather than gas-to-liquids, because of the favorable price differential between coal and jet fuel prices. The US Congress this year is expected to consider measures to aid development of coal-to-liquids plants.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

192 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (6/8)
The only thing stopping companies from building plants now is the lack of long term guarantees Platts Coal`6 (Platts Coal Outlook, DOD unlikely to sign long-term CTL deals for now, October 2, 2006, Lexis)
A senior Defense Department official has expressed doubt that the Pentagon will seek long-term contracts for Fisher-Tropsch fuels, despite its desire for a coal-to-liquids capability to reduce the military's petroleum demand. Richard Connelly, director of the Defense Energy Support Center, DOD's energy procurement wing, said at a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last week that numerous companies contacted DESC about potential CTL jet fuel production, with most saying they need 15-to-25-year contracts to secure financing for what would be multi-billion-dollar plants. Many of the companies also said they would need a minimum price for their product for the entire contract term. Calling both of these requests "understandable," Connelly said it is unlikely DOD will meet those requirements because the department runs a "significant risk" of "paying much more than the market price for fuel. "If there were a long-term decline in the price [of oil], the US taxpayer would lose large sums of money supporting the threshold." Another big show-stopper is that DOD lacks the authority to sign any contracts longer than five years, he said. The good news is that DOD is working in several areas to create a stable of "assured fuels" to reduce its oil demand, which accounts for 2% of the US total and cost the government $11 billion in fiscal 2005.

The current contracts don’t go far enough-Long term contracts are key Holly`8 (Chris, May 1, 2008 Thursday Utilities, NARUC Take Aim At Pentagon Power Play, Defense Daily, Lexis)
"This provision is part of an effort to prevent the Air Force from procuring coal-to-liquid fuels, but by prohibiting the development of some of our nation's most promising resources--not only coal-toliquids, but also oil shale and tar sands--it will increase America's reliance on foreign oil," Domenici said. "As we continue to face record oil and gasoline prices, Section 526 can be seen for what it is: a counterproductive measure that threatens our national security, our energy security and the strength of our economy." Finally, Domenici asked Leven and McCain to extend federal agencies' contracting authority for renewable energy from the 10 years maximum allowed under current law. Domenici said the Senate Energy panel had included language in energy legislation last year that would have allowed federal facilities to enter into renewable energy contracts with terms of up to 50 years. A House- passed bill would have allowed 30-year contracts, but neither provision was included in the final version of EISA. "In my opinion, the contracting authority should be extended for all federal agencies, especially the largest energy consumer within the federal government, the Department of Defense, to at least a 20-year period. A Domenici spokesman said DOD efforts to use more renewable energy are being hampered by the 10-year contract limit, as a decade is not enough time to recover the typically high upfront capital costs of a wind or solar system. The spokesman said it is likely that Domenici may offer amendments addressing his concerns on the three issues raised in his letter if the issues are not resolved by the time the authorization bill reaches the Senate floor.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

193 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (7/8)
Longer contracts are key to a shift to CTL which solves military oil dependence Wright & Johnson`6 (Charlotte & Regina, Platts Coal Outlook June 26, 2006, DoD's use of coal-derived fuels could be
cornerstone of fledging industry, Lexis)
The Department of Defense is considering coal-to-liquids diesel as the long-term fuel of choice for military vehicles, while the Air Force is funding research into coal-derived jet fuel. If the department moves to CTL fuels, the change would be "a major shift in the way DoD acquires and uses energy," according to a DoD spokeswoman. The size and stability of any DoD contract would encourage the CTL fuels business, but timing is still uncertain. DoD declined to discuss where it stands in discussions about purchasing CTL fuels. A big boost to the program is in a bill now being considered by the Senate. The bill would give the military long-term contracting authority to use the new fuels; authorize the departments of Defense and Energy to evaluate CTL fuels for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and allow the government to use CTL fuels for filling the reserve. DoD

is interested in CTL fuels, but it usually buys fuels one year at a time. The Environmental Policy Act of 2006 authorizes
the DOE to enter multi-year agreements, but internal politics is slowing the department's change in fuel buying, said Richard Sheppard, senior vice president of project development for Rentech, a company that plans to build CTL plants. What started as the Clean Fuels Initiative has moved to the Assured Fuels Program within DoD, he said. Rentech and DoD have been discussing the department's possible use of CTL fuels, and the company is retooling an existing plant to use various fuels, including coal, to produce ultra-clean fuels made to DoD's specifications. Rentech is in the permitting stage for converting a plant in East Dubuque, Illinois, from using natural gas to coal to produce fertilizer and CTL fuels, Sheppard said. Negotiations are continuing with DoD so that some of the product from the 2,000 barrel/day plant would go to DoD. He expects to complete financing in the first quarter of 2007, and construction would start shortly afterward. The plant would cost about $800 million to build and would use about 1 million short tons/year of coal. Rentech is now contracting for the coal for that plant and another proposed for Natchez, Mississippi. Probably the plants will use non-compliance coal, primarily from the Illinois Basin and Northern Appalachia, he said.

"Government contracts to purchase the CTL fuel is critical to the industry,"

John Ward, Headwaters vice president of marketing and government affairs, told Platts at a press briefing June 22 on a bill to encourage CTL development. "Investors recognize the rewards of a government contract. It gives a push to the

investment community." This is the third time since the 1950s that the country has tried to start a CTL industry, Ward said. "Each time, oil [producers] would flood the market bringing the price of oil down, making CTL less attractive, and the government would go right back to purchasing fuels from other countries. This time it's different. They see the vital security and economic need for producing our own domestic resource." Current thinking is that the breakeven point for CTL plants is $30 to $40/barrel, the National
Mining Association wrote in a recent article. If oil is above that amount, the plants can be profitably operated. Air Force focuses on jet fuel In the meantime, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research funded research on jet fuel comparable to present fuels but developed from 50% bituminous coal. The fuel produced has successfully powered a helicopter jet engine, said Harold Schobert, professor of fuel science and director of Pennsylvania State University's Energy Institute. "We have shown in tests that the mix can go to at least 75% coal." The derived fuel is lower in aromatics, almost sulfur free and produces almost the same Btu value as conventional fuel. Since Schobert announced his research at the American Chemical Society meeting in March, he has had some interest from companies about the process. "We have had an on-going dialog with a small refinery in northwestern Pennsylvania about their being the first to commercialize production," and two major oil companies and one major airline have expressed interest. 'However, nobody has actually put any cash on the table yet, so to speak," he told Platts in mid-June. Because the fuel has not been made on a large scale, Schobert is not sure about costs. "However, back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that we should be fairly competitive in price. For instance, refined chemical oil, purchased in large quantities, is currently about $1/gallon. It

represents 50% of the fuel." Refined chemical oil is the coal-derived ingredient in the fuel. It is a by-product
of the metallurgical coke industry. Because it is supply-limited, Schobert's group is working on alternative routes to making the chemical equivalent of refined chemical oil. Starting in July, the Air Force will be developing a business case analysis of the fuel and its production, giving a better idea of actual costs in 2007, he said. As for the future of the fuel JP-900, Schobert said it could be several years before the fuel is produced because the fuel must be qualified for use, which requires more testing. If the fuel is accepted for use, and full-scale production is warranted, "we envision that this

fuel can be produced in existing oil refinery infrastructure, albeit with some modifications." He estimates one to two years
for those modifications. In a national emergency, both processes could be greatly speeded up with a mandated crash program to get JP-900 into production and use. Schobert and co-workers are negotiating with the Air Force now to fund the next, larger volume of production, probably in late 2006 or early 2007. The Southern States Energy Board recommended last week that Congress fully fund a DoD fuel testing program at a cost of $500 million for five to six years, starting in 2007. DoD believes "that a

consumes about 400,000 b/d of oil, the SSEB said. The nonprofit that studies energy policy and reliability substantial portion of this requirement can be met with domestically produced alternative liquid fuels." The long-term DoD fuels contracts are part of the Total Energy Development Program with a mission of catalyzing "industry development and investment in [alternative] energy resources." The board recommended allowing DoD contracts to extend from five to 25 years, which would help establish the CTL fuels industry and deliver "secure, high quality US made alternative liquid fuels [that] will help our military."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

194 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – 25-Year Contracts Solve (8/8)
Long term contracts remove the financial risk from investors and catalyze innovation Lengyel 7 (Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution “Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog
new tricks” www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf)

Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE loan guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to address funding shortages for frontend engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-federal money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel excise tax credit; providing funding for the DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into the military;authorizing a study on synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated with starting a US synthetic fuel industry, extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years.41 Long-term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there were a long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they would otherwise pay for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC, Senator Bunning addressed the issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for highquality, clean, domestic fuel. Long-term contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

195 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Interprets CTL as AE
The DOD considers CTL to be an AE Ferrell 7 (Amanda, Chair – Global Air Chiefs Conference,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Air_Force_Energy_Initiatives_Focus_On_Fuel_999.html)

Leaders of Air Force energy policy and programs convened here Sept. 25 to discuss the Air Force's direction and initiatives in the realm of renewable and alternative energy sources. William C. Anderson, the assistant secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics and senior energy executive, and his deputy, Kevin W. Billings, presented the latest Air Force energy initiatives during sessions at the Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition hosted by the Air Force Association. "Energy conservation and developing energy technology is a major Department of Defense effort," Mr. Anderson said. "As the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, the Air Force is in a great position to look for, promote and utilize alternative energy sources." We are working to incorporate new energy initiatives and programs at every installation, and we want to incorporate alternative energy and energy conservation everywhere it makes sense -- for the military and the civilian community, Mr. Billings said. The Air Force is committed to working with agencies in the private sector, experts in academia and throughout the DOD to generate viable sources of energy that are both domestically sourced and more environmentally friendly than current petroleum-based sources, Mr. Anderson said. While energy programs cover installation power, ground vehicles and other requirements, the current focus of energy technology in the Air Force is aviation fuel, which makes up 82 percent of all energy consumed in the Air Force, Mr. Billings said. In August, the B-52 Stratofortress was certified to use a blend of the current petroleum-based fuel, JP-8, and a synthetic fuel derived from coal, natural gas and feed stocks. "This synthetic fuel blend is currently the only viable alternative to jet fuel, and the United States holds one of the largest coal reserves in the world," Mr. Anderson said. "Alternative energy holds tremendous potential to produce environmental and ecological benefits, so our search for alternative energy sources in the Air Force must lead to domestic sourced fuels with greener footprints than current alternatives."

More ev… Reuters 7 (10-29)
The world's most powerful air force is seeking to wean itself from foreign oil and nearly zero out its carbon dioxide output as part of a sweeping alternative energy drive, a senior Pentagon official said on Friday. By early 2011, the US Air Force aims to make sure its entire fleet of bombers, fighters, transports and other aircraft can use a domestically produced 50-50 blend of synthetic and petroleum-based fuel.

More ev… Winn 7 (Air Force Times, Patrick, 12-20, http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/12/airforce_synthetic_fuel_1217/)
Looking further into the future, Assistant Secretary William Anderson with the Air Force’s Installations, Environment and Logistics department estimated that synthetic fuel could power jets on live, operational missions by the middle of next decade. “We believe we need domestic sources of aviation fuel so we can fight tonight and fight tomorrow,” he said. Anderson, at a Dec. 12 Pentagon meeting with reporters, laid out a sweeping package of Air Force alternative energy projects, some of them certain and some of them in rough, innovative stages. The Air Force, as the American government’s largest consumer of oil, must use its buying power to kick-start the private sector’s fledgling alternative fuels market. He’s presently in talks, for example, with Montana officials over pushing commercial interests to mine the state’s coal reserves near Malmstrom Air Force Base and produce synthetic fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab
CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL

196 Green Military Aff

Air force is pushing for CTL LA Times 7/12 (“Oil prices hit military budgets hard” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-namilitaryoil13-2008jul13,0,4522206.story)

The skyrocketing fuel cost has been particularly difficult for the Air Force. In recent years the Air Force, the
largest user of fuel in the federal government, had intended to pay for new planes by reducing the number of airmen. But the increase in fuel price ate up that saving. Soon, other services may face the same squeeze and suffer the cancellation or delay of significant equipment programs as a result of fuel price increases. Each military branch must present a draft of its next budget to the secretary of Defense by early August. And the comptroller's office has warned the services that they must accommodate fuel price increases in their budgets. Top military officials are mum on what spending programs might be in line for cutbacks. For now, the officials are predicting that fuel prices will decline 4.8% next year. But the Pentagon has not been especially accurate with its projections. The Defense Department originally estimated that oil this year would cost $91 a barrel; military services are currently paying nearly $171 a barrel. Much of the price hike this year was covered by Congress in the recently enacted emergency war funding measure. Because of its heavy use of jet

fuel, the Air Force has taken perhaps the most aggressive steps toward conservation and alternatives to petroleum fuel. Air Force officials hope that liquid coal becomes a viable alternative to petroleum, and they are working to ensure that all their aircraft can use synthetic fuels. Over the long term, the Air Force is trying to develop more efficient engines and airframe designs. "We are trying to look all the way down the road," Anderson said. "We are trying to run the gamut in terms of looking for alternatives and new ideas." For the military, this represents a marked change from years past, when fuel efficiency was scarcely considered in the development of new weapons systems. "We fully expect that in the future it will become a bigger part of that decision process," Anderson said.

Air force is ready for CTL, but lacks funding Dhue 6/9 (Stephanie Dhue, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, “The Air Force Works To Recruit Alternative Fuel Sources”
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080609b/)

The Air Force is gearing up to make a market for synthetic fuel made from coal. It has already certified the B-52 bomber to fly with the new fuel and over the next three years, plans to have all 6,000 planes in the fleet fly with a 50/50 blend of synthetic and petroleum-based fuels. Bill Anderson heads the
Air Force's fuel program. He says the idea is to develop a domestic industry to supply that fuel. BILL ANDERSON, ASST. SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Rather than the movie the "Field of Dreams," where you build it and they will come, here in essence, we are there, waiting for the industry to be built to service our demand. DHUE: The Air Force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel each year, nearly 10 percent of what's sold in the United States. ANDERSON: A 10 percent share of the market is a pretty sizable portion and we believe that is enough to initiate a market at a minimum. DHUE: The Air Force is also working with commercial airlines and engine makers to develop a coal-toliquids market. Rising crude oil prices are making similar projects more attractive. Bob Kelly is with DKRW, a firm developing a coal-to-liquids manufacturing plant. He says there is a market for synthetic fuel for cars. One challenge is getting financing. BOB KELLY, CHAIRMAN, DKRW ADVANCED FUELS: You're talking about spending $2 to $3 billion to put these facilities up, so the banks need to get used to financing those types of facilities and those sizes of facilities. It's going to be a new thing for them. DHUE: Another challenge, environmental issues. Environmentalists call synthetic fuels a step backward. The Sierra Club's Alice McKeown says coal-to-liquid is a disaster. ALICE MCKEOWN, COAL ANALYST, SIERRA CLUB: From the time the coal is ripped out of our mountains to the time it's burned at the tailpipe, the overall global warming emissions are double those of traditional petroleum- based fossil fuels. At a time when we need to be addressing global warming, that's taking us in the wrong direction. DHUE: The Air Force says it's working to adopt a synthetic fuel that is greener than current jet fuel. ANDERSON: We believe that by the time this industry is viable in this country and that will be, at the earliest 2012, that technologies are available even today that will allow us to reduce the environmental footprint of these synthetic fuels below currently available petroleum- based jet fuel. DHUE: The Air Force sees the synthetic-coal-to liquid as its transition fuel until the next generation of bio-fuel is ready to go. Stephanie Dhue, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

197 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (1/5)
AF wants long-term contracts Barton 8 (Joe, House Energy Subcommittee,
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/File/News/HR_5656_Repeal_Ban_on_Govt_Fuel_Purchase.pdf)

The Air Force is interested in procuring unconventional fuels over the long-term as a way to reduce its reliance on fuels from unfriendly or unstable countries and increasing its use of fuels from North America. Coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and tar sands are all abundant in the United States and Canada. The Air Force wants to use its purchasing power to spur the development of a domestic coal-based synthetic fuel industry by signing long-term fuel contracts with coal-based fuel producers, ensuring that producers have a guaranteed market to offset the millions of dollars in up-front investment needed to produce coal-based fuel.

More ev… National Defense 8 (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm)
Tom Sayles, Rentech vice president of government affairs and communications, says that besides the life cycle requirement, the industry has bigger financial concerns. “Long-term contracts are needed to get this [industry] off the ground.” Today, the military purchases fuel on an annual basis, Sayles says, while electricity is bought in 10-year contracts. Additionally, Ramsbottom believes the industry won’t move forward in a timely manner without strong government support. The Air Force wants to develop synthetic jet fuel as soon as possible, but is restricted by Congress. Lawmakers are showing greater interest in alternative energy, but many caution against moving too quickly.

The DOD is looking to transition to coal SynFuels Hurst 6/16 (Timothy Hurst has a degree in the politics of energy and the environment, and currently works as an alternatvie
energy advoacte/staff writer for Red Green and Blue online. http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/16/price-of-oil-has-departmentof-defense-looking-to-save-fuel/) Defense planners are also looking to alternative fuel sources and synthetic fuel blends to help cushion the impact of rising oil prices. Said Air Force Maj. Don Rhymer of the Air Force Alternative Fuels Certification Office, of the “The goal is to have every aircraft using synthetic fuel blends by 2011.” The DoD also hopes that at least 50% of this fuel will be produced domestically by 2016. But “alternative fuel sources” and “synthetic fuel blends” are not automatically good things, as Clayton Cornell at gas2.org points out. Cornell writes: “While synthetic fuel has the capacity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it could also double CO2 emissions produced by military flight[s]. At the time of this writing, synfuel is made via Fischer-Tropsch process from either coal or natural gas to produce a somewhat cleaner burning but extremely greenhouse-gas intensive product. The Air Force may be underscoring a recently hyped green image, but it seems that economic considerations are largely at play here…”

The US military wants CTL Singh 7 (Jai Singh is an Editor of Foreign Policy “Extending the reign of King Coal”
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6257)
The coal market isn't as sexy or as global as oil, so it often works outside the media spotlight. But when it comes to understanding how the U.S. energy-security-enviro challenge is shaping up, coal is an excellent place to look because, in America, coal is cheap, plentiful within the country, a huge provider of jobs and megawatts, and a tremendous source of greenhouse gases. The global outlook for demand is strong, as Asia's appetite for electricity grows. This year, China became a net importer of coal. As for the United States, part of its energy challenge is improving security of supply — reducing dependence on the understandably dreaded "foreign oil." Making liquid fuels using

our own American coal sounds appealing. And perhaps no consumer is more interested in coal-toliquid (CTL a.k.a. "Fischer-Tropsch") than the U.S. military, which has huge transportation fuel needs and few alternatives to oil (it's kind of hard to build a jet that runs on electricity).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

198 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (2/5)
DOD is interested in CTL tech Lamprecht 7 (Delanie Lamprecht, American Chemical Society. “Fischer-Tropsch Fuel for Use by the U.S. Military as
Battlefield-Use Fuel of the Future” http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2007/21/i03/abs/ef060607m.html)

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) has been interested in low-sulfur, environmentally cleaner Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels since 2001 because they want to be less dependent upon foreign crude oil and ensure the security of the supply. A three-phase Joint Battlefield-Use Fuel of the Future (BUFF) program was initiated to evaluate, demonstrate, certify, and implement turbine fuels produced from alternative energy resources for use in all of its gas turbine and diesel engine applications. Sasol
Synfuels International (Pty) Ltd. and Sasol Chevron Holdings Ltd., among others, were invited to participate in the program with the objective to supply the DoD with a FT BUFF that conforms to Jet Propulsion 8 (JP-8) and JP-5 fuel volatility and low-temperature fluidity requirements. Although the DoD is more interested in coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology, the product from a gas-to-liquid (GTL) Products Work-Up Demonstration Unit in Sasolburg, South Africa, was used to evaluate (on a bench scale) the possibility of producing a BUFF fraction from the Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate (Sasol SPD) low-temperature FT (LTFT) process and Chevron Isocracking technology. It was concluded from the study that the production of a synthetic FT BUFF is feasible using the Sasol SPD LTFT technology together with the current Chevron isocracking technology. The product yield for a BUFF conforming to JP-8 requirements is 30 vol % of the fractionator feed, whereas the product yield for a BUFF conforming to the JP-5 volatility requirement is slightly less than 22 vol % of the fractionator feed. Also concluded from the study was that the end point of the Sasol SPD LTFT BUFF will be restricted by the freezing point requirement of the DoD and not the maximum viscosity requirement. One would therefore need to optimize the hydrocracking process conditions to increase the Sasol SPD LTFT BUFF product yield.

The US military wants CTL PR Newswire 6 (“Rentech Sees Expanded Role for Coal-to-Liquids Through Air Force Testing.” 9/18/06
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5773449/Rentech-Sees-Expanded-Role-for.html#abstract)

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Rentech, Inc. commented today on the landmark test flight by the Air Force of a B-52 utilizing Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels at Edwards Air Force Base. The Company believes this is an important step in the development of the coal-to-liquids (CTL) clean synthetic fuels industry for the United States and the U.S. military to ensure both energy security and the security of the country's borders. The U.S. Military has affirmed that it wants to implement the use of FT fuels made from coal mined in the U.S.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

199 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (3/5)
The DOD wants new synfuels Phillips 7 (Don, Writer for International Herald Tribune (Business), http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/17/business/ravbio.php?page=1)
The U.S. Air Force has decided to push development of a new type of fuel to power its bombers and fighters, mixing conventional jet fuel with nonpetroleum-based fuels that could eventually end military dependence on foreign sources of oil. The plan, to be announced at the Paris Air Show, will open a contest between fuel refiners and alternative energy
companies to produce a jet fuel composed of no more than 50 percent petroleum. Reflecting the importance that the U.S. government attaches to the initiative, the public announcement will be made by U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and U.S. Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey. "The goal is to certify the entire fleet by 2010 with a 50-50 mix," said Air Force Special Assistant

Paul Bollinger who is coordinating the military shift to synthetic fuels. At the same time, the commercial aviation industry appears also to be swinging behind synthetic fuels, but for different reasons. At the annual conference this month of the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, in Vancouver, British Columbia, many airline officials acknowledged that they had failed to persuade environmentalists and politicians in Europe that they were doing enough to clean up flying. IATA, representing most of the world's airlines, announced a major push toward cleaner fuels that
might some day eliminate all aircraft emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Until now, airlines have argued that the fuel efficiency of modern aircraft could stabilize emissions despite the rising volume of air traffic. In Vancouver, they recognized a need to switch tack. "Climate change will limit our future until we change our approach from technical to strategic," said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA's chief executive. "Strategy starts with vision." Chew Choon Seng, chief executive officer of Singapore Airlines, said, "I think we have passed the state of being in denial." Ian Waitz, deputy head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Aero-Astro Department, said that "all models suggest a growing impact" of fuel emissions, including aviation fuel, on the environment. Even those who doubted the contribution of airlines to global warming should acknowledge that environmentalists might be right, he said. "Let's assume it's true," he said. "What can we do? If our starting point is to delay, then from a public relations point of view, we are dead meat." Louis Gallois, president of Airbus, last week called for a worldwide environment meeting of aircraft builders and engine manufacturers, and promised a 50 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from Airbus aircraft by 2020. While airlines are reacting to political pressure and a desire to use less fuel, the U.S. Air

Force wants to be certain that fuel is always available during any conflict - and to lower the impact of rapidly rising international oil prices. The air force burned 3.2 billion gallons, or 12 billion liters, of aviation fuel in fiscal 2005, accounting for 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by the government, U.S. statistics show.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

200 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (4/5)
DOD pushing for CTL CSM 7 (Christian Science Monitor, December 28, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html?page=2) The US Air Force is experimenting with a synthetic fuel that could become a cheaper fuelalternative for the entire US military and even commercial aviation, officials say. As the cost of a barrel of oil
approaches $100 and US reliance on foreign oil sources grows, the Air Force, the single biggest user of energy in the US government, wants to find a cheaper alternative. Air Force officials think they may have found it in a fuel that blends the normal

JP-8 fuel, currently used for the military's jet engines, with a synthetic fuel made from natural gas and liquid coal. The 50-50 blend is less expensive – between $40 to $75 per barrel – and it burns cleaner than normal fuel. The synthetic fuel is purchased from US-based suppliers and then blended with the military's JP-8 fuel. "We're making sure the Air Force is ahead of the curve so we can utilize this domestic
resource instead of having to be both dependent on foreign sources and send dollars offshore instead of spending the dollars here in the US," says Kevin Billings, a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force helping to oversee the initiative. Last week, on the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight, the Air Force flew a C-17 Globemaster III from Washington state to New Jersey, the

first transcontinental flight using the synthetic fuel. The flight was an attempt to demonstrate that pilots could fly the plane, considered a "workhorse" of the Air Force fleet, using "syn-fuel" without degrading the performance of the plane's engine. The flight went well, officials say. "It was completely unremarkable,
which is exactly what we wanted to have happen," says Mr. Billings. The flight followed a similar demonstration with a B-52 Stratofortress bomber last year. The fuel was then certified for use in the B-52 this summer. The service hopes to have all its planes

certified to run on the fuel within the next five years. And by 2016, the Air Force hopes to meet half their US demand for fuel using the synthetic blend, first used in the 1920s, but further developed during World War II. The Air Force would like to increase the amount of synthetic fuel it uses by that time, but recognizes that the private sector's push to get there will largely determine how fast the Air Force can move towards its goal or accelerate beyond it. "[T]he market isn't moving fast enough yet for us to move any quicker," says William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. The Air Force hopes to stimulate the private sector to embrace the move toward synthetic fuels, which will help private firms as much as it does the Air Force, says Mr. Anderson.
"We believe that we need domestic sources of aviation fuel to assure the American taxpayer long term that we can fight tonight and fight tomorrow," said Anderson during a recent roundtable for defense reporters. "And that requires that a domestic synthetic or alternative aviation fuel market grow in this country." The reality that the US government, the largest net importer of foreign oil

in 2006, can no longer rely so heavily on foreign oil has emerged as the price of oil climbs and instability in many countries increases. At the same time, more demand for oil in places like China and India, has forced the US to look for other ways to fuel its own demand. Currently, about 58 percent of the nation's petroleum comes from foreign sources, and that is expected to jump to 68 percent by 2030, Air Force officials say. In addition to being cheaper and ultimately more plentiful, synthetic fuel can also be greener, Air Force officials say. The fuel itself burns cleaner than regular JP-8 fuel,
but the current process used to make the fuel produces nearly twice the amount of carbon. The Air Force is requiring the plants that are being built to make the fuel to capture more of the carbon produced and reuse it, thus making the fuel ultimately greener, officials say.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

201 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – DOD Wants CTL (5/5)
The DOD wants CTL fuels US Secretary of Defense 5 http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/CleanFuelsPro.pdf
The DoD has been working towards a more universal (single battlefield) fuel that can be utilized in current and legacy system as well as enable the next generations of hybrid propulsion, fuel cells, and hypersonic vehicles. The U.S. Congress has supported one such program for Ultra-Clean fuel via funding the research and production of Fischer-Tropsch (also known as Gas-to-Liquids) jet fuels. Clean jet fuels produced under the Department of Energy’s Clean Fuels Program in conjunction with Syntroleum Corporation (Tulsa, OK) have been evaluated by the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy and show promise in meeting the requirements of the military while reducing overall tailpipe emissions. The United States has approximately 25% of the world’s coal reserves and approximately 1 trillion barrels of unconventional oil in oil shale. In particular, the western United States contains vast resources of coal and oil shale that could be used to provide secure supplies of fuel to the military, local first providers (fire departments, police, ambulances etc), and the commercial sector. Secure, diverse fuel supplies would provide security and could provide a steady supply of fuel during a crisis situation. Clean jet fuels can be produced via the Fischer Tropsch process from domestic coal, petroleum coke, natural gas and biomass. Secure domestic shale oil can also be refined into clean transportations fuels. The DoD is working jointly with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a national initiative to develop, test, certify, and use jet fuels produced from these alternative energy resources. As the western states hold large supplies of domestic resources, we are interested in coordinating at the state level to help catalyze the development of these resources, which could provide for supply security and diversity, facilitate job and economic growth, and provide more environmentally friendly transportation fuels

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

202 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Repeal EISA Solves
Repealing Section 526 of EISA would give an incentive to purchase alternative energy. Letourneau April 29 (2008, Matthew, Senate Press Release,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.detail&PressRelease_id=8ab09ee0-f356-49bf-abd9-70e21ab46dd2)

First, I urge you to include language to repeal Section 526 of the “Energy Independence and Security Act” (EISA) of 2007, which prevents federal agencies from purchasing “alternative or synthetic” fuels that have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum. This provision is part of an effort to prevent the Air Force from procuring coal-to-liquid fuels, but by prohibiting the development of some of our nation’s most promising resources – not only coal-to liquids, but also oil shale and tar sands – it will increase America’s reliance on foreign oil. As we continue to face record oil and gasoline prices, Section 526 can be seen for what it is: a counterproductive measure that threatens our national security, our energy security, and the strength of our economy.

More ev… Wagner 8 (Breanne, Writer for the National Defense Industrial Association, National Defense Magazine, May 1, 2008,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm)

The Air Force hopes to spur the growth of a U.S. synthetic fuels market. But a string of policy headaches may prevent the service from buying the very products it promotes. A provision included in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act that was signed into law by President Bush in December contains language that would prevent the Air Force — or any government agency — from buying synthetic jet fuel unless it is proven to emit less carbon over the life of the substance than currently used petroleum. The problem is that no one knows how to measure that. “No one has the ability to capture life cycle costs,” Anderson says. Without life cycle data, manufacturers of alternative fuel have no benchmark to go by, says Paul Bollinger, Anderson’s former special assistant. He says the Air Force was taken off guard by the new requirement, contained in section 526 of the energy act. “The Air Force always said it wanted a greener fuel than petroleum, but we were focused on the production, which is where most of the carbon dioxide comes from. We weren’t talking about the life cycle,” Bollinger says. Chief executive officers of Rentech and Baard assert that their fuels are cleaner than petroleum. The companies have decided to mix traditional hydrocarbon-based products with biomass — plant matter that can be burned for fuel — in an attempt to reduce harmful emissions. Rentech plans to build the first U.S. synthetic aviation fuel plant in Natchez, Miss., which will produce a blend derived from petroleum residue called petroleum coke and water sludge, says CEO Hunt Ramsbottom. Rentech will employ a variation of the Fischer-Tropsch method to gasify the substances and convert them to synthetic fuel. Fischer-Tropsch is named after two German scientists who created the process to convert natural gas or coal to liquid fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

203 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Excise Tax Credits Solve
Excise tax credits increase incentives Kelly 6 (5-4, Robt, DKRW Energy, FDCH Congr Test)
Another key incentive we believe Congress should consider is making the 50 cent-per-gallon fuel excise tax credit provided in the Highway Bill available to CTL fuels. To do that, you could extend the expiration of the current credit from 2009, when no CTL plants will yet be operational in the U.S. to 2015.

Incentives solve Charleston Gazette 6 (7-18)
particular, federal and state taxpayers should provide incentives to private investors to build plants that turn coal into fuel, it says. Those incentives could include tax credits, federal loan guarantees, and a government-sponsored insurance program for private investors in alternative fuel plants. Congress should provide $500 million for the U.S. Department of Defense's alternative-fuels program, the report says. Also, state taxpayers should provide grants and loans to match private investments early on because "the highest risk in any project is in early stage development," the report says.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

204 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (1/4)
CTL plants would still produce a profit in spite of high start-up costs NYT 7 (5-29)
But the Energy Department also estimated that such a plant could produce a 20 percent annual return if oil prices remain about $60 a barrel. Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so volatile and the upfront construction costs are so high. ''We're not asking for everything. All we're asking for is something,'' said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of Rentech Inc., which is trying to build two plants at mines owned by Peabody Energy. But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years ago that the value of Peabody's coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal in the form of liquid fuels.

South African plants proves overall profitability of CTL Foreign Affairs 7 [Jan/Feb, 86(1)]
As the high oil prices drive the quest for alternative sources, Sasol is starting to export South Africa's worldclass technology to countries that meet its key requirements, basically large reserves of coal or natural gas. The candidates include Australia, India, China, and the United States, which has the largest coal deposits in the world. Sasol has already commenced projects in joint ventures with companies in Nigeria, advancing the NEPAD concept of African-owned and -driven economic development, as well as in the Persian Gulf and Asia. The Oryx plant in Qatar, which turns natural gas into liquid fuel, was inaugurated in June 2006. At a cost of $1 billion, the plant's price tag may be somewhat higher than that of a usual refinery, but its long-term sustainability covers the investment in terms of creating jobs, wealth, value, and skills transfer. Two coal-toliquid plants are planned in China.

Partnerships solve the cost problem Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
High capital costs ($2.5 billion to $6 billion per project) and large project size (30,000 to 80,000 barrels per day) will dictate where and how viable coal-to-liquids projects can be built. Multiple partners will likely be required to spread the risks and costs. These partners may include coal suppliers, technology providers, product users, operators, or private equity providers.

CTL is feasible, cost efficient, and compatible with jet engines Stratfor 8 [Stratfor is the world’s leading private intelligence service, U.S., China: The Feasibility and Fate of Liquid Coal,
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/u_s_china_feasibility_and_fate_liquid_coal#top, June 5, 2008]

Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology essentially liquefies coal and allows it to be burned in conventional engines, mainly diesel and aviation engines. With the price of oil at record highs, we examine the status of CTL in the context of the United States and China — by far the world’s two heaviest producers and consumers of coal. The Fischer-Tropsch process that converts coal to liquid actually dates back to 1920s Germany, where it was pursued to compensate for a lack of domestic petroleum resources. It would ultimately account for 90 percent of the Third Reich’s aviation fuel and half its total fuel consumption, playing a significant role for imperial Japan as well. But though this process is well understood, it has languished for decades because of exceedingly affordable oil (although South Africa still uses the process). With oil prices now at record highs, that logic no longer holds: CTL is technically feasible and easily compatible with current infrastructure and diesel and aviation engines. It is generally thought to be financially feasible with oil at around $70 a barrel — which oil has held above for a year now. (Sustained prices at this level are an important prerequisite for investors in CTL, and it is not yet clear whether the current rise is irreversible.)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

205 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (2/4)
Limited start-ups will ramp down costs for future plants Bartis 6 (James, “Policy Issues for Alternative Fuels for Military Operations”, RAND Corporation)
Given the importance of these three uncertainties, an

immediate national commitment to rapidly put in place a multi-million-barrel-per-day coal-to-liquids industry would be very counterproductive. Rather, Congress should consider a more measured approach to developing a coal-to-liquids industry, similar to
the approach recommended in the recent RAND study on oil shale development.2 The focus of that measured approach would be to foster early operating experience by promoting the construction and operation of a limited number of commercial-scale plants. This approach would provide an effective way to deal with the uncertainties listed above.

Gaining early operating experience from a few coal-to-liquid plants would reduce the cost and performance uncertainties that currently impede private-sector investments. At present, the knowledge base for
coal-to-liquid plant construction costs and environmental performance is very limited; it is based on engineering design work intended to guide federal R&D efforts rather than support investment decisionmaking. Early operating experience would promote

post-production learning, leading to future plants with lower costs and improved performance. Postproduction cost improvement—sometimes called the learning curve—plays a crucial role in the chemical process industry, and we anticipate that this effect will eventually result in a major reduction of the costs of coal-derived liquid fuels. Most important, by reducing cost and performance uncertainties and production costs, a small number of early plants could form the basis of a rapid expansion of a more economically competitive coal-to-liquids industry, depending on future developments in world oil markets.

Companies are lined up to invest now Ott 7 (James, Aviation Week & Space Technology; 3/19/2007, Vol. 166 Issue 12, p1-1, 1p; EBSCO)
In answer to an Air Force RFP last year, 25 companies expressed interest in producing synthetic kerosene. Pratt & Whitney recently concluded the fourth in a series of tests using Fischer-Tropsch synthetic kerosene derived from coal and produced by South Africa-based Sasol. Stephen K. Kramer, manager of Pratt's Combustor Technology Group, says an emissions test, conducted on a lean and efficient new-generation Talon X combustor, indicates a 12% reduction in CO2 and equivalent levels of nitrogen oxide, NOx. A clear benefit is a 10-30% reduction in smoke, typical of fuels with high hydrogen content. Tedd Biddle, Pratt's fuels technology manager at the East Hartford, Conn., plant, says the Sasol test was successful. Officials of Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls-Royce expect to complete data documentation and post by midyear fuel specifications for 100% use of the synthetic fuel. This information will be included in service bulletins issued by the three companies and in U.S. and U.K. specifications standards. A 50-50 mix of synthetic kerosene and JP-8 performed at JP-8 standards in a blend-fueled B-52 during coldweather tests at Minot AFB, N.D.

DOD backing solves the financial risks of CTL development Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
Provide markets for the fuel produced by the first coal-to-liquids plants. Federal agencies like the Department of Defense are major consumers of liquid fuels. By agreeing to purchase coal derived fuels at market value, but not lower than a prescribed minimum price, the government can remove the risk of reductions in oil prices that could stop development of this industry.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

206 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (3/4)
Investment is imminent – 4 companies already involved ENR 8 (Engineering News Record; 5/5/2008, Vol. 260 Issue 15, p16-16, 0p; Article)
Proposals are due on May 2 for development of a plant on a Montana air base to convert coal into synthetic fuel. The U.S. Air Force is offering 700 acres of underutilized land on Malmstrom Air Force Base under a program for "Enhanced Use Lease" by a developer who will build and operate a coal-to-liquid-fuel (CTL) plant on the site. The program is intended to improve national security by reducing dependence on imported petroleum. "By 2016, we want to purchase 50% of continental U.S. fuel as synfuel," says Vicki Stein, Air Force spokeswoman. That amounts to 400 million gallons per year. "We will certify the fleet by 2011 to fly on synfuel," she adds. In fiscal year 2007, the service successfully tested with 280,000 gallons of fuel derived from natural gas made in Malaysia. Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Mont., is the only site offered to date for the CTL program, but the developer will be free to sell the products on the open market, says Stein. CTL technology is based on the Fischer-Tropsch Process, discovered in the 1920s and used since then by governments with more coal than oil, such as Nazi Germany and Apartheid-era South Africa. The process gasifies the coal, allowing extraction of impurities, then converts it to a liquid using a catalyst. South Africa still produces about 160,000 barrels per day from two plants. China Shenhua Energy Co. Ltd. is nearing completion of a $1.5-billion CTL plant in Inner Mongolia, scheduled to begin operation this year. It will be the world's first to liquefy coal without first gasifying it, a process known as "direct coal liquefaction." Four CTL plants are being developed in the U.S. in Ohio, Wyoming, North Dakota and Mississippi. All will sell their carbon dioxide for injection into depleted oil fields to enhance recovery.

( ) The cost-prohibitive nature of alternative energy has faded due to skyrocket oil prices. Air Force 8 ( The United States Air Force, http://www.airforce.com/enewsletter/features/060517_stratofortress.php) Something brand new is behind the flight of a familiar face. The Air Force is set to test fly a B-52 Stratofortress powered by a fuel derived in part from natural gas. The alternate fuel fortress will fly with two of its eight jet engines using a specially blended fuel made of conventional petroleum-derived JP-8 and a Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel produced from natural gas. Until recently, the use of this new type of fuel has been thought to be cost prohibitive. However, the recent rise in the cost of public fuel has brought the Air Force to a break-even point. The advantages of natural gas-derived fuel include less dependence on foreign petroleum and more reliance on domestic power sources such as coal. The United States has perhaps the largest reserve of coal in the world. That abundance of coal, and the Fischer-Tropsch process, could put the United States on the path to a more secure energy future.

Spillover to commercial airlines creates cost competitiveness Wynne 6 (Michael, Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs, Air Force Link,
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026906) A B-52 Stratofortress powered by a mix of synthetic and JP-8 fuel is slated to take its first flight Sept. 19 from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., bringing the Air Force one step closer to reducing its dependence on foreign fuel. "This is an extremely important moment for the Department of Defense," said Michael Aimone, the Air Force's assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations and mission support."Our goal is to by 2016 have 50 percent of our aviation fuel coming from alternative fuel sources," Mr. Aimone said.As DOD's largest consumer of aviation fuel, the Air Force has taken the lead in the research of alternative fuel sources such as coal and biomass. The Air Force consumes 58 percent of all aviation fuels consumed by the services. According to Mr. Aimone, energy is both an economic and national security issue, which is why the Air Force has developed a comprehensive energy strategy."The Air Force is conducting a flight test using a B-52 powered by synthetic JP8 to demonstrate our commitment to the president's vision of becoming less dependent on foreign oil," Mr. Aimone said. "We're working to certify the fuel for military aviation use," he said. "We must do that in a visible and transparent way so our partners in the commercial aviation industry will be able to see our testing. By working together we can expand the market for synthetic jet fuel and make it more economical to produce by increasing volume."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

207 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability (4/4)
Military research into FT fuels creates interest and investment Chandler 7 (Jerome Greer Chandler, Air Transport World, “Fueling the Future” May 2007)
A significant swath of the current research is motivated by military needs. It is very much a matter of the convergence of the military's need for homegrown fuels and the commercial arena's craving for stability. "By 2016," says Altman, "the Air Force has a requirement that its fleet be powered at least 50/50 by Fischer-Tropsch fuels." CAAFI hopes to piggyback on the USAF initiative to come up with a single specification for a fuel that will serve both military and commercial needs. "What we're trying to do right now is come up with a singular process," he says. "FAA doesn't have a timeline but the military does. We're trying to speed things up." Such commonality opens up the field for more players and increased production.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

208 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – Technical Problems (1/2)
There are no technical problems for CTL – All commercial fears are artificial WSJ 7 (6-19)
CTL enjoys significant support in the U.S. Congress -- mostly, if not surprisingly, from coal-mining states. Coal-fired utilities currently produce some 52% of electricity in the U.S., and, mostly because of the animus against nuclear power, the U.S. uses about three times as much coal as the country did in the early 1980s. Given coal's usefulness and the lack of workable large-scale alternatives (nuclear aside), any difficulties facing the industry are artificial -- which is to say, political pressure for increased regulation, including moratoriums on new plants. Environmentalists deride coal as "filthy" for its various pollutants, though these are controlled by modern technology, and for the CO2 emissions that are said to contribute to climate change. Therein lies a not-so-small irony. On alternative fuels, the global warmists usually make common cause with those who believe the U.S. must become "energy independent." Thus the heap of money being shoveled into corn ethanol and other more fantastic schemes like "biofuels." But the goals of the two coalitions are often in tension, if not outright contradiction. CTL by itself will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and at worst doubles the carbon emissions volume over petroleum. Proponents point to carbon-sequestration systems, which capture the gas produced by combustion and then bury it in aquifers or spent oil fields. But even this would only keep the carbon status quo. It's also extremely expensive: The best sequestration programs could remove up to 90% of CO2 but add about 50% to the costs, according to an authoritative MIT study. The capital costs for a new plant are estimated at between $2.5 billion and $6 billion, and perhaps higher, because sequestration projects are years away from a working pilot phase. So making CTL viable requires a great deal of American taxpayers' money. Don't get us wrong: In theory, this coal technology has much to recommend it. It could conceivably replace oil or gasoline without sweeping changes to America's pipeline and transportation infrastructure. The technology has been in use since the early 20th century, and actually works -- unlike many energy "alternatives" -- though not yet on a commercial scale. There's no shortage of capital for such ventures. But in another irony, private investment has been hindered by uncertainty over the carbon-control measures that might be coming from the U.S. Congress.

South Africa proves it’s feasible Foreign Affairs 7 [Jan/Feb, 86(1)]
South Africa has found a serious solution and has been continuously developing it for the past 50 years. The country's lack of crude oil reserves has driven an inventive approach towards exploiting the resources South Africa does have in abundance, especially coal. Sasol, formerly state-owned, now a publicly traded multinational headquartered in Johannesburg and quoted on the New York Stock Exchange, uses a proprietary technology based on the Fischer-Tropsch conversion process to transform coal and natural gas into liquid fuel. Sasol's CEO Pat Davies says the technology offers a viable alternative to coal- and gasendowed economies. "Our gas--to--liquids (GTL) and coal--to--liquids (CTL) solutions come at a time when more and more countries are seeking greater security of energy supply and the opportunity to add value to underutilized gas and coal reserves." The company already meets about 40 percent of South Africa's fuel needs and accounts for about 4.4 percent of the country's GDP. With 30,000 employees, including the largest number of PhD's of any company in the southern hemisphere, Sasol is also one of South Africa's largest employers. Its long experience with the technology has enabled it to move beyond synfuels to include value-added chemicals production to its activities. "Best of all," says Davies, "our alternative clean fuels utilize conventional infrastructure. Just as motorists don't ask if the fuel they're putting in their vehicle was made from Venezuelan, Nigerian, or Texas crude, motorists in South Africa don't ask if their fuel was made from coal, gas, or crude oil."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

209 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – Technical Problems (2/2)
South Africa proves CTL solves Hydrocarbon Processing 7 (Mar, p.23)
Coal-to-liquids (CTLs) is a well-developed technology. In South Africa, CTL fuels meet 30% of transportation fuel needs. The US holds large coal reserves. While coal itself is a low-efficiency fuel and a well-reported polluter, advanced gasification technologies can convert over 95% of coal fuel into a combustible gas, commonly called syngas.

All the tech is online – South Africa proves Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
The CTL plants constructed under the agreement could produce anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 b/d of CTL fuel. A 10,000 b/d plant would use 2-3 Mt/y of coal, while a 30,000 b/d plant would use 6-9 Mt/y of coal. The CTL technology the plants would employ has been in use since the 1920s, and is currently used in South Africa to power roughly one-quarter of that country’s transportation fleet.

Commercial scale projects operate worldwide Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
Coal-to-liquids is not strictly a research and development effort. The term “coal-to-liquids” refers to a broad class of technologies for making liquid transportation fuels from coal. Many of these technologies have been known for decades and many are being deployed at commercial scale around the world. Likewise, carbon capture and storage technologies are currently being practiced at commercial scale for enhanced oil recovery operations.

More ev… Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
From a production perspective, coal-to-liquids refineries utilize technologies that have been commercially proven and are already being deployed in other parts of the world. Two main types of coal-to-liquids technologies exist. Indirect coal liquefaction first gasifies the solid coal and then converts the gas into liquid fuels. Direct coal liquefaction converts solid coal directly into a liquid “syncrude” that can then be further refined into fuel products.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

210 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Marketability – CTL = Profits
CTL plants will turn a profit Spokesman-Review 7 (6-3)
If the price of oil is $61 a barrel, a CTL plant producing 27,819 barrels of diesel per day and slightly smaller volumes of other liquids would generate a return on investment of almost 20 percent. The debt for such a $3.6 billion plant would be retired in five years. Even at $37 a barrel, the return on investment is 10 percent.

The plan spurs efficiency, reducing plant costs Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
Expanding on the second recommendation on this list, I am personally aware of, and have technically reviewed one closed- loop heat recovery technology that is capable of recovering and converting 95% of the energy contained in the copious amount of low-grade and intermediate-grade steam produced by a FischerTropsch plant into electrical power. These developing concepts take advantage of low boiling point fluids that can condense the steam, thus eliminating the cooling tower loads while increasing electrical power production by as much as 15 - 20%. This is an example of how impetus to improve the efficiency of a CTL plant will spur creative engineering aimed at designing more efficient and cleaner plants.

Test projects will rapidly induce a learning curve for later plants Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
Early operating experience would promote post-production learning, leading to future plants with lower costs and improved performance. Post-production cost improvement—sometimes called the learning curve—plays a crucial role in the chemical process industry, and we anticipate that this effect will eventually result in a major reduction of the costs of coal-derived liquid fuels. Most important, by reducing cost and performance uncertainties and production costs, a small number of early plants could form the basis for a rapid expansion by the private sector of a more economically competitive coal-to-liquids industry, depending on future developments in world oil markets.

CTL spin-offs solve for overall profit margins Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)
Efficiency and productivity can be improved by co-producing liquid fuels, electricity, and chemical feedstocks (known as polygeneration). CO2 emissions from the production process can be significantly reduced through carbon capture and storage—and costs may be offset as a result of changes in sulfur management.

Expanding the market lowers costs Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)
The capital cost of CTL plants also is expected to decrease through the ongoing development of the technology. Although CTL has been operating for many years in South Africa, a broadening and growth of the market will drive both existing providers and new entrants to develop more efficient and cost-effective processes to gain market advantage. New developments notwithstanding, CTL currently provides one of the most affordable alternatives to conventional petroleum production.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

211 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Empirically Fails
They’ve read the wrong studies – The DOE concludes CTL works Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 15-6)
In July 2001, the U.S. Department of Energy reported results of its direct coal liquefaction development program. Following are excerpts from its Summary Report: “The DOE direct liquefaction program produced a surprisingly mature technology. The intensive effort between 1976 and 1982 (Phase I), when 90% of the program funds were expended, resulted in a demonstration of the technical feasibility of the major process components. The Phase I processes, however, were deficient in terms of product yield and quality. This stimulated further research and development work between 1983 and 1999 (Phase II). The Phase II work was significantly less costly than earlier demonstration projects, but resulted in substantial improvements in process performance and economics. It now is possible to produce liquids of high quality at high yields that approach the theoretical maximum. At the same time, the cost for a barrel of product dropped by 50% because of process optimization and increased yields. Economics and engineering studies conducted throughout Phase II have reduced the uncertainty, and therefore, the risk associated with commercial deployment of the technology. “The current technology is well defined in terms of cost and performance. It represents a technically available option for the production of liquid fuels. It can be used domestically in the United States to limit our exposure to oil price increases in the international market or to offset supply reductions. It also can be used by other nations who choose to use domestic coal to meet their transportation fuel needs, thus reducing demands on conventional petroleum sources. It can be used with coal alone, or to co-process a variety of lower value feedstocks. The results of the DOE program allow direct coal liquefaction to be accurately assessed in context to the costs and risks associated with other options for securing liquid fuel supplies should the need arise.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

212 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Regulation Prevents
No regulations preventing CTL Lash 7 [Jonathan, led the World Resources Institute as its President since 1993, The Problems With Coal Liquids Subsidies,
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/06/problems-coal-liquids-subsidies, June 27, 2007]

The current political debate is not about regulation; it is about subsidies and economics, and here it gets interesting. CTL seems to fit into the "receding horizon" category: it has always claimed to be commercially ready when oil prices hit a level that was just over the horizon (roughly $15/barrel back in the 70s; $30 in the 80s, $60 in the 90s, and now, $80?). Of course CCS will increase the price for CTL. No one is building CTL facilities today, although there are no regulations preventing it, because it doesn't make economic sense. And that's without CCS. Why would we subsidize a technology that no private investor believes to be viable?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

213 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Backstopping
OPEC cant manipulate oil prices Nygren et al 2006 (November, Kip, Darrell D. Massie, Paul J. Kern, http://w3.umh.ac.be/pub/ftp_aspo/Nygren_novembre_2006.pdf)
What will happen when the oil supply cannot satisfy global demand? First, as we approach the peak there will be wide fluctuations in the price of oil, since demand is not smooth and one would expect many instances of a supply deficit followed by a surplus. In the Oil Shockwave simulation, a supply decrease of only four percent resulted in a price increase of 177 percent.xiv We may be seeing the beginning of this phenomenon over the past year. It appears that OPEC can no longer control the price of oil by adjusting production since they are probably already operating near maximum capacity and cannot significantly increase supply to fully satisfy demand. But why must the data on oil supply be sheer speculation? Although one might think that all the data on global oil reserves, current oil production and production capacity would be well known, the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, Aramco, has kept this important data private since the company became solely Saudi owned in 1977 and OPEC made a decision not to publish production data in 1982.xv Therefore, the statistics cited by the sources in this paper are based on observations of oil actually produced and the limited information that Aramco and OPEC do provide.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

214 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Peak Coal (1/2)
The U.S. has enough domestic coal to last 235 years Energy Information Administration 7 (“Coal a fossil fuel” http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html)
Coal reserves are beds of coal still in the ground waiting to be mined. The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use. Coal production is the amount of coal that is mined and sent to market. In 2005, the amount of coal produced at U.S. coal mines reached an all time high of 1,131.5 million short tons. Coal is mined in 27 states. Wyoming mines the most
coal, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas.Coal is mainly found in three large regions, the Appalachian Coal Region, the Interior Coal Region, and Western Coal Region (includes the Powder River Basin).

The U.S. has one of the biggest coal reserves but only uses 8% of it Fournier and Westervelt 5 [Donald F. and Eileen T, U.S. Army Corp Engineers, Energy Trends and Their Implications for
U.S. Army Installations, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/graphics/ace060315.pdf, September 2005]

The United States has over 96 percent of the coal reserves in North America. The United States and the Former Soviet Union combined have 47 percent of the world’s coal reserves. China, Australia, India, and Germany round out the top six with another 33 percent or the world’s total. U.S. coal reserves of 280 billion tons equal about a 260 year supply at current rates of consumption, assuming the United States would start using more sub-bituminous coals as they represent about half the reserves, but only about 8 percent of the consumption. Thus, based solely on hard coal, our reserves are about 140 years. The United States produces 24 percent of the world’s total hard coal (909 million tons of 3,775 million tons) and 9 percent of the world’s total brown coal (79 million tons of 901 million tons) annually. China and the United States produce almost 50 percent of the world’s total coal (IEA 2000).

8% of total coal is enough to power 50% of the U.S. electricity needs Fournier and Westervelt 5 [Donald F. and Eileen T, U.S. Army Corp Engineers, Energy Trends and Their Implications for
U.S. Army Installations, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/graphics/ace060315.pdf, September 2005]

Over 90 percent of the coal consumption in the United States goes into producing electrical power. About 6 percent is used by industrial and coke plants with the remaining 4 percent are used by captive markets such as state-owned facilities, or used by the residential and commercial sectors. Over 50 percent of the electricity generated in the nation is from coal. Coal use by all sectors other than electrical generation has been greatly reduced over the last several decades due the air pollution implications of its usage. The high price of pollution abatement systems restricts coals usage to large consumers. Most of the other markets have switched to natural gas or fuel oil.

1 trillion tons of coal will last us for a long time Schaefer 6 [Mike, The World's Biggest Investors Moving into CTL, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/ctl-coal-energy/262#,
August 28, 2006]

Well, coal is the most abundant of the fossil fuels. Recent estimates of the world's total recoverable coal reserves exceeds 1 Trillion sort tons. According to the Energy Information Administration, "the ratio of coal reserves to production exceeds 200 years, meaning that at current rates of production -- and no change in reserves -- coal reserves could in theory last for another two centuries." Now, this reserve life assumes that demand will remain at current levels. But the fact of that matter is that coal demand -- like every other fossil fuel -is likely to increase as the years pass. So it's very unlikely that the world's coal reserve will last us the full 200 years. Nonetheless, 1 trillion tons of coal is one heck of a resource that will last us quite a while.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

215 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Peak Coal (2/2)
Our coal reserves will last hundreds of years Behreandt`6 (Dennis Behreandt "The promise of synthetic fuel: coal-to-liquid technologies, pioneered almost 80 years ago,
have the potential to free America from its dependence on foreign oil". New American, The. Nov 27, 2006. FindArticles.com. 09 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996859)

Indeed, it's taken many decades for CTL technology to be implemented on a wide scale in the United States, but now may be the time for the nation to embrace this promising technology. "We have as much energy in coal as the rest of the world has in oil," Rutgers University professor of chemistry and CTL researcher Alan Goldman recently told MIT's Technology Review. "That's enough to last us the next hundred years or so." That's the kind of energy independence the nation desperately needs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

216 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – A2: Long-Term
Nine plants in the U.S. being built now – will be useable in 2009 Clayton 7 [Mark, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Coal in cars: great fuel or climate foe?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p02s01-ussc.htm, March 2, 2007]

At least nine coal-to-liquids facilities are now in the planning stages, including one each in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming that already have significant funding lined up and are slated to begin production by 2009, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. If all nine plants were built, they could produce about 3 billion gallons of fuel a year – not enough to meet the president's goal. But if federal tax incentives and state subsidies kick-start the industry, coal-based fuel production could soar to 40 billion gallons a year by 2025 – or about 10 percent of forecast oil demand that year, the National Coal Council reported to the Department of Energy (DOE) last year.

CTL inevitable – even Warren Buffet is joining the game Schaefer 6 [Mike, The World's Biggest Investors Moving into CTL, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/ctl-coal-energy/262#,
August 28, 2006]

Despite the misinformed allegations of naysayers, coal-to-liquids is not a pie-in-the-sky dream. It's a proven technology that was pioneered over 75 years ago and became highly successful in Germany. In fact, at its peak production in 1944, Germany had 25 coal-to-liquid plants that produced more than 124,000 barrels of synthetic fuels daily. This production was enough to meet 90% of the nation's needs! And I believe that with the right investment in the right places, America could do this too. The problem thus far has been that oil has been so cheap. For years oil prices averaged only $20 a barrel. At these prices, CTL isn't worth it. Figures calculated by the Department of Energy indicate CTL technology is economically feasible with oil prices over $40 a barrel. Anything lower and companies lose money. But now that crude prices are averaging well over $70 a barrel -and only set to go higher -- you can start to get an idea as to why smart investors are getting so excited about CTL and the companies behind it right now. Fact is, CTL technology is just now starting to gain serious investment interest. Several major energy companies and investment banks are all now looking into coal-toliquid technologies. In fact, late last Thursday, Arch Coal (NYSE: ACI) -- the second-largest coal producer in the U.S. -- made its biggest CTL play to date. Arch announced that it acquired a 25% equity interest in DKRW Advanced Fuels, the principal developer of the Medicine Bow Fuel and Power CTL project, which is expected to initially produce about 11,000 bbl/day of transport diesel and other fuels. This is huge news for the industry. Arch's investment further validates the bullish outlook for the technology. Even Warren Buffet has staked his claim. MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. -- an energy firm owned by the investment mogul -- recently bought 8,500 acres of coal-rich land in Johnson County, Wyoming to leverage coal's second boom. The growing interest in CTL technology doesn't stop in America. In fact, the CTL industry is growing so fast in China that the government is actually considering taking steps to slow it down. The business is currently booming due to high global oil prices and China's shortage of transport fuels and chemicals.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

217 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – CTL = Gasification
CTL requires gasification as an interim step Electric Perspectives 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 74)
This process is highly efficient, but the liquid products require further refining {"hydrocracking," or adding hydrogen over a catalyst) to achieve high-grade fuel characteristics. Indirect coal liquefaction first gasifies the coal with steam to form a "syngas" (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). The sulfur is removed from this gas and the mixture adjusted according to the desired product. The syngas is then condensed over a catalyst to produce high quality, ultra-clean products. An array of products can be made via these processes: ultra-clean petroleum and diesel, synthetic waxes, lubricants, and chemical feedstocks. A similar process, using different catalysts, will produce alternative liquid fuels such as methanol and dimethyl ether (OME).

More ev… Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
Indirect coal liquefaction is a two-step process consisting of coal gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. Coal is gasified with oxygen and steam to produce a synthesis gas (syngas) containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The raw syngas is cooled and cleaned of carbon dioxide and impurities. In the FT synthesis reactor, the cleaned syngas comes in contact with a catalyst that transforms the diatomic hydrogen and carbon monoxide molecules into long-chained hydrocarbons (containing dozens of atoms). The FT products can be refined just like petroleum-derived crude oil into a wide range of ultra-clean finished products.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

218 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (1/4)
The Air Force can spark a commercial market for CTL Defense News 7 (6-17)
It will take billions of dollars to build a “coal-to-liquid” plant able to meet the Air Force’s fuel needs. It would cost many times that much to meet airline needs. No one is willing to make that investment unless there is an assured, profitable market for the synthetic fuel. But no market will develop until there are plants turning out fuel. Davis’ answer is the Air Force. “The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of fuel in the United States and the Air Force consumes over 50 percent of the fuel used by the military,” he said.

The Air Force will serve as a test market Winn 7 (Patrick Winn, Staff Writer for the Air Force Times, December 20
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/12/airforce_synthetic_fuel_1217)

The Air Force, as the American government’s largest consumer of oil, must use its buying power to kick-start the private sector’s fledgling alternative fuels market. He’s presently in talks, for example, with Montana officials over pushing commercial interests to mine the state’s coal reserves near Malmstrom Air Force Base and produce synthetic fuel. The Air Force’s goal, Anderson said, is to build the market so it can provide roughly 400 million gallons of synthetic fuel to the service by 2016. It also needs to bring on allied air forces, which share refueling stations with the U.S.

The military is a key part of commercial tech advancement-Start up costs AFL 8 (Air Force Link, Government Sponsored Air Force informational site, SECAF discusses alternative energy initiatives at
conference 4/25/2008 - GENEVA (AFPN) http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123096037)

During his remarks, Secretary Wynne reiterated the Air Force's goal of certifying the entire Air Force fleet for synthetic fuel blends by early 2011. He related this goal to the Air Force's mission of enhancing sovereign options for the United States. Responding to questions after the panel, Secretary Wynne emphasized how the private sector is an important partner for Air Force alternative energy initiatives. He also noted that civil and commercial innovation often follows military sponsorship of technology "megaprojects." "Developing a process that will produce new clean synthetic fuels is an ambitious goal," Secretary Wynne said, "but we have a good track record of succeeding at this sort of project. The military has a unique ability to overcome start up costs that commerce cannot. "From the Manhattan Project that gave us nuclear energy, to the Atlas Rocket Project that led to commercial space, to ARPAnet that paved the way for the Internet, the military has often played an important role in moving the technological ball forward," the secretary said. "What the Air Force is doing today is paving the way for the aviation industry to become less dependent on an expensive and unstable energy sources and implement more environmentally sound practices," he said.

The plan commercializes CTL Brown 8 (Matthew, Associated Press, March 22, http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/032208/bus_260502419.shtml)
With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies. "Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

219 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (2/4)
The Air Force can spur a market for CTL NBR 8 (Nightly Business Report, Transcripts On Air, June 9, http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080609b/)
PAUL KANGAS: Like commercial airlines, the U.S. Air Force is also facing soaring fuel costs. While efficiency efforts have helped cut consumption, the Air Force still spent nearly $6 billion on fuel last year, triple the amount spent just three years ago. As Stephanie Dhue reports, soaring fuel prices are driving the Air Force to look for alternatives. STEPHANIE DHUE, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: The Air Force is gearing up to make a market for synthetic fuel made from coal. It has already certified the B-52 bomber to fly with the new fuel and over the next three years, plans to have all 6,000 planes in the fleet fly with a 50/50 blend of synthetic and petroleum-based fuels. Bill Anderson heads the Air Force's fuel program. He says the idea is to develop a domestic industry to supply that fuel. BILL ANDERSON, ASST. SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Rather than the movie the "Field of Dreams," where you build it and they will come, here in essence, we are there, waiting for the industry to be built to service our demand. DHUE: The Air Force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel each year, nearly 10 percent of what's sold in the United States. ANDERSON: A 10 percent share of the market is a pretty sizable portion and we believe that is enough to initiate a market at a minimum. DHUE: The Air Force is also working with commercial airlines and engine makers to develop a coal-to-liquids market. Rising crude oil prices are making similar projects more attractive. Bob Kelly is with DKRW, a firm developing a coal-to-liquids manufacturing plant. He says there is a market for synthetic fuel for cars. One challenge is getting financing.

Air Force use of CTL spreads to the commercial sector Mathews`7 (William, Air Force Times, Coal states see boon in Air Force alt-fuel push, Jun 17, 2007
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_coalfuel_070616/)

The same process used to make liquid fuel from natural gas can be used to make liquid fuel from coal. Davis hopes that once the Air Force adopts coal-based jet fuel, so will commercial airlines. The potential benefits are broader than just more jobs and increased income for his home state. “Kentucky has the unique opportunity to be part of the solution to our nation’s energy crisis by turning coal into liquid fuel,” the congressman said. The Air Force may be essential to Kentucky’s success. It will take billions of dollars to build a “coal-to-liquid” plant able to meet the Air Force’s fuel needs. It would cost many times that much to meet airline needs. No one is willing to make that investment unless there is an assured, profitable market for the synthetic fuel. But no market will develop until there are plants turning out fuel. Davis’ answer is the Air Force. “The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of fuel in the United States and the Air Force consumes over 50 percent of the fuel used by the military,” he said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

220 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (3/4)
The Air Force is key to move the market toward CTL AP`8 (Associated Press, Air Force Plans to Switch Fuel for Coal, March 22, 2008,
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164531,00.html)

Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually. With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies. "Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame." Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan. "This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone." Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry.

Military use of synthetics spreads to the commercial sector-Partnerships Schanz`7 (Mark V. Editor for Air Force online, The Fuel War, June 2007,
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.ASP)

“Just as the Department of Defense played a critical role in forging the information revolution in past decades, we must play a similar vital role in fueling the energy revolution in coming decades,” said Maj. Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr., assistant deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, on the Air Staff. Air Force leaders are cautious about making predictions about their ability to spark broad-scale change. “If we were to get all of our airplanes flying on synthetic fuel,” Carlson observed, “we still wouldn’t generate a market that anybody would want to buy into. Nobody would want to [take on] the multibillion-dollar investment just to sell gas to the US Air Force.” Carlson said Wynne wants to effectively demonstrate new technology and work to partner with private industry, potentially an airline, and begin to generate interest at the national level. On March 8-9, the Air Force hosted an energy forum in the Washington, D.C., area. Officials sought to provide a better understanding of USAF’s energy initiatives, programs, and strategies and to build on its efforts to link up military research with the forces of demand and supply.

( ) The Air Force has size capabilities to move the Syn Fuel market along – it would give coal-to-liquid plants the political and economic traction needed to popularize. This will increase Syn Fuel use in trucking companies and commercial airlines. FNO 8 (Financial News Online; World Business, Finance, and Political News; March 22, http://medvedhost.info/2008/03/22/air-force-prodaids-coal-to-fuel-plans/)

With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies. “Because of our size, we can move the market along,” he said. “Whether it’s (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame.” Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The Air Force’s involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal’s biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change quickly if coal-toliquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force’s plan. “This is a change agent for the entire industry,” said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. “There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force’s) needs alone.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

221 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Commercialization (4/4)
The plan will spill over to the commercial sector-Reducing Air Force dependence is key Egger`8 (Jeffery W., Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff, The Fuel Gauge of
National Security, 2008, http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)

Oil’s ascendancy to a strategic commodity was through the military; the military should also be the source of its demise. The British Navy’s shift from coal to oil and the U.S. Navy’s pioneering research in nuclear power suggest that military requirements and innovation are well-poised to push difficult or innovative solutions. For starters, U.S. warships are one of the few places where nuclear power might reduce the transportation sector’s dependence on liquid fuels. Thus the maritime sector has the luxury of being poised for transformation to alternative methods if and when oil spikes to prices considered inconceivable today. Similarly, land-based transportation is arguably close to viable jumping points to new foundational technologies, possibly through electric or hydrogen power. It is significantly less clear what non-liquid or non-carbon technology the airline industry might choose. While there are alternatives on the horizon for shipping and wheeled transportation, there is no resource so optimized in ease of storage and power density as good old petroleum. And given that jet fuel constitutes the Defense Department’s largest single energy expenditure, improvements in this field would not only close the widest gap in civil transportation requirement, they would simultaneously make the largest improvement in defense propulsion vulnerabilities. At the International Maritime Propulsion Conference in May, scientists and researchers will debate the viability of crude oil alternatives and will likely conclude that CTL processes offer the most feasible short-term solution. Similar studies in Europe have concluded that hydrogen and biofuels are unlikely short-term successors. Hydrogen is an energy storage option, not a source, and current generation biofuels are competing with food supplies — the principal reason that a gallon of milk still costs more than a gallon of gasoline. While CTL is cost-effective now, the process of liquefying coal requires significant amounts of water and produces significant carbon emissions, two sensitive areas that need to be addressed hand-in-hand with energy needs, not at the expense of one another. Climate change and associated political pressures mean that proposed solutions must increasingly utilize a comprehensive well-to-wheel analysis, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental consequences. National security has always held the trump card over environmental factors, and this is unlikely to change, but the bar for playing this hand is rising. As we begin to capture more of the hidden costs of energy, cheap solutions will become harder to find, further emphasizing the need for expanded research. In military consumption of oil, aircraft account for 73 percent, ground vehicles 15 percent, ships 8 percent and ground installations 4 percent. So while there has been significant attention to conserving energy on military installations and converting warships to nuclear power, these two together account for less than one-fifth of aviation’s thirst for oil. The Air Force has aggressively explored the use of biofuels in the B-52 bomber and other aircraft with recent success, yet it is not clear that biofuels could be a long-term path to reduced vulnerability for aviation. In 2006, the U.S. airline industry consumed about 20 billion gallons of fuel, yet the U.S. produces slightly more than 4 billion gallons of ethanol annually, and that level of production is beginning to be problematic, as evidenced by the rising price of corn and milk. At the levels of intractability we face, real solutions must be not only scaleable, but utilize the strictest “full cost burden” methods of accounting. None of this has gone unnoticed by the Pentagon. In 2006, before the prodding by Congress, the Defense Department sponsored several symposiums to look at reducing the dependence. The Energy Conversation, a nonprofit consortium of private and public sector entities, was born out of close collaboration with the Pentagon to connect the “best ideas, innovations, resources and people — all of which will be needed to create a sustainable energy future.” Attempting to lead from the front, the Pentagon has begun to reduce its consumption of oil, now down to about 300,000 barrels a day. The bad news is that costs are clearly skyrocketing. At current prices, the Pentagon will spend more than $8 billion this year on oil. But cost savings and incremental reductions in military consumption are not the real opportunity here. Rather, a renewed and expanded investment in military energy research and development will catalyze methods and improvements that would become diffused throughout industry. This pattern has played out many times before.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

222 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Airlines (1/3)
Commercial airlines will model the plan Defense News 7 (10-8)
The Air Force said it plans to certify 31 airplanes and four helicopters with the fuel, as well as some vehicles such as Humvees. Commercial airlines are monitoring the tests closely, and they are interested in the domestic production of synthetic aviation fuels, Billings said.

Airlines are interested in CTL – Pilot programs demonstrate feasibility Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
Commercial aviation is also progressing towards full acceptance of F-T jet fuel in general aviation aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration is supporting the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) which will oversee the efforts to approve the use of blends of F-T fuel with conventional jet fuel. This fuel is already in use in South Africa and all planes flying out of Johannesburg International Airport have been using a blend of F-T jet fuel and conventional jet fuel for 7 years, including Delta Air Lines that recently initiated service from Atlanta.

FAA partnerships guarantee commercial spillover Wagner`7 (Breanne, Air Force energy-saving plans face technical, financial hurdles, May 2007,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm)

The C-17 was chosen because the engine is similar to that of a commercial airplane, Anderson said. The Air Force is working with the Federal Aviation Administration to find synthetic fuel to fulfill both military and commercial needs. The Air Force, Defense Department and Department of Energy are all contributing to the FAA’s commercial aviation alternative fuels initiative. Two studies will be released in September, said Marion Blakey, FAA administrator. The studies will examine the feasibility, cost, technical issues, barriers, and environmental issues associated with synthetic fuels. The partnership between the Air Force and the FAA goes beyond the alternative fuels studies. The FAA’s buying power represents 85 percent of the market, Wynne said, so the agency is an essential component of a successful synthetic fuel industry. The Air Force is seeking industry bids, through the Defense Logistics Agency, to buy 206,000 gallons of synthetic fuel this year for testing, said Anderson. NASA also issued a bid for 9,000 gallons of the fuel for its own testing program.

( ) Plan spills over to commercial airlines and NASA causing a wide-spread alternative energy use. Hernandez 7 (Senior Airman Jason, 95th Air Base Wing Public Affairs, United States Air Force, August 8
http://www.safie.hq.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123064095)

"This will be a bridge into the commercial arena," Secretary Wynne said. "We are being watched by many of our airline colleagues who are not only partnering with us, but researching our data. We have developed a rigorous process to qualify this fuel and any manufactured, processed synthetic fuel and blend." The Air Force manual is being rewritten to highlight that there is a process to qualify alternative fuels within the Air Force, he said. Recently, the Air Force ordered 281,000 gallons of synthetic fuel for further testing on the C-17 and B-1 Lancer engines in the coming year. NASA is also interested in synthetic fuels and will receive 9,000 gallons of synthetic fuel from the Air Force so they can begin evaluating its use in various engines and systems. "This is the tip of the spear for national energy independence and cleaner energy," Secretary Wynne said. "It is doing well for the Air Force and the nation."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

223 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Airlines (2/3)
The aviation industry is working with the Air Force on the fuel now Drinnon`7 (Roger Drinnon Air Mobility Command Public Affairs, Air Force Link, C-17 alternative fuel research tests to
begin, 9/10/07, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066920)

As fuel prices rise, synthetic fuel becomes economically viable with the potential to reduce dependency on foreign energy sources, said Mr. Erbschloe, a former deputy chief operating officer for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. "The goal is to make the cost of synthetic fuel comparable to buying JP-8," he said. Upcoming C-17 tests will be a stepping stone toward improving national energy security as well as toward prompting interest in commercial industry. He said commercial aviation already is working with the Air Force to certify more aircraft to use the fuel blend. The former Air Force command pilot with 3,900 flying hours said Air Force standardization efforts will help define the certification process.

The plan will be modeled by commercial airlines Dreazen 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal Reporter, 5/21,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) As the Air Force's experimentation increased, so did the involvement of the private sector. Military and civilian aircraft share many parts and are often built by the same companies. The military's Boeing C17 cargo jet, for instance, uses the same Pratt & Whitney engine as a Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagon officials are sharing their research into synthetic fuels with such firms to help civilian companies certify their equipment on the synthetic-fuel blend. At the military's direction, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce PLC, Honeywell International Inc. and General Electric Co. have agreed to work together to develop joint specifications for how their engines perform on artificial fuels. Last November, engineers from Pratt & Whitney mounted one of the company's C-17 engines in a high-tech pressure chamber at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee and simulated a variety of altitudes and weather conditions to gauge the engine's performance. The tests were "enormously uneventful," says Alan Epstein, the company's vice president of technology and environment -- an encouraging sign. In late 2006, Baard Energy of Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the U.S., to be completed in 2012. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant because of the military's interest. "There isn't a market for this right now, so it takes a little bit of faith to get these plants going," he says. "Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the decision-making process."

Long term loan guarantees increase investment which subsequently allows the Air Force to stimulate commercial use of synthetics Dreazan 8 (Yochi J., Wall Street Journal, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, May 21, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)

The Pentagon is hoping its push for alternative energy will feed civilian applications as well. For synthetic fuel, the Air Force is working with aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing Corp. and the Pratt & Whitney engine unit of United Technologies Corp. North American synthetic-fuel processors including Rentech Inc., Baard Energy and Syntroleum Corp. all operate or hope to build synthetic-fuel refineries to feed the military's growing thirst. "Our goal is to drive the development of a market here in the U.S.," says Mr. Anderson. Military use of synthetic fuel faces significant obstacles. The energy bill signed into law by President Bush last year included a clause preventing the government from buying the fuel if it emits more pollution than petroleum. Manufacturers have promised to meet that target by recapturing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses produced in refining. Without those efforts, synthetic fuel can emit up to twice as much pollution in refining as conventional petroleum.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

224 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – Spillover – Airlines (3/3)
CTL spurs commercial aviation industry Springer 8 (Lt. Gen. Robert, Retired Air Force General, 3/25, http://www.wral.com/news/blogpost/2625696)
Imagine flying an Air Force bomber faster than the speed of sound – and doing it while testing a 50/50 blend of synthetic petroleum fuel. Well, that flight did take place last week, as a B-1 bomber launched from its home station of Dyess Air
Force Base, near Abilene, Texas, and flew to New Mexico, crossing the White Sands Missile Range at 680 mph. While this was not the first Air Force aircraft and crew to test synthetic fuels in flight, it was the first supersonic flight, and like the other test flights, it came off without a hitch. In late 2006, an eight-engine B-52 bomber made the first synthetic fuel flight, and more recently, a four-engine C-17 transport aircraft flew across the country on synthetic fuel. This is a big deal. The goal is to have all U.S. Air Force aircraft certified

to use a synthetic blend fuel within the next three to four years. Synthetic fuel is cheaper, will reduce dependence on foreign oil, and burns cleaner. That is significant. The Air Force is by far the largest consumer of aviation fuel, with an appetite for about 3 billion gallons a year. So, any efficiency and cost savings are enormous. Just what is synthetic aviation fuel? And how long has the idea been around? Essentially, it is fuel that can be produced from coal, shale and natural gas – all hydrocarbon products that are available to us in the U.S., significantly reducing dependence on foreign oil. I am no expert on the processing technique, but I am told that these
domestic products – coal, shale or natural gas – go through a conversion process that turns them into a liquid fuel. On last week’s B-1 supersonic flight, natural gas was used in the blended fuel. Sounds like a 21st-century breakthrough, doesn’t it? Well, not quite. The conversion method was first developed some 80 years ago in Germany. A couple of German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, were responsible for what would become known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. The few test flights so far have indicated no difference in aircraft handling or performance. More test flights with other airframes are in the offing. As I noted above, the Air Force's goal is to have all of its aircraft certified for

synthetic fuel by 2011. A cheaper, cleaner, less-dependent-on-foreign-oil aviation fuel will dramatically affect the aviation industry. For now, it is just the Air Force out in front with this significant project of testing and then certifying an alternative fuel. But in the near future, I visualize all of the other armed services and the commercial airline industry
taking the same route. Cheaper, cleaner and domestically available all make for a highly desirable outcome.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

225 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – AF Key (1/3)
The Air Force is the key Morehouse, Sheets, Hulme, and Schroeder 5/8 (Thomas, David, Karen, Christopher): Strategic Studies Institute of
the US Army War College (SSI) )5/8 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?v21=108732&lng=en&id=56036

Within the DoD, moreover, the Army is not the leader in regards to energy usage—it is the Air Force. In fiscal year 2005, the Air Force consumed 54 percent of the fuel, the Army 12 percent, and the Navy 33 percent. What are the energy needs? Well, the Air Force flies a lot of jets and uses a lot of jet fuel. That is why they consume so much oil.

AF improvements spillover to all other transportation sectors Jolley 99 (Ainsely, Director of the Emerging Technologies and Asian Growth Program at the Centre for Strategic
Economic Studies, Transport Engineering Technologies, CSES Working Paper No. 13, October, http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp13.pdf) Technological Synergies The nature of the technologies employed, and the intensive R&D that lies behind them, makes aerospace close to the most technology-intensive of all manufacturing industries. Of crucial importance are the spillover effects associated with the utilisation of these technologies. The synergies between civil and military aerospace are well-known, and are currently expected to increase (Scott 1999). The technological linkages between aerospace and shipbuilding, less well-known hitherto in Australia (although well-appreciated in countries like Japan and Russia), are becoming increasingly important with the developing similarities between airframe, hull design and construction, and the extensive use of electronics. In the longer run, given the increasing importance of new materials technology, aerodynamic styling and on-board electronics, these linkages could extend across the whole transport equipment sector, including motor vehicles. These technological interdependencies rest on the delivery of key technologies which are capable of transforming production in a range of industries – advanced materials (which have significance for aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other transport equipment, and building
and construction), embedded information and communications technologies (aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other transport equipment and transport system infrastructure), and aerodynamic design. Innovation in its broader sense also implies spillovers across the whole transport equipment and transport systems with respect to life-cycle design and manufacturing systems, maintenance and repair systems, and the development of a comprehensive approach to safety. Defence contracts can provide a spur to technology in civil aerospace as well as other transport and engineering industries with respect to materials, electronics and on-board diagnostics. Civil aerospace, in turn, provides a lead to the defence sector with respect to computer-aided design and virtual prototyping, life-cycle planning, maintenance and repair, and developments in air safety. The motor vehicle industry is a leader in lean

manufacturing, but the new technological challenges it faces could eventually put it in the position of influencing industries like aerospace in particular technologies. Finally, primary defence contractors, civil aerospace
suppliers and motor vehicle producers depend on sub-contractors and suppliers of cast and forged metal products, repetition engineers, heavy engineers, and electronic sub-components. There is a two-way relationship here. The depth of the supply

chain underpins the flexibility and capabilities of the major manufacturers. On the other hand, the major manufacturers often provide an important conduit for technology and productive efficiency to their sub-contractors. Technologies can also move in the other direction. In civil aerospace manufacturing, the integrators of the
finished aircraft are shifting many aspects of design and R&D towards primary risk-sharing contractors. In the manufacture of aeroengines, new developments are taking place through the agency of complex international consortia. There are economies of scope across a range of technologically advanced heavy engineering industries. The key aspect is systems integration, which requires stateof- the-art project management skills. In Japan, heavy engineering conglomerates have exploited these economies across aerospace, shipbuilding and civil engineering projects. In the United States the economies are exploited across civil and military aerospace and other defence projects. The motor vehicle industry has traditionally been more self-contained. US automobile producers have tended to shed peripheral interests over the past decade, although European companies such as DaimlerChrysler, BMW and Fiat still cover a wide range of interests. However, the new technologies being developed in the industry are leading

to new associations between vehicle producers and innovative engineering companies.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

226 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – AF Key (2/3)
The Air Force empirically drives tech markets Community Fuels 6 (Community Fuels provides simple to understand biodiesel fact sheets related to benefits, production and proper
handling, success stories, and Material Safety Data Sheets, http://members.communityfuels.com/)

Among the services, the Air Force has been lauded for its move to install renewable energy sources at installations, now consuming approximately 40 percent of the federal government's entire renewable energy supply. Thomas White, former Air Force chief of staff, said in a statement in 2004 that "the mission of DOD is more than aircraft, guns and missiles. Part of the defense job is protecting the land, waters, timbers and wildlife."Get Moy, DOD director of utilities and energy, says the decision to use one renewable source over another is primarily an economic one. "It's an economics case as to whether to use solar, biomass or whatever else. The Air Force has been the most proactive, and renewable energy has been a major element of our plan."Air Force and DOD energy purchasing contracts have had an effect on the renewable energy market, with the Air Force spending $800 million annually on energy. "Wind is very affordable right now, but we're looking at biomass and geothermal" possibilities as well, says an Air Force resource efficiency manager. He stresses that some projects are still "very preliminary," and that the next few years will see refinements and clarifications of guidance on renewable energy policies.

The plan spillsover to the other branches CSM 7 (Christian Science Monitor, December 28, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html?page=2) The Air Force is taking "a leadership role" in the endeavor and working to ensure that the fuel can be used by Army, Navy, and Marine aircraft as well, according to Air Force officials. Although the
Air Force is the biggest user of energy in the US government, it only accounts for about 10 percent of the country's total demand for aviation fuel, a fact not lost on scientists working to develop the synthetic fuel for commercial aviation use. The Air Force is working with Boeing and Pratt & Whitney on the project. The C-17 was chosen for the transcontinental flight because its engines are similar to a Boeing 757 plane, commonly used by commercial airlines. At least one member of Congress is on board. "The Air Force alternative fuel program is as

important to the nation as it is to the Air Force because it keeps focus on alternative fuels by the largest user of the fuel in the US government," said Rep. Jim Saxton (R) of New Jersey, who attended the event celebrating the landing of the C-17 in his state last week. "We must continue to support the research ... to find cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuels that include both renewable and unconventional fuel," he added.

The Air Force is the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S. Schanz`7 (Mark V. Editor for Air Force online, The Fuel War, June 2007,
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.ASP)

The Air Force is the largest single consumer of energy in the Department of Defense. That would still be the case even if the United States were not engaged in a Global War on Terrorism, but it is, and the demands of that worldwide conflict have pushed fuel use to new heights. Last year, the Air Force’s total energy bill came to $6.7 billion, the bulk of it related to air operations. When USAF’s budgets began to sag under the weight of rising oil prices, worried Air Force leaders began closely examining the service’s energy costs and planning for reforms. The fuel problem became undeniable nearly two years ago. USAF already was burning lots and lots of fuel as a result of the war. Then, in September 2005, USAF deployed many aircraft to the Gulf Coast to assist in evacuation, search and rescue, recovery, and other operations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The effort was enormous and costly. It also highlighted the vulnerability of the nation’s domestic energy supply, according to Michael A. Aimone, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations, and mission support. The Department of Defense, as the government’s largest fuel user, accounts for 93 percent of overall federal energy costs. Yet even with such a huge fuel bill, the Pentagon accounts for about two percent of the nation’s entire energy use.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

227 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – Solvency – AF Key (3/3)
Air force key-They’re the largest consumer Ferrell`7 (Lt. Amanda Ferrell, Global Air Chiefs Conference Public Affairs, Washington (AFPN) Oct 02, 2007, Air force
energy incentives focus on fuel, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Air_Force_Energy_Initiatives_Focus_On_Fuel_999.html)

"Energy conservation and developing energy technology is a major Department of Defense effort," Mr. Anderson said. "As the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, the Air Force is in a great position to look for, promote and utilize alternative energy sources." We are working to incorporate new energy initiatives and programs at every installation, and we want to incorporate alternative energy and energy conservation everywhere it makes sense -- for the military and the civilian community, Mr. Billings said. The Air Force is committed to working with agencies in the private sector, experts in academia and throughout the DOD to generate viable sources of energy that are both domestically sourced and more environmentally friendly than current petroleum-based sources, Mr. Anderson said. While energy programs cover installation power, ground vehicles and other requirements, the current focus of energy technology in the Air Force is aviation fuel, which makes up 82 percent of all energy consumed in the Air Force, Mr. Billings said. In August, the B-52 Stratofortress was certified to use a blend of the current petroleum-based fuel, JP-8, and a synthetic fuel derived from coal, natural gas and feed stocks.

Plan spills-over to the entire military Shanker 6 (Thom. New York Times Correspondent, May 14, Section 1; Column 2; National Desk; Pg. 16)
Air Force and industry officials say that oil prices above $40 to $45 per barrel make a blend with synthetic fuels a cost-effective alternative to oil-based jet fuel. Fuel costs have doubled since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and crude oil prices since Hurricane Katrina have remained above $60 a barrel. The Air Force effort falls under a directive from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to explore alternative fuel sources. Under the plan, the Air Force has been authorized to buy 100,000 gallons of synthetic fuel. Ground experiments are scheduled to begin in coming weeks at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, followed by test flights at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Although the Air Force is leading the project, it is working with the Automotive Tank Command of the Army, in Detroit, and the Naval Fuels Laboratory, at Patuxent River, Md. The research and tests on synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said. The initial contract for unconventional fuel for the tests will be signed with Syntroleum Corporation of Tulsa, Okla., which has provided synthetic fuel for testing by the Departments of Energy, Transportation and Defense since 1998. John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force its synthetic fuel for testing ''at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit.'' Neither Mr. Holmes nor the Air Force would provide cost estimates for the experimental fuel deal in advance of signing a final contract, expected in coming days. Air Force officials have acknowledged, however, that the cost per gallon of the test fuel will be expensive. Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The raw materials cost about $70. If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr. Holmes said. ''The United States is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal,'' Mr. Holmes said. ''It can be mined relatively inexpensively. We really believe that one of the things we can do to help our country's energy needs is to use the abundance of coal reserves.'' Mr. Aimone said the large plants needed to produce.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

228 Green Military Aff

***A2: Warming DA***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

229 Green Military Aff

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

230 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – 2AC We reduce carbons emissions in two ways. First, the Air Force only buys SynFuel from plants equipped with carbon capture and storage technology. Second, Princeton studies prove that the Fischer-Tropsch liquids can be produced with less carbon than oil Ott and Norris 7 (James and Guy, Aviation’s Green Agenda; Aviation Week & Space Technology Pg. 65 Vol. 167 No. 8, Lexis)
The scope of a global inquiry into production of non-petroleum-based jet fuel is expanding to a variety of alternative energy sources, even as U.S. research confirms the practicality of processing coal and natural gas to produce synthetic commercial Jet A and the military’s JP-8. And the inquiry initiated by the Defense Dept., with the Air
Force as lead agency, continues to grow as Boeing, Airbus and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) focus their work on biomass sources. The U.S. is broadening the base of its effort in NASA Glenn Research Center?s wide-ranging alternative fuel program, which extends to fundamental research needs of the Next-Generation Air Transportation System and includes assessment of alternate fuels in subsonic and supersonic aircraft. Proponents of the Fischer-Tropsch process, which converts coal, natural gas and biomass

components into synthetic fuel, are making headway. Baard Energy of Vancouver, Wash., is planning a coalto-liquid plant along the Ohio River near the West Virginia border. The plant is to have carbon capture and storage technology to eliminate an important environmental obstacle to the production of synthetic fuel. While the Air Force is doing further testing of synthetics, it is acquiring 300,000 gallons of fuel from Shell, it has established a policy of buying the fuel from processing plants equipped with carbon capture and storage technology. USAF is interested in any source allowing for domestic production; if renewable, then all the better. The Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, has released information, prepared by the environmental expert Robert Williams of Princeton University, that reflects studies demonstrating that Fischer-Tropsch liquids could be produced with far less carbon output than petroleumbased fuel production if carbon capture and storage technology were incorporated (see chart). In the coal-mining state
of Kentucky, Gov. Ernie Fletcher has called a special session of the General Assembly to consider a range of incentives to attract the Peabody Coal Co. to the state, where it seeks to build a Fischer-Tropsch plant near the city of Sturgis. The University of Kentucky, a specialist in the conversion process, is providing three Fischer-Tropsch reactors to NASA Glenn to conduct experiments. An alternate-fuels facility is under construction on the Cleveland campus and is expected to be ready for occupancy next year. Glenn’s program has set milestones

through Fiscal 2008. Research will pave the way for low-emissions combustion systems in subsonic engines and for ways to assess alternative fuels and improve predictions of performance and emissions output. On the supersonics side, the focus is on developing technologies to enable low-emissions combustion systems for cruise applications, developing models for emission and performance predictions, and developing and validating high-temperature sensors for use in intelligent engines. Boeing’s investigations downplay alcohol, methane or
hydrogen as potential resources largely because they would require all new aircraft and new distribution systems, says Oren Hadaller, who directs Boeing’s fuel research. Boeing, a participant in the search for alternatives, is evaluating the babassu plant from Brazil and algae as potentials. To the manufacturer, alternative fuels described as drop-ins are preferable. These fuels are transparent to current aircraft engines and require no design changes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

231 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: CO2 Up
Emissions are increasing in the US and China, driving global emissions growth World Ecological Problems 7/7 (environmentalist news site, 08, “US CO2 emission increased again in 2007”,
http://ecologicalproblems.blogspot.com/2008/05/us-co2-emission-again-increased-in-2007.html)

Carbon dioxide or CO2 is harmful greenhouse gas mainly responsible for global warming and climate change. And though all countries agree that we should cut down carbon dioxide emissions and put more emphasis on the renewable energy sector, reality is completely different. Preliminary government estimate showed that US CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels increased 1.6 percent in 2007, rising from 5,888 million in 2006 to 5,984 million metric tonnes in 2007. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) said that this growth of CO2 emissions include several factors : "weather conditions that increased the demand for heating and cooling services, and a higher carbon intensity of electricity supply". EIA also stated how since 1990, in less than 20 years CO2 emissions rose by 19,4 %, which is in average more than 1 % per year. Majority of CO2 emissions (about 80 %) comes from fossil fuels burning (coal, oil, natural gas). Industrial carbon dioxide emissions luckily fell by 0.1 percent in 2007, but on the other hand emissions from the residential and commercial sectors increased by 4.4 percent and 4.3 percent, and transportation-related emissions, which account for about a third of total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, increased by 0.1 percent in 2007. The largest single source of US carbon dioxide emissions is electric power generation, that represents about 40 percent of the total US CO2 emissions. The current data shows that though there is lot of talk about turning to renewable energy sector and cutting down carbon dioxide emissions, little of this is actually happening in United States, and USA (together with China) convincingly leads the way in CO2 emissions. More CO2 emissions means more impact on climate change, and presents real danger to future of our planet. And as long as fossil fuels remain dominant on global scale this trend will continue. Renewable energy sector is still too weak, and fossil fuels are still dominant even despite recent boom in oil prices. There is only talk and few warnings, with little or no action. And USA that should be really (as the world's most powerful country) lead the way in cutting down CO2 emissions is doing completely opposite. Like global warming is only a great hoax. If only...

Global CO2 emissions are increasing Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 8 (“Global CO2 emissions: increase continued in 2007”, 6/13,
http://www.mnp.nl/en/publications/2008/GlobalCO2emissionsthrough2007.html)

In 2007, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel use and cement production increased by 3.1%, which is less than the 3.5% increase in 2006. The emissions from China, with an emission increase of about 8%, accounted for two thirds of this global increase. Smaller contributions were made by India, the USA and the Russian Federation, in contrast to the European Union (EU-15), where a relatively warm winter and high fuel prices led to a 2% decrease in CO2 emissions. The increase in emissions, in 2007, of about 800 million metric tons of CO2, was mainly due to a 4.5% increase in global coal consumption, to which China contributed by more than 70%. At present, CO2 emissions per person from China, EU-15 and the USA come to about 5, 9 and 19 tonnes of CO2, respectively. In the 19902007 period, total CO2 emissions related to the use of global fossil fuel and cement production increased by about 34%.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

232 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – NUQ: Methane Up
Multiple alternate causes to methane emissions EPA 7 (“Methane”, 4/27, http://epa.gov/methane/)
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process. Methane is also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. As a result, efforts to prevent or utilize methane emissions can provide significant energy, economic and environmental benefits. In the United States, many companies are working with EPA in voluntary efforts to reduce emissions by implementing cost-effective management methods and technologies.

Multiple natural and anthropogenic alternate causes to methane emissions EPA 6 (“Methane: Sources and Emissions”, 10/19, http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html)
Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Humanrelated activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001c). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. Methane emission levels from a source can vary significantly from one country or region to another, depending on many factors such as climate, industrial and agricultural production characteristics, energy types and usage, and waste management practices. For example, temperature and moisture have a significant effect on the anaerobic digestion process, which is one of the key biological processes that cause methane emissions in both human-related and natural sources. Also, the implementation of technologies to capture and utilize methane from sources such as landfills, coal mines, and manure management systems affects the emission levels from these sources.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

233 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Threshold
Despite CO2 increases, it only amounts to 0.4% more emissions Shapro 7 [Sol, Resident of Aurora., SPEAKOUT: Coal-to-liquid holds promise
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/03/speakout-coal-to-liquid-holds-promise/, June 3, 2008]

So why isn't it happening? The environmental movement correctly states that coal-to-liquid, without carbon dioxide sequestration, will produce about twice the CO2 as crude oil. They don't tell you that this would mean about 0.4 percent of the world's CO2 emissions per million barrels per day - a worthwhile trade-off, I think, to move toward domestic energy for transportation. And they've used this CO2 issue to put the kibosh on coal-toliquid by incorporating a requirement in the Energy Bill of 2007 requiring that coal-to-liquid produce 20 percent less carbon dioxide than crude oil.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

234 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Blends Solve
The gas can be sequestered, or mixed with biomass to reduce the net GHGs Mathews`7 (William, Air Force Times, Coal states see boon in Air Force alt-fuel push, Jun 17, 2007
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_coalfuel_070616/)

Bollinger said the Air Force is very conscious of the possible environmental impacts of producing liquid fuel from coal. “Our secretary has stated from day one that we are going to be good environmental stewards,” he said. “I’ve done an extensive amount of work with other agencies that control and regulate these areas.” The carbon dioxide produced by the CTL can be captured and sequestered — essentially buried deep underground. Coal can be mixed with biomass to reduce the net CO2 output of the process and mining can be done in environmentally benign ways, he said. Davis, too, says he is “committed to ensuring the environmental integrity of these fuels and have advocated that any future fuels produced from coal are as good or better than the environmental footprint of the fuels they are designed to replace.”

Bio fuel mixes solve Biello`8 (David, Wild Green Yonder: Flying the Environmentally Friendly Skies on Alternative Fuels, January 14 2008,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=flying-environmentally-friendly-skies-on-alternative-fuels&page=6)

Before then, the impact on Earth's climate can be limited by blending relatively small amounts of biofuels into such synfuels—an option DARPA, for one, rejects for logistical reasons—or capturing the carbon dioxide from synfuel production and using it to enhance the growth of the plants to be turned into fuel. "Put as little as 20 percent biofuel into nonrenewable fuels—coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid —you can be carbon neutral in a mix," CAAFI's Altman says. Such a 20 percent mix would not require any modifications to existing aircraft engines or infrastructure, Green Flight International's Rodante says. "Jet fuel and biofuel mix is something that is easily done," he says "I don't believe 100 percent biofuel is the answer."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

235 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Storage Solves (1/2)
( ) Sequestration technology could reduce the carbon footprint by 25%. Turner 8 (Aimee, FEATURES for Flight International, June 17, Lexis)
Essentially, this could provide support for alternative fuel producers that would otherwise have to commit heavy capital investment in the processing plant simply to produce the large volumes of alternative fuels necessary to meet the testing needs - albeit with no guarantee of approval. "This is seen as stifling the alternative fuels market as investors are asked to take on significant financial risk with no guarantee of when, or even if, approval might be granted. The new approval protocol is intended to address this and aid in bringing a new fuel to market, stimulate investment and yet still ensure that safety remains the primary concern," says Shell's Rob Midgley. Engine manufacturers will confirm they need a lot of fuel for testing. Rolls-Royce's fluids specialist Chris
Lewis, speaking of R-R's biofuels initiative with Air New Zealand, says the engine-maker looked at several candidate fuels that fitted the key criteria of being technically viable and sustainable, and scaleable in industrial terms. "We are interested in talking to anyone active in this area. Several specimens of hydrogenated vegetable oils have been offered, but at the end of the day we need good quality and quality in sufficient quantities," Lewis says. research to certification A specific area CAAFI wants to strengthen is not only how it transitions from research programmes such as the US Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's hydrogenated vegetable oil and forthcoming algae projects to certification in the most expeditious manner, but also how to secure sufficient fuel quantities - 950,000 litres (250,000USgal) to 1.9 million litres in a timely manner to meet its 2013 goal of biofuels approvals for jets. Another major tactical issue is to find a way for biofuel companies to provide data to the certification authorities and still protect their intellectual property. In an effort to demonstrate leadership, Shell aviation technology manager Paul Bogers explains why a report on Airbus's signal A380 demonstration flight in February powered with a gas-to-liquid kerosene blend was to be presented to ASTM and its UK equivalent, the UK Aviation Fuels Committee. "The industry is only going to move forward if we share this data," says Bogers. S?bastien R?my, head of Airbus's alternative fuels research programme, agrees: "Everyone will

end up using the same fuel so sharing the knowledge simply makes better use of the resources available and avoids duplication." While CAAFI hopes its simplified procedure will be formally adopted as an ASTM protocol by year-end, there will be
still real concern about how alternatives can be produced to a consistent standard to meet the certificated standard. From the engine manufacturer's point of view, R-R's Lewis insists that certification is often a beginning of a process as production consistency represents a key safety criteria. Seal swell, lubricity and higher maintenance issues aside, all of which could influence possible deployment, certification is not the end game. "There have been many incidents when specifications have caused great problems because they assume a known set of characteristics. The buck stops with the engine manufacturer and we can't say, as much as we would like to, yes it meets the spec, go ahead and use it." 50/50 mix GOAL Tim Edwards, a senior scientist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory's fuels branch, also makes this point. While the USAF's nearterm goal is to use a 50/50 Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend certificated throughout its fleet by early 2016, ensuring the consistency of jet fuels between manufacturers, processes and feedstocks remains a key issue. "How to ensure a consistent product in specification? What are the limits of the fuel composition?" asks Edwards. With an ongoing Defense Energy Support Center Request for Information for a 760 million litre purchase, it would seem wise for fuel producers to pay attention to ensuring the robustness of the processing capability as well as coming up with an eureka proposition. While safety remains at the heart of any alternative proposal, sustainability ranks equally.

Altman says that before the ongoing Partner study to analyze environmental lifecycle gains "well to wake" is complete, even experts should be wary of making swift judgements, as studies have shown that coal-to-liquid fuels with carbon capture and sequestration technology can reduce the carbon footprint of biodiesel by 25% depending on feedstock. Local air quality gains on species such as small particles - a significant carcinogen could also figure in the benefits cited by some alternative fuels. "Sustainability has to be at the core of what we want to do," says Lewis.

Carbon storage solves through conversion, sealing 100% of CO2 Liles 8 (Patricia, J of Comm, 5-18)
Carbon is most often combined with three other elements-calcium, iron or magnesium-to form a group of minerals called carbonate minerals, such as limestones and dolomites, Metz said. Mafic volcanic rock, which typically has high concentrates of iron, magnesium and calcium, is formed under very high temperatures and pressures and when exposed to the surface of the earth, weathers and chemically alters. "We can do the same thing that Mother Nature does, only very quickly," Metz said. "Converting mafic volcanics to clay soil takes time because the reactions are temperature dependant. At higher temperatures, it occurs much faster." Compared to the ambient temperatures on Earth of 20 to 30 degrees Centigrade, ambient temperatures out of the stack of a coal-fired power plant would range from 700 to 800 degrees Centigrade, Metz said. "The high temperatures of carbon dioxide react very quickly with iron, magnesium and calcium, converting to carbonates, permanently storing carbon as either limestone or dolomite."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

236 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Storage Solves (2/2)
Air Force studies prove emissions decrease w/CTL Defense News 7 (10-8)
The Air Force says its testing showed a drop in emissions from jet engines when using the synthetic fuel.
“The tail pipe emissions don’t tell the whole story,” Schafer said. “There are a lot of pollutants created before we get to that point.” Producing a gallon of fuel from coal also takes more water than petroleum, and the plants are likely to be built in the West, where water is a valuable commodity, Schafer said.

Billings said studies by the Air Force and the federal Energy Department have found that synthetic fuels, when made from a combination of coal and organic material such as switchgrass, can be produced with fewer emissions than a traditional oil refinery.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

237 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Feasibility (1/2)
Incentives solve carbon storage – Best evidence Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
By carbon capture and sequestration, I refer to technical approaches being developed in the United States, primarily through funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, and abroad that are designed to capture carbon dioxide produced in coalfired power plants and to sequester that carbon dioxide in various types of geological formations, such as deep saline aquifers. This same approach can be used to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from F-T coal-to-liquids plants and from F-T plants operating on biomass or a combination of coal and biomass. When applied to F-T coal-to-liquids plants, carbon capture and sequestration should cause mine-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions to drop to levels comparable to the well-to-wheels emissions associated with conventional, petroleum-derived motor fuels. Most importantly, our research indicates that any incentive adequate to promote carbon capture at coal-fired power plants should be even more effective in promoting carbon capture at F-T plants producing liquid fuels.

Carbon storage is empirically feasible Liles 8 (Patricia, J of Comm, 5-18)
Two projects already in the works to demonstrate carbon dioxide storage are the Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership Project in the Columbia River Plateau and the National Thermal Power Corporation of India Project-Deccan Traps, located in northwestern India.

Empirically, it’s commercially viable Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)
The electric power industry has been slow to take up gasification technology, but two commercial-scale units are operating in the U.S. in Indiana and Florida. The Florida unit, owned by TECO, is reported by the company to be the most reliable and economic unit on its system. Two coal-based power companies, AEP and Cinergy, have announced their intention to build coal gasification units. The first proposed coal gasification plant that will capture and dispose of its CO2 was announced in February, 2006 by BP and Edison Mission Group. The plant will be built in Southern California and its CO2 emissions will be pipelined to an oil field nearby and injected into the ground to recover domestic oil. BP`s proposal shows the technologies are available now to cut global warming pollution and that integrated IGCC with CO2 capture and disposal are commercially feasible.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

238 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Feasibility (2/2)
Carbon storage is ready now National Coal Council 6 (Mar, Coal: America’s Energy Future; Volume II, p.28)
At first glance, CO2 capture and storage in geological formations may appear to be a radical idea that would be difficult and perhaps risky to employ. Closer analysis however reveals that many of the component technologies are mature. A great deal of experience with gasification, CO2 capture and underground injection of gases and liquids provide the foundation for future CCS operations.

More ev… National Coal Council 6 (Mar, Coal: America’s Energy Future; Volume II, p.26)
CO2 can be injected into deep underground formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, brine-filled formations or deep unmineable coal beds. This option is in practice today at three industrial scale projects and many smaller pilot tests. At appropriately selected storage sites, retention rates are expected to be very high, with CO2 remaining securely stored for geologic time periods that will be sufficient for managing emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. The potential storage capacity in geological formations is somewhat uncertain, but estimates of worldwide storage Coal: America’s Energy Future, Volume II - Electricity Generation 3/22/06 26 capacity in oil and gas fields range from 900 to 1,200 billion tonnes of CO2 and the estimated capacity in brine-filled formations is expected to be much greater. The U.S. is estimated to have a very large capacity to store CO2 in oil fields, gas fields and saline formations, sufficient for the foreseeable future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

239 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming Da – Carbon Storage – A2: Costs
Carbon sequestration costs are offset by oil recovery Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
The carbon dioxide transported by the pipeline could also help extract coalbed methane from Illinois’ coal reserves. Illinois’ coal reserves hold enough methane to meet all of the state’s natural gas needs for seven years, according to the plan summary. The pipeline would generate an estimated US$12 million in annual revenue, and the royalties from the recovered oil and gas would subsidise the cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

240 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – No Link: Oil Recovery
Oil recovery reuses the CO2, minimizing emissions Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
In coal-to-liquids plants, about 0.8 tons of carbon dioxide are produced along with each barrel of liquid fuel. For coal-to-liquids plants located near currently producing oil fields, this carbon dioxide can be used to drive additional oil recovery. We anticipate that each ton of carbon dioxide applied to enhanced oil recovery will cause the additional production of two to three barrels of oil, although this ratio depends highly on reservoir properties and oil prices. Based on recent studies sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, opportunities for enhanced oil recovery provide carbon management options for at least half a million barrels per year of coal-to-liquids production capacity. A favorable collateral consequence of this approach to carbon management is that half a million barrels per day of coal-to-liquids production will promote additional domestic petroleum production of roughly 1 million barrels per day. The use of pressurized carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery is a well-established practice in the petroleum industry. Technology for capturing carbon dioxide at a coal-to-liquids plant is also well established, although further R&D may yield cost reductions. There are no technical risks, but questions do remain about methods to optimize the fraction of carbon dioxide that would be permanently sequestered.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

241 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: NOx (1/2)
NOx and heat-trapping from SQ fuels more than offset the impact of CO2 Sci Tech 7 (Science News 24/7, Affiliation with Reuters, August 16, http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-131443_2165440,00.html)
The aviation industry may be more damaging to the environment than widely thought because aircraft not only release carbon dioxide but they also produce other harmful gases that warm the Earth, experts said. A tented camp of about 250 climate protests at London's Heathrow airport this week highlights pressures to include aviation in a global pact to fight global warming. But planes are among the least understood sources of emissions. "Growth is going to continue, but it is complicated to estimate the effect of aviation on the climate," said Ivar Isaksen, a professor at Oslo University who is an expert in how aviation affects the atmosphere. He said that aviation's impact went far beyond carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, that many governments rely on for calculations. Aviation accounts for about two percent of world emissions of carbon dioxide and projected passenger growth of five percent a year will far outstrip efficiency gains from better fuel or plane

design, UN studies say.

Planes' climate impact may be magnified by factors including heat-trapping nitrogen oxides that are more damaging at high altitude. Jet condensation trails may contribute to the formation of a blanket of high-altitude cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds usually warm the Earth's surface, increasing the impact of aviation on global warming. A 1999 UN report, for instance, estimated that aviation's impact on the climate was two to four times greater than simply the carbon dioxide emitted by burning jet fuel. 'The science around this
isn't very clear' "The science around this isn't very clear," said Sarah Brown, spokesperson for CarbonNeutral Co, an offset company that allows travellers to invest in renewable energy projects to soak up emissions from flights. The company uses British Environment Ministry data that excluding climate side-effects of aviation. "The science of radiative forcing is currently uncertain," it said, referring to the effects that go beyond carbon dioxide. Germany's Atmosfair (www.atmosfair.de), whose patrons include former UN Environment Programme chief Klaus Toepfer, covers factors such as the release of nitrogen oxide. "We're trying to estimate the overall effect," said Robert Muller at

Atmosfair. He said airlines such as British Airways or Scandinavian SAS worked with companies with low estimates when offering customers offsets. Take a one-way flight from Sydney to London, for instance CarbonNeutral estimates each passenger is responsible for 1.9 tons of greenhouse gases, costing $28.46 to offset. The same route with Atmosfair works out at 6.4 tons, and a charge of 130 euros to offset. Outside Heathrow, about 250 campaigners are camping in tents on the path of a proposed third runway for the world's busiest international hub. More and more people fly, partly because companies have axed ticket prices despite high fuel costs. International flights are now excluded from the Kyoto Protocol, the main UN plan for curbing climate change to 2012. The
European Union is among those aiming to include aviation after 2012 while the United States is opposed. A report by the UN climate panel said extra charges for fuel or the inclusion of the aviation sector into a greenhouse gas trading scheme "would have the potential to reduce emissions considerably".

More ev… Planet Air 1 (Not-for-profit service offered by the Unisféra International Centre, planetair.ca/modules/smartcontent/page.php?pageid=41)
When jet fuel is burned, the carbon in the fuel is released and bonds with oxygen (O2) in the air to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Burning jet fuel also releases water vapour, nitrous oxides, sulphate, and soot. Aircraft emissions trigger the formation of contrails (condensation trails), and contribute to the formation of cirrus clouds. A plane’s high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact because they trigger a series of chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that have a net warming effect. As a result, the climate impact of aircraft is greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone. At present, scientists recommend using an average multiplier of 2.7 to account for the increased impact of emitting certain greenhouse gases at high altitude (the radiative forcing effect). For example, if it is calculated that a flight would release 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide, this is multiplied by 2.7 to get 5.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, a more realistic measure of the climate impact

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

242 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: NOx (2/2)
Nitrogen emissions lead to a positive radiative forcing increasing climate change. IPCC 1 (Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 6: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, 6.6.3 Indirect
Forcing by NOx Emissions, http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/230.htm)

Through production of tropospheric O3, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2) lead to a positive radiative forcing of climate (warming), but by affecting the concentration of OH they reduce the levels of CH4, providing a negative forcing (cooling) which partly offsets the O3 forcing. Due to nonlinearities in O3 photochemical production together with differences in mixing regimes and removal processes, the O3 and OH changes strongly depend on the localisation of the NOx surface emission perturbation, as calculated by Hauglustaine and Granier (1995), Johnson and Derwent (1996), Berntsen et al. (1996), Fuglestvedt et al. (1996, 1999) and Gupta et al. (1998). The CH4 and O3 forcings are similar in magnitude, but opposite in sign, as calculated by Fuglestvedt et al. (1999). Due to differences in CH4 and O3 lifetimes,

the NOx perturbation on the CH4 forcing acts on a global scale over a period of approximately a decade, while the O3 forcing is of regional character and occurs over a period of weeks. Based on threedimensional model results, Fuglestvedt et al. (1999) have calculated that the O3 radiative forcing per change in NOx emission (10-2 Wm-2 per TgN/yr) is 0.35 and 0.29 for the USA and Scandinavia, respectively, and reaches 2.4 for Southeast Asia. The CH4 forcing per change in NOx emission ranges from -0.37 (Scandinavia) and -0.5 (USA) to -2.3 (Southeast Asia) in the same units. Additional work is required to assess the impact of NOx on the radiative forcing of climate.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

243 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Airlines
CTL solves CO2 emissions from planes Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
F-T fuels offer numerous benefits for aviation users. The first is an immediate reduction in particulate emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown in laboratory combustors and engines to reduce PM emissions by 96% at idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other turbine engine emissions is still under way. Concurrent to the PM reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel. F-T fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy content per carbon content of the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load of fuel.

This is critical to warming Stoller 6 (Gary, Staff Writer of USA Today, December 19, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm)
What is known, he says, is that it's "much harder" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Jet engines are already energy efficient, and technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide from them isn't as far along as it is for land-based pollution sources. Besides carbon dioxide, jet engines emit many pollutants into the atmosphere, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, soot and even water vapor. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are called greenhouse gases, because they trap heat and contribute to global warming. Though planes contribute to air pollution while on the ground, scientists studying global warming are most concerned about pollutants emitted when a plane is airborne. Jets are the major source of emissions deposited into the upper atmosphere, where some pollutants have a greater warming effect than when they are released in the same amount from the ground, according to a 1999 scientific report sponsored by the United Nations. Some pollutants emitted from engines during flight warm the Earth by adding to the heat-trapping gases, both natural and man-made, already in the atmosphere. Also, jet contrails — the vapor trails they leave in the sky — add to cloud cover and may contribute to the warming of the planet. A contrail forms when water vapor from the engine cools and mixes with air and the humidity becomes high enough for condensation. NASA scientist Patrick Minnis has studied contrails and believes they may have a prominent role in global warming. A 2002 report by the British scientific commission agrees, concluding that "aviation-induced cirrus clouds will be a significant contributor to warming." But Minnis says another NASA study concludes that the contrails have little effect on global warming. Further research is being done. Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas that can remain in the atmosphere about 100 years. Scientists say planes' engines emit up to 3% of all carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming, but the figure appears to be on the rise.

Science Daily 99 (June 24, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990624080829.htm)
A research team of American and German scientists, headed by Patrick Minnis of the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, reports that contrails cause a warming of the Earth's atmosphere, although their impact is

currently small as compared to other greenhouse effects. They predict, however, that it may grow by a factor of six over the next 50 years. In 1992, for example, contrails added an estimated 0.02 watts of warming per square
meter globally, about one percent of all manmade greenhouse effects.

Air traffic and, therefore, contrails, are not evenly distributed around the globe. They are concentrated over parts of the United States and Europe, where local warming reaches up to 0.7 watts per square meter, or 35 times the
global average. The resulting temperature increase is not computed in this study, but is estimated to reach between 0.01 and 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.02 and 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) over the northern temperate zones for current air traffic. In the future, increased air

traffic will raise these values.
Large, linear contrails can be observed in satellite imagery. Although their total global coverage has not yet been determined, it is computed from traffic and weather data to amount to 0.1 percent. In the parts of Europe and eastern North America with the heaviest air traffic, however, contrails currently cover up to 3.8 percent and 5.5 percent of the sky, respectively.

Minnis and his colleagues report that global air traffic rose by over seven percent per year from 1994 to 1997, in terms of passenger miles flown. Growth is likely to continue, meaning contrails will play a larger role in future climates than they do today. Taking into account such factors as number of flights per day, fuel consumption, and altitudes flown, they conclude that by 2050, average contrail coverage over Europe will be four times higher than at present, or about 4.6 percent. In the United States, the increase will be 2.6 times current levels, or 3.7 percent coverage; and in Asia, the increase will be ten times current levels, or 1.2 percent

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

244 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal
Only the plan creates the incentives to solve SQ coal’s carbon footprint Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)
In particular, coal use and climate protection do not need to be irreconcilable activities. While energy efficiency and greater use of renewable resources must remain core components of a comprehensive strategy to address global warming, development and use of technologies such as coal gasification in combination with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and permanent disposal in geologic repositories under certain circumstances could enhance our ability to avoid a dangerous build-up of this heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere while creating a future for continued coal use. However, because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the slow turnover of large energy systems we must act without delay to start deploying these technologies as appropriate. Current government policies are inadequate to drive the private sector to invest in carbon capture and disposal systems in the timeframe we need them. To accelerate the development of these systems and to create the market conditions for their use, we need to focus government funding more sharply on the most promising technologies. More importantly, we need to adopt binding measures and standards that limit global warming emissions so that the private sector has a business rationale for prioritizing investment in this area.

More evidence… Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)
But we can do better with both production and use of coal. And because the world is likely to continue to use significant amounts of coal for some time to come, we must do better. Energy efficiency remains the cheapest, cleanest, and fastest way to meet our energy and environmental challenges, while renewable energy is the fastest growing supply option. Increasing energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy supplies must continue to be the top priority, but we have the tools to make coal more compatible with protecting public health and the environment. With the right standards and incentives we can fundamentally transform the way coal is produced and used in the United States and around the world.

More ev… Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)
Some call coal ``clean.`` It is not and likely never will be compared to other energy options. Nonetheless, it appears inevitable that the U.S. and other countries will continue to rely heavily on coal for many years. The good news is that with the right standards and incentives it is possible to chart a future for coal that is compatible with protecting public health, preserving special places, and avoiding dangerous global warming. It may not be possible to make coal clean, but by transforming the way coal is produced and used, it is possible to make coal significantly cleaner - and safer - than it is today.

Coal gasification has two advantages over current power plants: Syngas and high pressure. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

If an even lower CO2 release rate is required in the future, IGCC technology has two major zadvantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than is possible with combustionbased technology. First, syngas has a high CO2 concentration, which can be further increased by converting CO to CO2 prior to combustion (while simultaneously producing more hydrogen), and second, IGCC gasifiers typically operate under relatively high pressure (~400 psig in the Wabash plant), making recovery of the CO2 from the syngas much easier than capture from flue gas. Several recent design studies, one performed for
DOE and another for ChevronTexaco in cooperation with General Electric (GE), bracket plant output loss at between 3 to 6% of original net plant electricity generation if CO2 is captured. The DOE study indicates that comparable CO2 capture (on a percentage basis) for a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant and a PC plant would yield an output loss of 21% and 28%, respectively. Lower energy consumption for CO2 capture means that less additional generation capacity is needed to make up for this parasitic loss. Since additional CO2 will likely be generated by any added fossilbased capacity, IGCC minimizes this effect. Including CO2 capture, the overall cost of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

245 Green Military Aff

electricity (COE) of the IGCC plant is shown to be about 6.3 ¢/kWh versus 7.9 ¢/kWh for the PC plant, while the NGCC plant’s COE is also 6.3 ¢/kWh at a natural gas price of approximately $4 /106Btu.

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (1/2)
When a coal plant is replaced with a gasification plant, emissions can be reduced by as much as 50%. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) While little corroborating data is available on individual trace organic releases to the air from gasification systems, detailed test results from the LGTI IGCC plant provide perspective on the types and levels likely to be seen.18 LGTI’s incinerator and turbine stack gases were measured for about 114 different organic species. TABLE 2-17 presents calculated emissions factors for some of the key species measured at LGTI. These are compared with median emission factors derived

from test data from 52 coal-fired units subjected to extensive emission tests by EPRI, DOE, the Northern States Power Company, and EPA.38 In general, the results indicate extremely low levels of trace organic
emissions, in-line with emissions expected from conventional coal-fired plants. Data from the Wabash River IGCC plant, while higher than measured LGTI emissions, also supports relatively low levels of emissions; total average VOCs (for 1997 and 1998) are reported to be 0.00205 lb/106 Btu or 0.01635 lb/MWh.39 These emissions represent about one-half the emissions of the

original coal-fired plant that was replaced. The LGTI test results did not identify any significant dioxin or furan emissions in the stack gas. This is in agreement with the belief that dioxins and furans are not likely to be formed in gasification systems. The high temperatures in the gasifier should destroy any dioxin/furan compounds or precursors, and the lack of oxygen in the reducing environment should limit the formation of free chlorine. Without free chlorine, the formation of polychlorinated species downstream of the gasifier is unlikely. Measurements taken at Shell Coal
Gasification Plant-1 (see Sections 1.1.2.3 and 2.2.3.2.2) also corroborate these expectations. Dioxins and furans were not present at the detection limit of 1 part per billion by volume in the synthesis gas, nor were there any precursors at the same detection level.40 Shell estimates that, due to the effects of dilution and combustion, the concentration of dioxins and furans in the HRSG stack gas should be less than one part per trillion by volume.

Coal gasification prevents significant carbon emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) A more global environmental concern related to power generation from fossil fuels is the production of carbon dioxide (CO2), discussed in Section 2.2.5. The carbon in the fuel fed to an IGCC plant will ultimately be converted into CO2. Although still significantly

higher than that from a gas-fired plant, IGCC’s improved efficiency reduces CO2 emissions relative to other coalbased plants. For example, repowering the Wabash River plant reduced CO2 emissions by approximately 20% on a per kWh basis. TABLE 2-21 (on page 2-38) compares uncontrolled CO2 emissions from different types of fossil-fired power plants. If the amount of CO2 released is regulated in the future, IGCC has two major operating advantages that permit more efficient CO2 capture than is possible with conventional combustion technology. Syngas has a high CO2 concentration, which can be increased by the water gas shift reaction to convert CO to CO2 prior to combustion (while simultaneously producing more hydrogen). Also, IGCC gasifiers typically operate under relatively high pressure (~400 psig at the Wabash River plant). Both of these conditions make recovery of the CO2 from the syngas much easier than capture from flue gas. A recent study of one design concept concluded that 75% of the CO2 could be captured from an IGCC plant with only a 4% loss in efficiency at a cost of $5 to $11/kW. This result shows that the economic impact of CO2 capture may be quite a bit less than previously thought. It should be noted that this particular performance
and cost estimate is based on a plant design that originally incorporates required equipment and does not include transport of the CO2 to a site for use or sequestration (see Section 2.2.6.3). In order to put the IGCC air emissions into proper perspective, Section 2.2.7 provides a comparison of IGCC’s performance with PCfired and fluidized-bed power plants. TABLE 2-22 (on page 2-51) provides a realistic indicator of how well IGCC performs with respect to criteria air pollutants, ionic species, and CO2. In all respects, potential air pollution impacts from IGCC are

likely to be significantly less, or less costly, than from competing coal-based technologies. While uncontrolled mercury emissions from IGCC plants appear to be comparable to those from the other power plant types (based on consumption of similar coals), effective mercury control has already been demonstrated for IGCC plants, if required. Uncontrolled CO2 emissions from current IGCC technology, measured on an
output basis (lb/kWh), are about 10% lower than a modern PC plant and probably equivalent to those from an advanced PFBC plant.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

246 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal (2/2)
Increased efficiency from gasification plants solve for carbon emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Carbon contained in the fuel fed to an IGCC power plant will ultimately be converted into CO2. Although CO2 emissions are higher than for gas-fired power plants, IGCC’s improved efficiency reduces CO2 emissions relative to existing PC plants. Repowering the Wabash River plant reduced CO2 emissions by
approximately 20% on a per kWh basis. On average, IGCC plants produce CO2 at a rate of about 1.8 lb/kWh (assuming 40% efficiency), while PC plants yield about 2 lb/kWh. An advanced gasification-based fuel cell plant may be able to achieve a discharge rate of 1.2 lb/kWh.

Configuration of coal gasification plants allow for lower emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The IGCC configuration, which is the primary subject of this report, is an innovative electric power generation concept that combines modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine (Brayton cycle) and steam turbine (Rankine cycle) power generation. IGCC is highly flexible and can be used for new power generation applications, as well as for repowering older coal-fired plants, significantly improving their environmental performance. IGCC provides feedstock and product flexibility, greater than 40 percent net efficiency (based on HHV), and very low pollutant emissions. The high process efficiency also has the added benefit of reducing CO2 production per unit of electricity output. Because CO2 can readily be recovered in concentrated form with oxygen-blown gasification, CO2 capture technology can be integrated into IGCC as part of a future strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Gasification reduces carbon emissions against combustion due to increased efficiency. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) In TABLE 2-21, CO2 emissions from the Polk and Wabash River IGCC

plants are put into perspective by comparing them (on an energy output basis) with other coal-based technologies. While still substantially higher than gas-fired plants, IGCC’s improved energy efficiency reduces CO2 emissions relative to other coal-based plants. Repowering the Wabash River plant reduced CO2 emissions by approximately 20% on a
per kWh basis.11 IGCC emissions can be further reduced by improving plant thermal efficiency (e.g., reducing plant heat rate). Possible ways (among others) to accomplish this are:

Gasification can stop carbon emissions: Syngas and high pressure. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

IGCC has two major operating advantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than is possible with combustion technology. First, the syngas, as previously shown in TABLE 2-20, has a very high CO2 concentration, which can be made much higher by further converting the CO to CO2 prior to combustion. Second, IGCC gasifiers typically operate under relatively high pressure (~400 psig in the Wabash plant). Both of these conditions make recovery of the CO2 from the syngas much easier than capture from the flue gas.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

247 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (1/2)
Best studies prove CTL reduces CO2 using existing technologies Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
I will begin my technical remarks by sharing the results of a recent technical study completed by the Idaho National Laboratory under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Baard Energy, through its project company Ohio River Clean Fuels, L.L.C. (ORCF), is developing a coal gasification FischerTropsch synthetic fuels plant in Wellsville, Ohio. The ORCF project is a nominal 50,000 barrel per day plant using a dry-feed, entrained- flow gasification process. A process model for the project has been developed by the Idaho National Laboratory to assist Baard Energy with design and permitting activities. The model has been used to determine operating conditions to capture and sequester byproduct carbon dioxide and to study the benefits of blending biomass with coal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A life cycle GHG emissions assessment based on the model results for the ORCF plant, and apportioned to the product mix of liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha, diesel fuel, and power, indicates that a 30% reduction in GHG emissions compared to life- cycle GHG emissions for transportation fuels produced from Arabian Crude for the synthetic diesel fuel is achievable when biomass fuel is blended with the coal feeding the process and when concentrated CO2 is separated from the syngas feed to the Fischer-Tropsch reactors and used or sequestered. When credit is also given for the sale of surplus electrical power generated by the plant (compared to the GHG emissions of the average electrical U.S. power mix), the ORCF plant will further reduce GHG emissions approaching 50% of the emissions from ultra-low sulfur diesels derived from crude oil. Additionally, other plant products, specifically the synthetic naphtha liquid produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, which may be used to produce additional transportation fuels or chemical feedstock such as ethylene, can also reduce GHG emissions compared to similar petroleum-derived products. The results of the Baard Energy study are being presented in eight days at the 24th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference being held on the doormat of the Sasol Secunda CTL complex in Johannesburg, South Africa. While some key findings of the INL-Baard study are provided here today, I encourage you to review this technical paper after it has been released with the Conference Proceedings. The table below summarizes the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases for CTL transportation fuels on the basis of the mileage attained by a standard U.S. utility sports vehicle achieving 24.4 miles per gallon of fuel. The INL-Baard study takes into account all green house gas emissions associated with fuels and feedstock input production and transportation to the CTL plant. The study includes cases where woody biomass produced in the United States is blended with the coal in the same manner that already has been proven technically feasible in Europe at the Puertollano, Spain and the Buggenum, Holland integrated gasification, combined cycle (IGCC) power plants. The study accounts for all greenhouse gas emissions associated with conversion of the fuels into syngas and subsequent cleanup and conversion of the syngas into liquid fuels using the Fischer-Tropsch reaction process and associated product upgrading and refining. Next, the study takes into account the greenhouse gas emissions associated with delivery of the fuel to consumers and finally the consumption of the fuel in a standard transportation vehicle. This study emulates the work performed by the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and investigations by other federal, university and private organizations to assess ``well-to-wheel`` greenhouse gas emissions associated with various transportation fuels. While such studies invoke specific assumptions, it should be noted that the majority of the greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to the CTL plant and end-state combustion as illustrated in the Figure that follows. This INL-Baard life-cycle greenhouse gas study corroborates the findings of other organizations, but varies to the extent that the design of the CTL plant differs from the other studies. It is important to understand there can be significant variation in the CTL plant emissions depending on unit operation choices, the options selected for the integration of heat and material recycle, and the decision to co-produce electricity or other chemical products. I herby state without reservation that greenhouse gas emissions for coal-derived transportation fuels can be reduced by at least 20% relative to petroleum fuels. The INL-Baard study shows that a 30% reduction may be possible before credit is taken for the clean power produced by the plant. When apportioned credit is taken for the green power co-produced by the plant, the GHG emissions reduction is estimate to be 46% as previously indicated by Baard Energy in a press conference just last May. It is also important to state that these reduced levels of GHG emissions can be accomplished by using existing technologies to concentrate and remove the CO2 produced by the process, and by blending biomass with the coal feedstock.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

248 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: CTL Solves Lifecycle CO2 (2/2)
The plan reduces net CO2 emissions Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
As for greenhouse gas emissions, coal-to-liquids refineries generate carbon dioxide in highly concentrated form allowing carbon capture and storage. Coal-to-liquids refineries with carbon dioxide capture and storage can produce fuels with life-cycle greenhouse gas emission profiles that are as good as or better than that of the petroleum-derived products they replace.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

249 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Ethanol Fermentation
Biofuels shift coming now Renewable Energy Today 6 (“EERC receives DoD grant to create renewable fuel for jets”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2006_Dec_7/ai_n27096912)

The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota has received a $5 million award from the US Department of Defense's Defense-Advanced Research Projects Agency. The EERC will use the funds to create a domestic bio-jet fuel for

the US military, which will be a replacement for JP-8 petroleum-based fuel. The EERC fuel will replace the majority of all fuel used by the US military to power the Boeing B-52 bomber, the Abrams A1 Battle Tank, the Apache Helicopter, and others. "This replacement will allow an easy transition from a petroleum-based fuel to a 100% domestic renewable fuel," EERC Senior Research Manager Ted Aulich said.

Plan net reduces biomass associated warming emissions Bartis 7 (James, Rand, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony)
Non–food-crop biomass resources suitable as feedstocks for F-T biomass-to-liquid production plants include mixed prairie grasses, switchgrass, corn stover and other crop residues, forest residues, and crops that might be grown on dedicated energy plantations. When such biomass resources are used to produce liquids through the F-T method, our research shows that greenhouse gas emissions should be well below those associated with the use of conventional petroleum fuels. Moreover, when a combination of coal and biomass is used, for example, a 40-60 mix, we estimate that net carbon dioxide emissions will be comparable to or, likelier, lower than well-to-wheels emissions of conventional, petroleum derived motor fuels. Finally, we have examined liquid fuel production concepts in which carbon capture and sequestration is combined with the combined gasification of coal and biomass. Our preliminary estimate is that a 50-50 coal-biomass mix combined with carbon capture and sequestration should yield negative carbon dioxide emissions. Negative emissions imply that the net result of producing and using the fuel would be the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One perspective on the combined gasification of coal and biomass is that biomass enables F-T coal-to-liquids production, in that the combined feedstock approach provides an immediate pathway to unconventional liquids with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and an ultimate vision, with carbon capture and sequestration, of zero net emissions. Another perspective is that coal enables F-T biomass-toliquids production, in that the combined approach reduces overall production costs by reducing fuel delivery costs, allowing larger plants that take advantage of economies of scale, and smoothing over the inevitable fluctuations in biomass availability associated with annual and multiyear fluctuations in weather patterns, especially rainfall.

CTL reduces ethanol production GHG Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
Additionally, it can be shown that this manner of converting biomass to liquid fuels, specifically woody biomass as well as most herbaceous materials, is a much more efficient method of converting and utilizing the chemical potential of biomass. The GHG emissions associated with indirect conversion of biomass to liquid fuels are significantly less than ethanol fuels derived from the popular fermentation process.

CTL reduces biomass production Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
The fact that biomass itself can be converted to liquid fuels begs an answer to the supposition that the U.S. need not develop its coal resources to produce liquid transportation fuels. The short explanation is that resource availability and economics do not support this assumption. In order to match the current U.S. consumption of over 20 million barrels of oil per day, two-thirds of which is converted to transportation fuels, a formidable amount of biomass would be required. However, a ratio of 30 % biomass and 70 % coal for synthetic fuels is much more plausible. For additional information, I refer you to the 2005 ``Hirsch Report`` that discusses peaking of world oil production and its impacts and mitigation alternatives.1

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

250 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Hybrids
CTL reduces GHG emissions from new hybrid production Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
Auto manufacturers in Europe and Japan are now producing hybrid cars that will operate on diesel fuel and will attain higher fuel mileage than their gasoline-electric driven counterparts. Therefore, it is not difficult to conclude that diesel fuels produced in the manner outlined in the INL-Baard study will further reduce greenhouse gases emitted from a hybrid vehicle. In other words, the greenhouse gas emissions are mainly due to the production of the fuels, and are not a strong function of type of fuel used in the hybrid vehicle.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

251 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Efficiency
CTL decreases CO2 emissions over standard coal and improves overall fuel efficiency Coal International 7 (Jan/Feb, p. 22)
CTL fuels are ultra clean to use - no sulphur, significantly reduced NOx, particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions. CTL fuels offer higher efficiencies than conventional oil resulting in lower CO2 emissions when used Carbon dioxide capture and storage offers the potential for major reductions in CO2 emissions from coal. CCS may result in greenhouse gas emissions being some 20% lower over the full life cycle than fuels derived from crude oil.

More ev… Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 16)
To reduce the risk of dependence on foreign oil, a new emphasis should be placed upon coal to supplement our nation’s liquid fuels supply portfolio. Refined petroleum products were once viewed as the exclusive domain of the oil industry. Now, however, they can be provided by well-developed technologies that convert the energy embodied in coal into liquids that are very close substitutes for oil. In fact, liquid fuels produced from coal via indirect liquefaction are generally superior to petroleum products because they have higher heat value and are considerably cleaner, with virtually no sulfur.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

252 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (1/4)
( ) The plan is a bridge to full-scale RE, solving warming Phillips 7 (Don, Writer for International Herald Tribune (Business), http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/17/business/ravbio.php?page=1)
A U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber flew a successful test earlier this year on a blend of jet fuel and FischerTropsche fuel produced from natural gas. Sasol of South Africa and Shell Oil Products have now been certified to supply fuel blend for tests, Altman said. The problem is that these fuels can produce even more carbon dioxide than petroleum-based fuels, and only a small portion of the U.S. Air Force's fuel needs are likely to be met from such sources. Virgin Fuels, a subsidiary of Virgin Atlantic Airlines, headed by Richard Branson, is also working with Boeing and General Electric to test-fly a Boeing 747 with alternate fuels. Over the next 5 to 15 years, which Altman called a "mid-term" period, other fuels are likely to evolve, including fuel from renewable resources and from sources like oil shale. Eventually, he said, there will be breakthroughs on much cleaner fuels that may be produced without petroleum. Bollinger said fuel might some day come from animal fat, garbage or even sea algae. In fact, he said, sea algae may well become a vast source of natural clean fuel some day, using excess carbon dioxide from the fuel-making process to grow algae more rapidly and create more feedstock for the process. For the airlines, time may be too short to wait for that.

( ) SQ crowds-out renewables – Only the plan bridges the gap by proving markets work Klare 8 (Michael T., May 19, defense correspondent of The Nation, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College,
http://www.pace-cleanenergy.org/scripts/top_bottom.cgi?../articles/geopolitics_of_energy.html)

It is essential that America reverse the militarization of its dependence on imported energy and ease geopolitical competition with China and Russia over control of foreign resources. Because this would require greater investment in energy alternatives, it would also lead to an improved energy economy at home (with lower prices in the long run) and a better chance at overcoming global warming. Any strategy aimed at reducing reliance on imported energy, especially oil, must include a huge increase in spending on alternative fuels, especially renewable sources of energy (solar and wind), second-generation biofuels (those made from nonedible plant matter), coal gasification with carbon capture and burial (so that no carbon dioxide escapes into the atmosphere to heat the planet) and hydrogen fuel cells, along with high-speed rail, public transit and other advanced transportation systems. The science and technology for these advances is already largely in place, but the funding to move them from the lab or pilot-project stage to full-scale development is not. The challenge, then, is to assemble the many billions--even trillions--of dollars that will be needed. The principal obstacle to this herculean task is the very reason for its necessity in the first place: massive spending on the military dimensions of overseas resource competition. I estimate that it costs approximately $100 billion to $150 billion per year to enforce the Carter Doctrine, not including the war in Iraq. Extending that doctrine to the Caspian Sea basin and Africa will add billions. A new cold war with China, with an accompanying naval arms race, will require trillions in additional military expenditures over the next few decades. This is sheer lunacy: it will not guarantee access to more sources of energy, lower the cost of gasoline at home or discourage China from seeking new energy resources. What it will do is sop up all the money we need to develop alternative energy sources and avert the worst effects of global climate change.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

253 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (2/4)
The plan bridges the gap to full-scale renewable deployment Geiselman 6 (Bruce, Waste News Correspondent, AT YOUR DISPOSAL; Pg. 26, October 23, Lexis)
The U.S. Air Force within 10 years wants to cut in half its use of jet fuel produced from crude oil and replace it with cleaner-burning, domestically produced synthetic fuel. The Air Force already has large numbers of cars running on alternative fuels, but now it wants to find alternative fuel sources for its aircraft. A B-52 bomber containing a blend of synthetic and regular jet fuel took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California on Sept. 19, marking the first time the U.S. military has attempted to fly a plane with nontraditional fuel. ``This test flight sets the stage for a more comprehensive plan the Air Force has toward conservation,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Ronald Sega, a former test pilot who flew with crew members aboard the plane. ``This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels.'' The plane appeared to function normally using a liquid fuel produced from natural gas by Syntroleum Corp., of Tulsa, Okla., according to company and Air Force officials. Particularly appealing to the Air Force is the fact that domestically produced coal, available in abundant supplies in the United States, could also be used to produce the fuel. ``The feedstock for this process could include natural gas or it could be coal or oil shale,'' Sega said. ``The United States has significant reserves in coal and oil shale, something on the order of 2 trillion barrel equivalents.'' Using a domestically produced fuel would make the Air Force less vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies. Also appealing are the environmental characteristics of the fuel. The Air Force initially tested a blend of synthetic fuel with 50 percent normal jet fuel. However, tests have revealed that jet engines burning pure synthetic fuel produce about 90 percent less particulate matter and soot emissions, which also improves engine performance. ``This test is a significant milestone for Syntroleum and is a result of more than four years of research and development efforts with the DOD,'' said Jack Holmes, company president and CEO. The fuel is
produced using Fischer-Tropsch technology, which is named for the German scientists who developed it in the 1920s. The German military used similarly produced synthetic aviation fuel during World War II as did South Africa during the apartheid-era because the governments had difficulty obtaining enough oil-based fuel. The Air Force also is using a similarly produced synthetic diesel fuel at

Edwards Air Force base for one of its shuttle buses as part of an ongoing road test.

Synfuels are the key bridge to full-scale RE deployment Hornitschek 6 (Michael J. Col, USAF, masters in aerospace engineering from Stanford “WAR WITHOUT OIL: A CATALYST FOR TRUE
TRANSFORMATION” http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/Docs/sustainability/other%20articles/War%20Without%20Oil.pdf)

Synthetic liquid fuels are only one bridging energy alternative. At present, they provide the only real option for mobile systems which rely on high-energy-density liquid hydrocarbon fuels to provide the maneuver and logistics capability that allows the U.S. military to dominate all others. They would be intended to serve as the main mobility bridge to the 20-40 year hydrogen energy future America has placed great faith in as evidenced by the 2005 Energy Policy Act allocating $2.1B for hydrogen research over the next 5 years.113 In the mean time, other bridging options exist for non-mobility energy requirements such as base facilities at home, overseas, and in expedition. If fully developed, many of these emerging installation bridge energies can become permanent infrastructure energy solutions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

254 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (3/4)
( ) CTL is also a pre-requisite for other alternative energies in the military. Reid 7 (Clayton B., Staff Writer for NewsMax, November 6, http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/air_force_fuels/2007/11/06/47114.html)
“We are creating this synthetic fuel to be a drop-in fuel, as a replacement for straight JP-8.” the Air Force official tells Newsmax. “It burns hotter than straight JP-8, which gives us potential performance enhancement. So later, we may be looking at engine modifications to capitalize on the fuel’s advantages. Right now, it just goes straight into the tank.” In November, synthetic fuel tests will begin in Tennessee on B-1 bomber engines, as, one by one, the Air Force certifies its aircraft on the new fuels. Creating synthetic fuel is not a new process – the Nazi Luftwaffe in oil-poor but coal-rich Germany flew on coal-based fuels in World War II. The socalled Fisher-Tropsch process, named for its inventors in the 1920s, produces fuel or lubricating oil from just about anything, but mainly from natural gas and coal. With one-quarter of the world’s coal reserves in the U.S., such fuels are a natural fit for its military. And, according to Air Force officials, synthetic fuel burns very clean — with nearly zero sulphur and very little particulate matter. Still, the fuel production process has come under fire from environmentalists, who criticize coal mining techniques and claim synthetic fuel refineries release double the amount of carbon dioxide as their traditional petroleum counterparts. “Coal is going to play big in the future, we believe,” Anderson says. “We believe that we have to find an environmentally friendly way to mine coal and burn coal. We believe the technology is very close, and we believe that an organization with the market size and presence of the USAF can help move technology forward to make coal a much cleaner and greener alternative across the board.” The Air Force isn’t stopping at coal and natural gas. The drive to reduce oil consumption has led engineers into some pretty strange places for new sources of energy, officials say. Researchers are experimenting with fuels made from switchgrass, poplar trees, and even chicken fat. The Air Force is looking at several ways of producing such domestic synthetic fuel, including a collaboration between Conoco, Tyson Foods and Syntroleum.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

255 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: RE Shift (4/4)
Synthetics will be the stopgap that solves oil dependence-It’ll give us time to develop more tech Elser`7 (David, Aviation Week, Alternative Fuel for Jet Engines, September 17, 2007,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0907p3.xml)

Growing Our Fuel So, anticipating the competition that will ensue for the planet's remaining petroleum reserves, a strong and logical argument can be made for finding alternative fuel sources to ensure both "oil security" -that is, an uninterrupted energy supply -- and unhook nations like the United States from dependence on oil imported from foreign sources (read: the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world). Many analysts believe that "oil politics" will characterize the century, leading to friction and even open conflict among nations (e.g., much in the fashion of Russia using distribution of its huge natural gas reserves as a political tool to dominate its western neighbors), another good reason to step up research into fuels that can be derived from renewable sources. And thus the focus on "biofuel" that can be grown and replenished, as opposed to recovered from a diminishing resource. After fueling 100 years of powered flight with petroleum, it may be hard to accept the concept of running a 0.85 Mach-capable jet on an energy source derived from soy beans, palm oil, switch grass or a desert weed called jatropha, but organizations as serious as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), U.S. Air Force, FAA and NASA are devoting considerable funding to support R&D precisely toward that end. In addition, serious research is also being devoted to coal liquefaction using the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesizing process developed in Germany during the 1920s and used by that nation and Japan, both with little or no indigenous petroleum reserves, in World War II to make so-called "syngas." (Collectively, F-T synthesized products are referred to as "synfuels.") Since none of the fuels derived from these diverse sources is a magic bullet in and of itself, it's possible that we'll see a variety of them perfected to supplement fossil fuels. Different fuels may be used in different regions of the world, depending on what local resources are available: oil, coal or biostock. At this year's Paris Air Show, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey described two studies then under way and intended to develop "a national roadmap on the viability of alternative fuels for aviation." Commissioned under the auspices of the FAA's Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) and scheduled for completion this month, the studies address feasibility, costs, technical issues and environmental impact of alternative fuels. Also at the same venue, Blakey and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne jointly announced a plan whereby the service would power all its aircraft with a 50/50 mix of petroleum-derived JP-8 and F-T synfuel as early as 2010. The concoction will be tested in the Air Force's C17 tactical transports and data derived from the trials shared with the FAA for eventual transfer to the nation's airlines, if deemed successful. (The C-17 is powered by a military derivative of the Pratt & Whitney PW2000, a commercial turbofan, making it an ideal test bed for the program.) The obvious benefit of a JP/synfuel blend would be to stretch, or dilute, available supplies of petroleum-based Jet-A. Synfuel Stopgap Because synfuel can be refined from coal or natural gas (as well as biomass sources) using the FT process and is available now, it is expected to emerge first as a supplement to petroleum-based fuels. In this regard, its primary purpose for the foreseeable future will be as a stopgap to ensure energy security for the United States and other nations with large coal or natural gas reserves.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

256 Green Military Aff

***A2: Other Enviro DA’s***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

257 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Water DA – No Link: Heat Recovery
Heat recovery systems reduce water usage Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
A custom-design heat recovery system for combined-cycle power generation and process water recovery, treatment, and recycle can reduce the water consumption for bituminous coal-to-liquids plants from 15 to 10.5 barrels of water per barrel of liquid hydrocarbon product. Combined use of moist biomass with coal can further reduce the process water requirement by one-half (1/2) barrel of water per barrel of liquid product. In this case, the plant water use is approximately apportioned among the following sinks: -- 1.75 barrels of water per barrel of liquid fuels for process requirements -- 6.0 barrels of water per barrel of liquid fuels for cooling tower evaporation losses and blowdown -- 2.25 barrels of water for cooling tower evaporation losses and blowdown associated with surplus power generation These relative figures hopefully contribute to the understanding of the water requirements for a CTL plant. Studies regarding water requirements vary widely, but are generally consistent with the plant design and reporting basis. The most important point to capture is that cooling tower losses and waste water blowdown constitute the majority of water required for a CTL plant (8.25 of 10 barrels for the INL case study). In order to reduce the water duty, gas-to-gas heat exchangers could for used for steam cooling. Alternatively, a closedloop heat recovery system, such as that referred to previously in my testimony, would eliminate the cooling tower and water evaporation losses, while also increasing electrical power generation by 15-20 percent. This process improvement is comparable to a modern natural gas furnace that achieves higher efficiency by condensing the steam in the exhaust gas before it vented to the atmosphere. Incorporation of a closed-loop heat recovery system would provide the joint benefit of reducing water use while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the water requirement can be reduced to as little as 3-5 barrels of water per barrel of synthetic liquid product.

Coal-bed methane solves water use Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
Another point to consider is the opportunity for CTL plants located near the coal mine to use coal-bed methane (CBM) produced water, or oil field water. For example, the Wyoming Coal Gas Commission estimates the potential water production from nearly 24,000 wells in existence in the Powder River Basin could yield upwards of 15 billion barrels of water over approximately 30 years. The water quality of a large portion of the PRB basin CBM water is adequate for direct use in a CTL plant. The salinity or hardness of the remainder of the water can be reduced with minimal water treatment, possibly comparable to the current cleanup requirements for much of the surface or well-produced waters used in power plants throughout the United States. If two-thirds of the estimated CBM produced water in Wyoming were used for CTL plants in conjunction with advance steam cooling technology, then there would be sufficient water to produce 4 million barrels of synthetic fuels per year over a 50 year period.2 This is equivalent approximately 25-30% of the transportation fuels currently consumed in the United States.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

258 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Turn: SQ Worse
Water creates fewer problems for gasification plants than for current coal power plants. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

In general, water effluents may create fewer problems for IGCC than for combustion-based power generation, because the steam cycle in an IGCC plant typically produces less than 40% of the plant’s power. While effluents from cooling-water blowdown are significantly less, BFW blowdown may be the same as, or even larger, than
a PC-based plant of comparable output, even if it is well designed, operated and maintained. A gasification process can easily consume considerable quantities of BFW via tap purges, pump seals, intermittent equipment flushes, as well as syngas saturation for NOx control and direct steam injection into the gasifier as a reactant and/or temperature moderator. The amount of process water

blowdown is about the same for both gasification and a PC-based steam plant.

Coal gasification plants consume 30-60% less water than competing technologies. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) While air emissions can affect large geographical areas and are often of greatest concern to regulators, both water consumption and aqueous discharges from coal-fired plants are quite important at the local level. Water is required for the plant’s steam cycle as boiler feedwater and cooling water, as well as for process operations, such as syngas emissions control. While the steam cycle in an IGCC plant typically produces less than 50% of the power plant’s total power output, its water consumption is not proportionately lower (compared with a similarly sized conventional steam plant), since the gasification process itself consumes considerable quantities of boiler feed water. On an output basis, IGCC will consume roughly 30% to 60% less

water than the competing technologies, which gives it more siting and permitting flexibility.

Gasification plants are more water efficient than coal combustion plants. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The water required to operate an IGCC plant is approximately one-half to two-thirds that needed to operate a PC plant with FGD or an FBC plant. Approximate estimates are shown in TABLE
2-26. An IGCC plant generally produces fewer water effluents than the PC and FBC plants. The amount of process water blowdown is about the same for these plants. However, the steam

cycle in IGCC power plants yields much lower amounts of wastewater blowdown since less than 50% of the total power generated comes from the steam cycle.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

259 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Water DA – Recycling
Water is reused to prevent high amounts of consumption. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Gasification cycles minimize water consumption and water discharge by reusing process water. Process water produced within the gasification process is treated to remove dissolved gases before being recycled to the slurry preparation area or being discharged to the water outfall. The gases are removed from
the process water (sour water), in a two-step process. CO2 and the bulk of the H2S are removed in a steam stripper column. The removed H2S is sent to the sulfur recovery process. The water is further cooled and the majority is recycled to the slurry preparation area. Any excess water is treated in an ammonia stripper column to remove ammonia and trace components. The stripped ammonia is combined with the recycled slurry water. The water out of the ammonia stripper is purified sufficiently to meet environmental requirements for discharge. If the discharge water is out of specifications, for any reason, it can be stored in holding tanks for further testing and possible recycle before final disposition.7,i Gasification processes that produce organics (tars and oils) typically require additional processing steps to separate them.

Excess water is cleaned and recycled back to the plant to minimize water consumption. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Process wastewater potentially contains small amounts of dissolved solids and gases and is treated to remove the contaminants before being recycled to the slurry preparation or being discharged to the water outfall. Dissolved gases are driven from the water via flashing (sometimes under vacuum) or steam stripping with low-pressure steam (which provides heat and a sweeping medium to expel the gases from the water). The flash
gas is sent to the Claus plant or sulfuric acid decomposition furnace. Removal of solid contaminants, such as trace metals, may require additional wastewater treatment using other equipment, such as a mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) system. Most of the

treated process water is recycled to the plant, and only a relatively small amount is discharged as a blowdown to a pond. Reuse of the water within the gasification plant minimizes water consumption and water discharge. Chapter 2, Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 more fully discuss wastewater treatment.

Through recycling and less use of steam, gasification plants consume less water than current coal plants. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Because of these BFW needs, an IGCC plant may consume as much, or more, BFW than a conventional steam plant of comparable output, even if it is well designed, operated, and maintained.58 On the other hand, the steam cycle CW requirement will

be proportionately lower than the conventional steam plant due to its reduced share of the total plant power output. Also helping to reduce water consumption, coal gasification processes recover most of the water associated with the raw feed coal via condensation during syngas cleanup. This is not practical for
combustion-based plants due to their low-pressure operation.

The other large water requirement, process water, is used to cool and clean the syngas to remove fly ash, halogens and trace organic and inorganic components. The concentration level of specific contaminants depends
upon the fuel characteristics and the type of gasifier employed in the design. The quantity of water required depends on the capacity of syngas treated, the degree of gas cooling required, and the contaminants to be removed. Coal-fueled plants also often use wastewater to control the dust and bulk density of the solid waste. The net process water bleed stream is usually of higher quality than the cooling-water blowdown. In fact, some plants use process water effluent as part of the cooling-water makeup.59

IGCC plants normally consume between 6 to 9 gpm of water per MW of electricity generated, depending upon the specific design.4 In contrast, a PC plant, utilizing a wet limestone desulfurization process for SO2 control, consumes about 10 to 11 gpm of water per MW of electricity generation.4

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

260 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Water Pollution
Technology available to recycle waste water Tullo and Tremblay 8 [Alexander H. and Jean-François, Coal: The New Black,
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/86/8611cover.html, March 17, 2008]

Ordos is next to the Yellow River. In recent years, both the increasing pollution and decreasing flow of the river have been the source of much controversy in China. But Zhang says his firm's coal-to-liquidfuels facility will be "water-serene." It will not draw its water from the Yellow River but instead from a reservoir next to Shenhua's coal mines. "The water from the reservoir would evaporate if we did not use it," he says. The quantity of water consumed by the facility will be about the same as would be consumed by a petrochemical plant of the same size, he says. AS FOR WASTEWATER, there won't be any. Shenhua has spent $16 million on a GE Betz technology that will allow the company to recycle its used water.

Gasification is more environmentally friendly than current coal combustion: Air emissions, water discharges, and solid wastes. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The single most compelling reason for utilities to consider coal gasification for electric power generation is superior environmental performance.1 As shown in Figure 2-1, gasification has fundamental environmental advantages over direct coal combustion. Commercial-scale plants for both integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation and chemicals applications have already successfully demonstrated these advantages.

The superior environmental capabilities of coal gasification apply to all three areas of concern: air emissions, water discharges, and solid wastes. This chapter of the report presents a comprehensive evaluation of the
environmental performance of IGCC power generation technology and compares performance with other coal-fired technologies.

Water treatments prevent the impacts of waste. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) As discussed in Section 2.3, gasification plants have two principal water effluents

that are similar to those from coal-fired plants. The first is wastewater from the steam cycle, including blowdowns from the boiler feedwater purification system and the cooling tower. Gasification processes typically purify and recycle raw
process streams, and net water discharge is normally only a blowdown stream. These effluents contain salts and minerals that have been concentrated from the raw feedwater. The second aqueous effluent is process water blowdown, which is typically high in dissolved solids and gases with the various ionic species removed from the syngas, such as sulfide, chloride, ammonium, and cyanide.

Detailed test results from the Wabash River plant have generally shown wastewater constituents to be well within environmental permit limits, with the exception of arsenic, cyanide, and selenium. However, recent installation
of an add-on mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) system appears to have brought the wastewater stream into full compliance, although some operational problems have occurred. While the Polk IGCC plant has zero process water discharge, it comes at the price of operating several wastewater treatment systems.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

261 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Slag DA (1/2)
SQ slag is worse US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

These commercial IGCC power plants have proven capable of exceeding the most stringent emissions regulations currently applicable to comparable combustion-basedc power plants. They have achieved the lowest levels of criteria pollutant air emissions (NOx, SOx, CO, PM10) of any coal-fueled power plants in the world. Emissions of trace inorganic and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are extremely low, comparable with those from coal combustion-based plants that use advanced emission control technologies. If mercury is regulated, commercial mercury control equipment is already available for IGCC. The ash (slag or bottom ash) and sulfur (or sulfuric acid) generated by operating IGCC plants have been tested to be environmentally benign and can be sold as valuable by-products. Discharge of solid by-products and wastewater is reduced by roughly 50% compared with combustion-based plants. Another significant environmental benefit is a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, by at least 10% for an equivalent net production of electricity, due to higher operating efficiency compared to existing coalfueled, combustion-based power generation technology. If more significant CO2 reduction is required in the future,
gasification technology has major operating advantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than is currently possible with combustion technology.

No net increase in slag compared to existing coal plants US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

None of the applicable solid waste discharge regulations appear to limit the introduction of IGCC technology any more than they limit coal combustion-based technology. Forty-five (45) states, encompassing
96% of coal-fired utility generating capacity, duplicate the federal exemption of coal combustion by-products from being categorized as a hazardous waste. Since IGCC byproducts have demonstrated better toxicity characteristics than wastes from coal combustionbased plants, IGCC should be no more impacted than such plants. Leachability test data from demonstration and operating

plants indicate that IGCC slag is comparable to that produced in wet-bottom PC power plants and should clearly fall under the classification of non-hazardous waste. Unfortunately, even if IGCC slag/bottom ash is
classified as non-hazardous, local regulations still may require disposal in a different class of landfill. As mentioned previously, the Polk IGCC plant is currently required to use a Class I landfill (double-lined with leachate extraction and control) versus much less costly and more available Class III landfills that don’t require such strict standards.

Slag is non-hazardous waste and has many benefits. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Laboratory analysis of slag from the Wabash River gasifier, as discussed previously, has been determined to be non-leachable, non-hazardous material with regard to inorganic species; since gasifier slag is in a
vitrified state, it rarely fails the TCLP protocols for metals. Various feedstocks (lignite, subbituminous coal, bituminous coal, and petroleum coke) processed through the E-Gas™ gasification process have consistently demonstrated a non-hazardous classification based on TCLP (total) test results. Since slag is not a good substrate for binding organic compounds, it is

usually found to be non-hazardous, exhibiting none of the characteristics of hazardous waste. Consequently, it may be disposed of in a non-hazardous landfill, or sold as an ore for metals recovery.
Slag’s hardness also makes it suitable as an abrasive or roadbed material, as well as an aggregate in concrete formulations. Further evidence of the long-term stability of this material is supported in an EPRI publication entitled Long-Term Leaching Tests with Coal Gasification Slag.67

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

262 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Slag DA (2/2)
Slag waste helps increase the intrinsic value of land by preventing landfilling. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Another benefit associated with CUB utilization can be quantified as the intrinsic value of land not needed for disposal purposes. It is presumed that almost any tract of land will have a lesser environmental quality if it is used as a disposal site rather than left in its natural state. The mere operation of a large disposal site over a long period of time increases the potential for accidental environmental damage due to loss of vegetation, surface runoff, airborne dust from trucks, etc. It is, therefore, assumed that the environmental benefit of diverting CUBs from disposal sites takes the form of a value assigned to each acre of landfill space “avoided.” This benefit accrues to any use of CUB, assuming that there is no additional environmental disturbance at the utilization site merely to accommodate the CUBs.75

Coal gasification has significantly less amounts of waste than current power plants. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Solid waste from coal-fired power plants is a significant local environmental issue due to the large quantities produced and the potential for leaching of toxic substances into the soil and groundwater at disposal sites. In both these areas, IGCC power generation

poses minimal environmental impact. The largest solid waste stream produced by an IGCC that incorporates a slagging gasifier (currently the preferred choice) is slag, a black, glassy, sand-like material that can
potentially be a marketable by-product. The amount of slag produced is a function of fuel ash content, so coal produces much more slag than alternative fuels like petroleum coke. Regardless of the fuel, as long as the operating temperature is above the ash fusion temperature, slag will be produced. Leachability data obtained from different gasifiers (see Section 2.4.2)

unequivocally shows that gasifier slag is highly non-leachable and indicates gasifier slag need not be treated any differently than coal combustion wastes classified as non-hazardous. Even more important, the
possible use of this material in a variety of applications may negate the need for long-term disposal (see Section 2.4.6).

The other large-volume by-product produced by IGCC plants is solid (or liquid) sulfur or sulfuric acid. Both can be sold as by-products that help offset plant costs. In comparison, most coal combustion processes recover
sulfur in the form of wet scrubber sludge, dry or semi-dry spent sorbent, or gypsum. These sulfur forms have significantly larger mass and volume than pure sulfur, are often more difficult to handle and market, and must usually be disposed of in an appropriate landfill or surface impoundment. Should IGCC solid by-products require disposal, Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5 discuss current storage stability, management practices and handling experience to minimize site contamination. However, due to the potential economic value of IGCC by-products, temporary surface impoundments for slag and containment vessels for sulfur or sulfuric acid may be the likely storage practice.

IGCC’s solids generation amounts to about 50% less than that produced by a PC plant and 63% less than that of the atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) technology when comparing plants of equivalent
size that consume a bituminous coal with 4% sulfur content. While all of these plants produce byproduct material that may have commercial value, the slag and sulfur produced by the IGCC plant should be highly valued commodities

in

numerous areas of the country.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

263 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Radon DA (1/2)
1. The coming boom in nuclear power will increase the stock of uranium. Seeking Alpha July 9 (2008, http://seekingalpha.com/article/84273-nuclear-power-s-second-coming-will-lead-to-a-uranium-boom)
The best way to play the future nuclear boom is to look to the most integral suppliers for the production of nuclear power: the uranium producers. The uranium producers' stocks right now have bargain basement prices and they stand to profit immensely in the coming years as nuclear production begins to ramp up.

2. Coal is not the problem: Uranium is the significant cause of radon emissions. University of Minnesota 4 (January 30, http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonfate.html)
-Tailings from uranium mines and residues from phosphate mines both contribute to global radon in estimated amounts of 2 to 3x106 Ci radon-222 per year. Despite the fact that these sites are rather rare, emanation rates to air may potentially be substantial. Former research has estimated that 20% of the radon formed in tailings is released and that emanation rates can be as high as 1,000 pCi radon/m2/second. -Coal residues, such as fly ash, combustion products, and natural gas also contribute to the atmospheric radon levels, however, only in negligible quantities.

3. Radon in uranium mines is especially bad. Edwards 92 (Perception Magazine, Dr. Gordon: President of Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,
http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html)

As the miners dig the uranium-bearing ore, they inevitably release large quantities of radioactive radon gas into the mine atmosphere. Radon has a relatively short half-life (3.8 days); before long, the air in the mine is heavily contaminated with radon daughters. Adhering to microscopic dust particles, these tiny,
pernicious particles are breathed into the miners' lungs where they lodge delivering a massive dose of alpha radiation to the sensitive lung tissue. The result is an extraordinarily high incidence of lung cancer, fibrosis of the lungs, and other lung diseases, all of which take decades to become manifest.

4. Coal and nuclear power are zero-sum (From Coal Industry DA in Nuke Power file) The Daily Reckoning 7/2 (http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/thorium/2008/07/02/)
"Of the 439 nuclear power plants in the world today, 70 per cent are more than 20 years old," reports Sam Knight in the May 31st issue of the Financial Times. "While global electricity demand grew by more than 60 per cent from 1980 to 2004, the number of new nuclear reactors being built halved every 10 years. "There are political and environmental reasons for the decline of

nuclear power as a source of electricity. But there are practical and economic reasons to expect its resurgence. One big reason is global electricity demand. World electricity demand is forecast to double by 2030-yet 25% of all existing power plants (natural gas and coal) are scheduled for replacement by then. If you having rising total demand and ageing fleet of power plants that run on coal and natural gas, how will you make up the
difference? For the developed world-which does not have an abundance of conventional hydrocarbons or cannot afford them-nuclear is a sensible, reliable, long-term alternative. That is why India is trying to quintuple its nuclear capacity in the next twelve years. China

already has 11 working reactors, but wants at least ten times that number to get away from coal and keep its economy booming.

5. No Impact: Radon emissions are not a health problem. University of Minnesota 4 (January 30, http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonfate.html)
-Radon is continually being formed in soil and released to air as a result of the extended half-lives of uranium and radium and their abundance in the earth’s surface. Atmospheric radon is not an issue of health concern because the radon is rapidly diluted to low levels by circulation throughout outdoor air.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

264 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Radon DA (2/2)
Studies prove that there is low risk of radon in the status quo. Pearce 98 (Fred, March 14, New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721253.200-focus--undermining-our-lives--radonseeps-into-the-homes-of-millionsof-people-around-the-world-its-effects-may-have-been-seriously-exaggerated.html) Cohen accepts that his use of averages is a "serious problem". But he insists it does not invalidate his data. On the crucial question of smoking, he says: "Even if there were a perfect negative correlation between radon and smoking prevalence, this could explain only half of the discrepancy. What I have found has still got to be explained, especially given the size of the study. Epidemiologists can't just ignore this." He says his study "clearly shows that currently used analyses grossly exaggerate the cancer risk from low-level radiation". In his war with the epidemiologists Cohen has supporters, especially among physicists. Richard Wilson, at Harvard, says: "I don't

believe that the confounding effect of smoking can easily explain Cohen's findings. Nobody has a viable explanation except that the linear extrapolation of risk doesn't work at low levels. But epidemiologists close ranks." The radon debate is hampered by the fact that few people are exposed to high levels of the gas, while tens of millions are exposed to low levels. Most of the estimates of death rates at low exposure are based on extrapolating from the risks at high exposure, measured mostly in miners. So while decrying Cohen's study for its methodology, epidemiologists are trying to support their extrapolations with real data from studies of individuals exposed to radon at household levels. So far, the results have been mixed. Boice says that of eight studies that have now been completed, only one—from Sweden—has found a statistically significant link between radon in the home and lung cancer. It suggested that a house with the American maximum recommended radon level—150 becquerels per cubic metre, which is exceeded in 6 per cent of homes in the US—increased the lifetime risk of lung cancer by 15 per cent. But two years ago, a study of more than a thousand homes of lung cancer victims in Finland found no evidence that these kinds of levels increased the risk of lung cancer (This Week, 27 July 1996, p 8). To date, says Boice, "the data are consistent with a very low risk from radon at low levels—but they are also consistent with no risk at all".

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

265 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – 2AC
1. Non-Unique: Increased coal demand due to high oil prices. Teslik July 10 (2008, Lee Hudson, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16753/mining_turf_wars.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_analysis)

The reason for the mining boom is simple—rising commodity prices—but the underlying pressures causing prices to rise are numerous and complex. New demand from emerging markets certainly plays a role. Chinese demand for aluminum (MarketWatch), coal (NPR), gold (Bloomberg), and other mined commodities has spiked. So too
has demand from India, Russia, Brazil, and a host of other emerging economies. Beyond demand, market speculation also affects prices.

As institutional investors have increasingly sought alternatives to equity investments, they have competed for purchases on commodities futures markets, pushing up prices. Michael W. Masters, a prominent
hedge fund manager, explains this dynamic in recent congressional testimony (PDF).

The price jump has meant a bonanza for certain well-placed mining regions. Australia and New Zealand, for
instance, have profited handily from commodity exports to China, particularly coal and aluminum exports. The Economist notes several firms riding this wave. Rio Tinto's share price roughly doubled in 2007. The Brazilian mining firm Vale has seen its quarterly earnings rise nearly tenfold since 2002. Some Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan is a good example—have seen similar booms, and firms have rushed to forge relationships with African countries flush with commodities. A Reuters analysis notes that a banner year

for mining firms has also led to a spike in demand for mining services firms in the United States and Canada.

2. Link Turn: Coal gasification is more efficient than current processes and saves coal. Department of Energy April 22 (2008, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html)
Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is
used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. In some coal combustion plants, only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity, the rest is lost as waste heat.

A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for use in a more conventional steam
turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant in this type of combined cycle can

potentially be boosted to 50 percent or more. Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or a fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining waste heat can be channeled into process steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent.

3. No Impact: Mining companies take precautions to not hurt the environment. World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=126)
Coal mining – particularly surface mining – requires large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed.
This raises a number of environmental challenges, including soil erosion, dust, noise and water pollution, and impacts on local biodiversity.

Steps are taken in modern mining operations to minimise these impacts. Good planning and environmental management minimises the impact of mining on the environment and helps to preserve biodiversity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

266 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (1/4)
Greater demand for coal now. Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)
Surface and underground mining equipment makers in the United States are riding high on surging global demand for coal, raising hopes that the upswing in this industry is here to stay for a while. Coal demand has been steadily increasing with rapid industrialization in China and India and new coal-fired power plants coming online in Britain, Europe and the United States.

This coal boom will last due to increased demand and output problems in other countries. Reuters June 26 (2008, Bruce Nichols, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?sp=true)
Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday.
Jim Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor

and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand.
"I do not believe this cycle will end like the last," Griffin said. Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future. Gerard McCloskey of The McCloskey Group, a conference sponsor, predicted world demand for seaborne coal will grow to 800 million tonnes a year by 2017 from 650 million tonnes currently. McCloskey said the anticipated growth in coal consumption comes against a background of supply challenges that may see export coal coming from new places such as Tanzania and Alaska. Jeff Watkins, president of Hill & Associates, a leading coal industry consultant, predicted that in the boom environment, U.S. coal exports will top 90 million short tons (81 million tonnes) in 2009. Steve Leer, chairman and CEO of Arch Coal Inc, a major U.S. producer, went further, predicting U.S. exports will reach 100

million tonnes by 2010.

Developing countries are leading the charge for coal. Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)
Briggs-Ficks Securities analyst John Collopy said the

biggest increase in volume for both companies is coming from developing markets. "Whether it is China, India or Russia, there is a big demand for equipment," he said.
In April, Bucyrus entered into a joint venture with China's Huainan Mining Industry (Group) Co Ltd to set up a manufacturing facility in the Huainan mining area. "Foreign markets are incrementally the big ticker for these companies," Collopy said. "The more

aggressive growth is going to be offshore in the foreseeable future."

Interest in US coal has also risen. Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)
Interest in U.S. coal, previously deemed too expensive, has also heightened, especially coal from the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States. Appalachian coal output, which accounts for more than a third of U.S. production, had remained soft till last year as it is harder to tap into. "High Appalachian coal prices made investment in underground mining equipment attractive," analyst
Paul Bodnar of Longbow Research said in a note last month.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

267 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (2/4)
U.S. coal use is up Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 1)
Energy demand will increase significantly over the next 25 years. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that consumption will grow from 100 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2004 to 127 quadrillion Btu in 2030, a rise of 27%. This 27 quadrillion Btu increase is equivalent to the nation’s total energy consumption increase from 1972 to 2004. But during those years, oil imports were available to meet two-thirds of new demand. Such an international supply cushion no longer exists. Thus, the great bulk of new energy supply for the next generation of Americans will come from coal in its many varied applications.

World coal use is up Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 1)
The emerging economies of the world, led by China, are moving rapidly to develop their coal resources (see Figure ES.1). China will increase coal production from 1.7 billion tons per year (tpy) today to over 3.2 billion tpy by 2020. This additional coal will be used for electric generation, which will approach 1,000 gigawatts (GW) in total capacity, for coal liquefaction and for coal-to-syngas. Syngas production is already well under way in China and liquefaction will follow shortly. Both are regarded as strategic imperatives by the Chinese government.

Global coal demand  Reuters UK 6/17 (“Global coal boom spurs US mining equipment demand”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617) Surface and underground mining equipment makers in the United States are riding high on surging

global demand for coal, raising hopes that the upswing in this industry is here to stay for a while. Coal demand has been steadily increasing with rapid industrialization in China and India and new coal-fired power plants coming online in Britain, Europe and the United States.

A shift to CTL is inevitable-The plan is preferable Airforce Times`7 (Air Force Times, October 4, 2007, Coal-to-liquid-fuel plant eyed at Malmstrom,
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/10/airforce_malmstrom_energy_071003/)

The Air Force is seriously considering a partnership in which a potential commercial interest could build a 20,000- to 30,000-gallon-a-day coal-to-liquid-fuel plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., by as early as 2011. That was the briefing that Assistant Air Force Secretary William Anderson gave to reporters at the Great Falls base last week following a closed two-hour meeting with local elected officials and business leaders. Anderson said the Air Force, the government’s biggest user of fuel, is committed to finding alternative fuel sources that will reduce the nation’s dependence on overseas oil. He said the Air Force agrees with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer that the current price of oil and advances improving aspects of synthetic fuels make it an attractive alternative.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

268 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (3/4)
Non-Unique: Increased coal demand due to high oil prices Teslik July 10 (2008, Lee Hudson, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16753/mining_turf_wars.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_analysis)

The reason for the mining boom is simple—rising commodity prices—but the underlying pressures causing prices to rise are numerous and complex. New demand from emerging markets certainly plays a role. Chinese demand for aluminum (MarketWatch), coal (NPR), gold (Bloomberg), and other mined commodities has spiked. So too
has demand from India, Russia, Brazil, and a host of other emerging economies. Beyond demand, market speculation also affects prices.

As institutional investors have increasingly sought alternatives to equity investments, they have competed for purchases on commodities futures markets, pushing up prices. Michael W. Masters, a prominent hedge fund manager, explains this dynamic in recent congressional testimony (PDF). The price jump has meant a bonanza for certain well-placed mining regions. Australia and New Zealand, for instance, have profited handily from commodity
exports to China, particularly coal and aluminum exports. The Economist notes several firms riding this wave. Rio Tinto's share price roughly doubled in 2007. The Brazilian mining firm Vale has seen its quarterly earnings rise nearly tenfold since 2002. Some Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan is a good example—have seen similar booms, and firms have rushed to forge relationships with African countries flush with commodities. A Reuters analysis notes that a banner year for mining firms has also led to

a

spike in demand for mining services firms in the United States and Canada.

Greater demand for coal now Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)
Surface and underground mining equipment makers in the United States are riding high on surging global demand for coal, raising hopes that the upswing in this industry is here to stay for a while. Coal demand has been steadily increasing with rapid industrialization in China and India and new coal-fired power plants coming online in Britain, Europe and the United States.

US coal boom not expected to decrease Reuters 6/26/8 http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand. "I do not believe this cycle will end like the last," Griffin said. Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

269 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – NUQ – Coal Up (4/4)
This coal boom will last due to increased demand and output problems in other countries. Reuters June 26 (2008, Bruce Nichols, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?sp=true)
Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of
Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of

expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand. "I do not believe this cycle will end like the last,"
Griffin said. Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future. Gerard McCloskey of The McCloskey Group, a conference sponsor, predicted world demand for seaborne coal will grow to 800 million tonnes a year by 2017 from 650 million tonnes currently. McCloskey said the anticipated growth in coal consumption comes against a background of supply challenges that may see export coal coming from new places such as Tanzania and Alaska. Jeff Watkins, president of Hill & Associates, a leading coal industry consultant, predicted that in the boom environment, U.S. coal exports will top 90 million short tons (81 million tonnes) in 2009. Steve Leer, chairman and CEO of Arch Coal Inc, a major U.S. producer, went further, predicting U.S. exports will reach 100 million tonnes by 2010.

Developing countries are leading the charge for coal. Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)
Briggs-Ficks Securities analyst John Collopy said the

biggest increase in volume for both companies is coming from developing markets. whether it is China, India or Russia, there is a big demand for equipment," he
said. In April, Bucyrus entered into a joint venture with China's Huainan Mining Industry (Group) Co Ltd to set up a manufacturing facility in the Huainan mining area. "Foreign markets are incrementally the big ticker for these companies,"

Collopy said. "The more aggressive growth is going to be offshore in the foreseeable future."

Coal mining up as demand increases The Sate Journal 7/10/8 http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=41045
The future looks good for West Virginia coal and for coal everywhere, according to Arch Coal Inc. President John W. Eaves. "More and more of this coal's going to be exported out of the country," Eaves
said. "It's low sulfur, it's high BTU (energy content) and I think it's a coal that's going to be desired not only in the U.S. but all over the world." Eaves was in Bridgeport July 7 for the Nationwide Tour Players Cup. Arch is a major sponsor of the annual event. One of the bigger producers in the state, St. Louis-based Arch Coal mined about five million tons in West Virginia in 2007

and may be ramping up to nine million tons this year. High Demand Everywhere Eaves described an environment of very strong coal demand globally and domestically. About six billion tons of coal was mined worldwide in 2007, he said. New coal-fired power plants will increase demand by more than one billion tons by 2012. More coal-producing countries are keeping their coal at home, Eaves said, and that's creating a strong export market for U.S. coal. The industry forecasts U.S. exports at about 80 million tons this year, nearly double the 2005 level.

Interest in US coal has also risen. Reuters June 17 (Dhanya Ann Thoppil, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKBNG838020080617?sp=true)
Interest in U.S. coal, previously deemed too expensive, has also heightened, especially coal from the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States. Appalachian coal output, which accounts for more than a third of U.S. production, had remained soft till last year as it is harder to tap into. "High Appalachian coal prices made investment in underground mining equipment attractive," analyst Paul Bodnar of Longbow Research
said in a note last month.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

270 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Turn: CTL = Efficiency
The combination of two turbines in coal gasification makes it more efficient than current methods of coal extraction. Department of Energy 7 (September 11,
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html)

The use of these two types of turbines - a combustion turbine and a steam turbine - in combination, known as a "combined cycle," is one reason why gasification-based power systems can achieve unprecedented power generation efficiencies. Currently, commercially available gasification-based systems can operate at around 42% efficiencies; in the future, these systems may be able to achieve efficiencies approaching 60%. (A conventional coal-based boiler plant, by contrast, employs only a steam turbine-generator and is typically limited to 33-40% efficiencies.) Higher efficiencies mean that less fuel is used to generate the rated power, resulting in better economics (which can mean lower costs to ratepayers) and the formation of fewer greenhouse gases (a 60%-efficient gasification power plant can cut the formation of carbon dioxide by 40% compared to a typical coal combustion plant).

Gasification uses the creation of synthesis gas to increase efficiency. PR Newswire May 1 (2008, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2008_May_1/ai_n25377335)
Integrated gasification combined cycle technology uses a coal gasification system to convert coal into a synthesis gas (syngas). The syngas is processed to remove sulfur, mercury and ash before being sent to a traditional combined cycle power plant, using two combustion turbines and a steam turbine to efficiently produce electricity.

Coal gasification is more efficient than current plants with less CO2 emissions. Logan 7 (Chris, August 31, http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/swol/july_sept_2007/coalgasification_31082007.html)
Moreover, as governments debate policies and trading frameworks to ensure the responsible management of CO2 from power plants,

coal gasification could provide a technical solution. It is more energy efficient than a conventional coalfired plant, emitting less CO2 for the same amount of electricity produced. Coal gasification also offers the potential of a cheaper and easier way of capturing CO2, so that it can be piped away for underground storage or injected into ageing oil reservoirs to help produce more crude. Stripping it from the syngas before combustion, when the CO2 is highly-concentrated and the gases are at high pressure, is simpler and less costly than capturing CO2 from flue gases, where it is at lower pressure and diluted with other exhaust gases.

Gasification is more efficient than current electricity generation systems. World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=424)
Gasification is the first step for IGCC electricity generation, which is more efficient than conventional coal combustion. Gasification also produces a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide than direct combustion of coal in air,
which makes carbon capture and storage more economical.

Coal gasification is also the first half of the indirect coal liquefaction process.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

271 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – No Impact
Studies are taken by mining companies to prevent environmental damange. World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=126)
In best practice, studies of the immediate environment are carried out several years before a coal mine opens in order to define the existing conditions and to identify potential problems. The studies look at the
impact of mining on:  surface and ground water  soils  local land use  native vegetation  wildlife populations.

Computer simulations can be undertaken to model impacts on the local environment. The findings are then reviewed as part of the process leading to the award of a mining permit by the relevant government authorities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

272 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Waste
Effective design of mines prevents problems of waste. World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=126)
AMD is formed when the pyrite reacts with air and water to form sulphuric acid and dissolved iron.
This acid run-off dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead and mercury into ground and surface water.

There are mine management methods that can minimise the problem of AMD, and effective mine design can keep water away from acidgenerating materials and help prevent AMD occurring.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

273 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Dust and noise pollution
Mining companies take actions to prevent the effects of dust and noise pollution. World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=126)
Dust levels can be controlled by spraying water on roads, stockpiles and conveyors. Other steps can also be
taken, including fitting drills with dust collection systems and purchasing additional land surrounding the mine to act as a buffer zone.

Trees planted in these buffer zones can also minimise the visual impact of mining operations on local communities. Noise can be controlled through the careful selection of equipment and insulation and sound enclosures around machinery.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

274 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – Mine reclamation solves
Mine reclamation solves all your impacts. World Coal Institute July 10 (2008, http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=126)
In best practice a

detailed rehabilitation or reclamation plan is designed and approved for each coal mine, covering the period from the start of operations until well after mining has finished. Mine reclamation activities are undertaken gradually – with the shaping and contouring of spoil piles, replacement of topsoil, seeding with grasses and planting of trees taking place on the mined-out areas. Care is taken to relocate streams, wildlife, and other valuable resources.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

275 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Emissions
Clean Coal helps the environment by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. CARE No Date Given (http://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_environment/clean-coal-technology.asp)
The original Clean Coal Technology Program, which began in 1986, focused on commercializing processes that helped reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and demonstrating more efficient and
environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional pulverized coal boilers.

New programs in clean coal technology—such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)—are essential for building on the progress of the original Clean Coal Technology Program, finding solutions for reducing trace emissions of mercury; reducing or eliminating carbon dioxide emissions; and increasing fuel efficiencies. Over the longer term, research in clean coal technology will be directed toward developing coalbased hydrogen fuels. If coupled with sequestration, this will allow greater use of coal with zero emissions. The U.S.
Department of Energy has announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will lead to the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing greenhouse gases.

Carbon sequestration solves for warming. Bartis 7 (May, James, Rand Corporation, http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.pdf)
Carbon Capture and Sequestration: By carbon capture and sequestration, I refer to technical approaches being developed in the United States, primarily through funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, and abroad that are designed to capture carbon dioxide produced in coalfired power plants and sequester that carbon dioxide in various types of geological formations, such as deep saline aquifers. This same approach can be used to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from F-T

coal-to-liquids plants and from F-T plants operating on biomass or a combination of coal and biomass. When applied to F-T coal-to-liquids plants, carbon capture and sequestration should cause “mine-towheels” greenhouse gas emissions to drop to levels comparable to the “well-to-wheels” emissions associated with
conventional petroleum-derived motor fuels. Moreover, any incentive adequate to promote carbon capture at coal-fired power plants should be equally, if not more, effective in promoting carbon capture at F-T plants producing liquid fuels.

The U.S. Department of Energy program on carbon capture and sequestration appears to be well managed and has made considerable technical progress. However, considering the continued and growing importance of coal for both power and liquids production and the potential adverse impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, we believe this program has been considerably underfunded. While we are
optimistic that carbon capture and geologic sequestration can be successfully developed as a viable approach for carbon management, we also recognize that successful development constitutes a major technical challenge and that the road to success requires multiple, large-scale demonstrations that go well beyond the current DOE plans and budget for the efforts that are now under way.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

276 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Mining DA – A2: Electricity
The plan wouldn’t wipe out coal supplies Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 10)
The National Coal Council finds that the United States could increase coal production by 1,300 million tons per year by 2025 for Btu conversion technologies and still have a supply that would last at least 100 years. Maximizing coal production would reduce dependence on imported energy and the economic benefits for the United States would be enormous.

More ev… Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 98)
In addition, significant coal reserves can be found in over 25 states, and extensive coal mining, refining, gasification, and electricity production at enhanced levels can be distributed across these states. The transportation infrastructure, of course, must be strengthened and supplemented. But the benefits will be widely dispersed—lower energy prices, millions of jobs in thousands of communities, and improved national security and economic well-being for all Americans.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

277 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Generic
CTL captures toxic by-products Liles 8 (Patricia, J of Comm, 5-18)
Not only would greenhouse gases be stored underground, but particulate emissions, mercury and other heavy metal emissions that typically come out of the stack of a coal-fired power plant would be captured and stored, Metz said.

Their evidence assumes antiquated CTL tech Tulsa World 5 (11-3)
But NPRC's conclusions about emissions are based on old technologies and ignore the improvements in a modern-day coal-to-liquids facility, Schweitzer said. "They looked at one plant in South Africa with technology of 60 years ago," he said.

CTL reduces toxics compared to standard coal processes Ward 7 (John, VP-Headwaters, 9-5, FDCH Congressional Test)
The production of coal-to-liquids fuels is also environmentally responsible. Because coal liquefaction processes remove contaminants from coal prior to combustion, process emissions from coal-to-liquids plants are much lower than traditional pulverized coal power plants.

Metals contaminants are removed leading to clean processes Lengyel 7 [Gregory J. Colonel, Colonel in USAF, Department of Defense Energy Strategy
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf, August 2007]

In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a process to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal that supplied a substantial portion of Germany’s fuel during the war. The FischerTropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from the partial combustion of coal which has been gasified and combined with molecular oxygen) is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from coal gasification and the FT process are intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal contaminants are removed during the gasification process. The principal purpose of the FT process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as synthetic fuel. The FT process can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually any carbon-containing feed stock, including low-grade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the preprocessing steps would differ from the gasification process used with coal.33

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

278 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxics DA – Turn: Biomass Slag
SQ biomass conversion worse – Coal blending reduces slag Boardman 7 (Richard, Idaho Natl Laboratories, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 9-7)
An important technical point to make is that biomass by itself can be difficult to gasify due to its high moisture content and other physical and chemical properties. Biomass gasifiers inherently produce tars and oils that are troublesome to convert into syngas in conventional biomass gasifiers. Another problem can be the low melting point of the ash which can be difficult to manage. Hence, significant attention continues to be directed to developing efficient and reliable biomass gasifiers. However, when the biomass is blended with coal and gasified in a high temperature slagging gasifier, the issue of tar formation is eliminated. The slag produced by the biomass is readily incorporated into the higher mass of slag produced by the coal. These facts underscore the benefits of gasifying biomass with coal. It is technical the best method of converting the biomass to syngas and subsequently to synthetic fuels.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

279 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Laundry List
Gasification solves sulfur, nitrous oxide, and Co2 emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Section 2.2.1 examines the release of criteria air pollutants from IGCC power plants. Sulfur

(as H2S and COS) and particulates are very effectively removed from raw gasifier syngas by gas cleanup equipment located upstream of the combustion turbine. A major advantage of a high temperature, slagging gasifier is that most of the coal ash is discharged as molten slag from the bottom of the gasifier, with only a small portion entrained with the syngas. Reducing conditions in the gasifier converts most of the chemically bound nitrogen in the coal into harmless nitrogen gas, rather than into NOx as occurs in direct combustion. While NOx is still formed when the clean syngas is fired in the combustion turbine, turbine manufacturers have developed highly effective means of minimizing thermal NOx formation without resorting to post-combustion control technologies, such as SCR. These combustion-based methods also limit
CO emissions to relatively low levels, but fugitive CO emissions from upstream components and the plant’s flare system, represent sources of CO that must be efficiently controlled. In the aggregate, the criteria pollutant emissions from a state-of-the-art IGCC plant are well-below current emissions standards for coal-fired power plants. TABLE 2-22 (on page 2-51) compares IGCC emissions with those from other types of coal-fired power plants. Demonstrated IGCC criteria pollutant emission levels are:

Coal gasification solves for a laundry list of pollutants. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Other potential pollutants, such as sulfur and nitrogen compounds, form species that can be readily extracted. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS), once hydrolyzed, are removed by dissolution in, or reaction with, an organic solvent and converted to valuable byproducts, such as elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid. Fuel nitrogen is mainly converted to diatomic nitrogen, but a small fraction is converted to ammonia (NH3) and some cyanide and thiocyanate in the gasifier’s reducing environment, which is readily removed via water scrubbing. Most trace pollutants are removed in the slag/bottom ash or in the particulate control equipment. Since some pollutants
end up in the wastewater, proper water treatment facilities are quite important for overall environmental performance.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

280 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Mercury (1/2)
Coal gasification removes a significant portion of mercury release. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) As discussed in Section 2.2.3.3, mercury testing at the Wabash River, Polk, and LGTI IGCC plants has yielded relatively poor mass balance closures (33 to 67%). Therefore, while there is no question that elemental mercury exits these plants in

the stack gas, it appears that a significant portion is removed within IGCC process components. There is evidence that mercury is removed by the amine solvent, accumulates in the acid gas scrubbing loop, and/or is stripped from the amine solvent upon regeneration and partitions to the sulfur recovery unit. Some mercury, especially particulate-phase and oxidized forms, may be removed in the wet particulate scrubber and discharged with wastewater sludge. Overall, mercury testing indicates that stack gas emission factors
range from 3 x 10-5 to 6 x 10-5 lb/MWh (1.5 to 5 lb/1012 Btu). Comparison with tests performed at PC power plants indicates that IGCC mercury emissions are of a similar magnitude. If PC plants are obligated to control mercury as a result of expected EPA regulations, then IGCC plants will also likely be required to control mercury emissions.

IGCC has a major advantage when it comes to mercury control. Commercial methods have been employed for many years that remove trace amounts of mercury from natural gas and gasifier syngas.
As described in Section 2.2.6.2, UOP and the Eastman Chemical Company have used molecular sieve technology and activated carbon beds, respectively, for this purpose. Eastman Chemical reports 90 to 95% mercury capture using Calgon

Corporation’s sulfur-impregnated activated carbon, with carbon lifetime ranging from 12 to 18 months. Thus, mercury emissions control for IGCC technology is likely to be more of an economic issue than a technical one.

Coal gasification solves for mercury. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

While there is every indication that elemental mercury exits IGCC plants in the stack gas, a significant portion also appears to be removed within the IGCC process. There is evidence that mercury is removed by the amine solvent, accumulates in the acid gas scrubbing loop, and/or is stripped from the amine solvent upon regeneration and partitions to the sulfur recovery unit. Some mercury, especially
particulate-phase and oxidized forms, may also be removed in the wet particulate scrubber and discharged with wastewater sludge. Overall, mercury testing indicates that stack gas emission factors range from 3 to 6 x 10-5 lb/MWh (1.5 to 5 lb/1012 Btu). Comparison with similar tests performed at PC power plants indicates that IGCC mercury emissions are of a similar magnitude. If PC plants are required to control mercury as a result of expected EPA regulations, then IGCC plants will also likely need to control mercury emissions. Compared with combustion-based power plants, IGCC plants have a major advantage when it

comes to mercury control. Commercial methods have been employed for many years that remove trace amounts of mercury from natural gas and gasifier syngas. Both molecular sieve technology and activated carbon beds have been used for this purpose, with 90 to 95% removal efficiency reported.
While such mercury control technology has not yet been incorporated into an operating IGCC system, the successful, long-term experience with these processes indicates that mercury emissions control may be more of an economic issue than a technical one. A recent DOE cost study was conducted for applying a packed-bed carbon adsorption system to an IGCC plant. Based on an eighteenmonth carbon replacement cycle and 90% reduction of mercury emissions, the total cost of mercury reduction is estimated to be $3,412 per pound of mercury removed, which is projected to be about one-tenth the cost of flue gas-based mercury control.

Despite the variety of results, gasification plants have a significant advantage in controlling mercury emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) While limited, these results show that Hg emissions vary considerably from plant to plant. However, the

results do indicate that IGCC mercury emissions are probably no worse than PC plants that have a full compliment of emission control technologies. Results also indicate that the concentration of mercury in the flue gas from IGCC plants may be no more of a control problem than for the other types of plants, and control of mercury in the syngas prior to combustion may be a significant advantage (see Section 2.4.7).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

281 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Mercury (2/2)
Technology in gasification exists to reduce the amount of mercury emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

A number of companies produce activated carbons that have been used commercially for mercury removal from combustion flue gas, with most of the applications being for incinerator stack gas. Norit’s DARCO FGD is a lignite-derived activated carbon manufactured specifically for the removal of heavy metals and other contaminants typically found in incinerator flue gas.47 It has been proven in numerous full-scale facilities to be highly effective for the removal of gaseous mercury, dioxins (PCDD) and furans (PCDF). Its open pore structure and fine particle size permit rapid adsorption, which is critical for high performance in gas streams where contact times are short. It is a free flowing powdered carbon with minimal caking tendencies that makes
it appropriate for automatic wet or dry injection systems. It has a very high ignition temperature, which permits safe operation at the elevated temperatures inherent in incinerator flue gas. This material has also been successfully used in a number of

R&D programs focused on evaluation of mercury removal from coal-fired power plant stack gas.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

282 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Trace/Particulate Emissions (1/2)
Coal gasification solves for trace emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Section 2.2.4 identifies and characterizes potential trace organic compounds (aldehydes and ketones, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, and chlorinated dioxins and furans) that may be discharged with the flue gas, wastewater, or byproduct solids. Release of organic compounds is also an environmental concern, since some of these compounds, such as formaldehyde, can have deleterious effects on the environment or human health. Trace organics can be released from coal reactors via complex, non-oxidizing, pyrolytic processes.

While limited data is available to characterize trace organic releases to the air from gasification systems, detailed test results from the LGTI IGCC plant indicate extremely low levels of all trace organic emissions, in-line with emissions expected from plants that directly combust solid and gaseous fuels. In particular, formaldehyde emissions from a syngas-fired combustion turbine appear to be more than an order-of-magnitude lower than emissions from a natural gas-fired combustion turbine (see
Section 2.2.4.2).

Gasification plants have low levels of trace organic emissions: Data proves. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Release of trace organic compounds is also an environmental concern, since some of these compounds, such as formaldehyde, can have deleterious effects on the environment or human health. While limited data are available to characterize trace organic releases to the air from IGCC systems, detailed test results from the LGTI IGCC plant indicates extremely low levels of all

trace organic emissions, in-line with emissions expected from combustion-based plants. In particular, formaldehyde emissions from a syngas-fired combustion turbine appear to be more than an order-ofmagnitude lower than from natural gas-fired combustion turbines. While this conclusion applies to this particular unit, less detailed data from other IGCC plants seems to corroborate the overall low levels of organic emissions.

Coal gasification plants achieve particulate removal. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) The syngas exiting a gasifier contains fine char and ash particulate and therefore particulate removal (and recycle) is necessary for all processes. Coal gasification, however, has an advantage over combustion technologies, as it operates at high pressure and generates a significantly smaller gas volume. Fly ash and remaining char particles need to be removed from the gas in both slagging and non-slagging gasifiers. The particulate is removed by either hot, dry barrier

filters, of the candle (either ceramic or metallic) type, located upstream of the high temperature heat recovery devices or by “warm gas” water scrubbers located downstream of the cooling devices. Hot
candle filters are advantageous since the particulate is removed as a dry solid; however, these filters are subject to blinding and breakage.

In water scrubbers, the particulate is removed as a slurry which must be dewatered; however, the water scrubber also removes the trace quantities of chlorides which may be present in the syngas and which, if not removed, will poison the hydrolysis catalyst and cause metallurgy problems in downstream equipment. In both cases, the recovered particulate is recycled back to the gasifier. Conventional wet scrubbers are used for fine particulate removal in many coal gasification systems currently operating commercially. The coal gasifier’s high operating pressure allows the scrubbers to operate at reasonably large pressure drops, which makes them small, efficient, and inexpensive.
Scrubbers also remove ammonia, chlorides, and other trace organic and inorganic components from the synthesis gas. The blowdown water from the scrubber is flashed, sometimes under vacuum, and the flash gas is sent to a Claus plant or sulfuric acid decomposition furnace. Particulate-laden water is sent to a water handling system, which separates the solids for recycle to the gasifier or disposal.

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Trace/Particulate Emissions (2/2)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab Coal gasification causes low particulate emissions.

283 Green Military Aff

US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

While ash is released from the solid fuel during the gasification process, most gasifiers release only a small portion as fly ash that becomes entrained with syngas. Particulate control in gasification processes is highly efficient for reasons provided in Section 1.1.4. Not only does the gasification process provide an inherent capability to remove most ash as slag or bottom ash, but the fly ash that is produced is concentrated is a relatively small gas volume relative to solid fuel combustion processes, which further
assists its cost-effective collection. Both the Polk and Wabash River plants use a wet scrubber to efficiently capture fine particulates that are entrained in the syngas. Additional particulate removal occurs in the gas cooling operations and in the

acid gas removal systems. As a result, very low particulate emission levels are achieved.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

284 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – NOx
Gasification prevents the release of harmful nitrous oxide. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The gasification process differs significantly from combustion with respect to the impact of chemically bound nitrogen in solid fuels, like coal. Gasification, because it operates with a deficiency of oxygen, converts most of the fuel nitrogen into harmless nitrogen gas (N2). While a small portion is converted to ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), these watersoluble species are removed during fuel gas cooling and cleaning and are usually converted to nitrogen in the sulfur recovery process.3 Therefore, the syngas produced is virtually free of fuelbound nitrogen, and NOx formation is primarily the result of thermal NO produced at
the high temperatures in the turbine combustor. The following relationships exist between turbine combustor operating conditions and thermal NOx production:7  NOx increases strongly with fuel-to-air ratio or with firing temperature

NOx decreases exponentially with increasing water or steam injection or increasing specific humidity. Therefore, by maintaining a low fuel-air ratio (lean combustion) and adding a diluent (e.g., nitrogen from the air separation unit or steam from the steam turbine), the flame temperature can be lowered to significantly reduce thermal NOX

   

NOx increases exponentially with combustor inlet air temperature NOx increases with the square root of the combustor inlet pressure NOx increases with increasing residence time in the flame zone

formation (see Section 2.2.6.1.1). The gas turbines installed in commercially operated IGCC plants have made use of this combustion based control method to minimize NOx emissions. TABLE 2-1 lists the
typical NOx emissions that have been recorded for commercially operated IGCC power plants in the U.S., and confirms that current IGCC plants can meet the Federal NOx NSPS for utility power plants of 1.6 lb NO2/MWh or 0.15 lb NO2/106 Btu (about 25 ppm for a gas turbine). As discussed below, the current state-of-the-art combustion control for a syngas-fired turbine has been demonstrated to be 15 ppm (15% O2 basis and ISO conditions), and a recent BACT determination for the Polk IGCC plant specifies this value.

Nitrogen emissions are low due to gasification and will continue to decrease with better technology. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The use of a diluent to lower flame temperature, such as nitrogen or steam, is currently the preferred method for minimizing NOx generation from a syngas-fired turbine. Nitrogen is usually available from the cryogenic air separation unit, so it can conveniently be employed in the IGCC process. This control method can reduce NOx emissions levels from syngas-fired turbines to approximately 15 ppm (at 15% O2). GE is currently targeting development of combustors to reliably achieve below 10 ppm NOx with syngas, which would be
comparable to the NOx emission levels achieved through use of the lean-premix technology on gas turbines firing natural gas.

Gasification plants can use ammonia to reduce nitrogen emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The ammonia-to-NOx (NH3:NOx) ratio can be varied to achieve the desired level of NOx reduction. It
takes one mole of ammonia to reduce one mole of NO, and two moles of ammonia to reduce one mole of NO2. Higher NH3:NOx ratios achieve higher NOx emission reductions, but can result in increased unreacted ammonia being emitted into the atmosphere. This unreacted ammonia is known as ammonia slip. SCR catalysts degrade over time, which changes the quantity of NH3 slip. Catalyst

life will typically range from 3 to 10 years depending on the specific application. IGCC applications, with exhaust gas that is relatively free of contaminants, should yield a significantly longer catalyst lifetime than for a conventional coal-fired application.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

285 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Lead
Less than 5% of lead from coal gasification plants actually end up as emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Trace metal mass balance results for LGTI’s IGCC plant showed that about one-third

of the lead in the coal ended up in the gasifier slag and less than 5% as air emissions. The remaining lead was assumed to be removed in the particulate and acid gas cleanup systems and discharged with solid and liquid waste streams. Turbine
stack emissions showed an average lead content of 1.6 µg/Nm3, with 62% in the particulate phase and 38% in the vapor phase. A total average air emission factor for lead at the LGTI plant was calculated to be 2.9 lb/1012 Btu of heat input. In summary, trace amounts of lead contained in coal can be efficiently removed in an IGCC plant with minimal discharge to the atmosphere. While lead discharged with the slag can be effectively sequestered, the form of the lead species discharged in solid or liquid streams from the plant’s water treatment facility is not known.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

286 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Chlorine
Gasification plants also clean up chlorine. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Chloride is a common constituent in the effluent streams from coal-fired power plants due to the chlorine in U.S. coals (primarily as sodium and potassium chlorides), ranging from 0.01 to 0.5% by weight. While most U.S. coals
have relatively low chlorine content, about 2.5% of the total estimated reserves have chlorine content above 0.2 percent, and these are mostly concentrated in the states of Illinois and Indiana.19 Therefore, the relatively low chloride content of most coals

limits chloride levels in effluent streams to low levels. Most of the chlorine in coal is organically bound. During gasification, most of the chlorine is converted to hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas that appears in the untreated syngas.14 The concentration in solid waste effluent
streams (e.g., slag and ash) is affected primarily by a volatilization/condensation mechanism. The vapor-phase HCl and particulate-phase chlorides can be efficiently removed from the raw syngas in a water scrubber. As explained in Chapter 1, the scrubber effluent

(bottoms) are treated in the water treatment system where particulates are separated for return to the gasifier, and the effluent is concentrated and solids crystallized for use or disposal in a landfill.10 The
results of a chloride mass balance, performed at the LGTI power plant, are shown in TABLE 2-4. In summary, regardless of gasifier type, low-temperature water scrubbing of the

syngas can remove a significant portion of the chlorides, input with the coal feed, that exit the gasifier as a constituent of the syngas. However, more than one-third of the chlorides may exit the plant with the stack gas.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

287 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Flourine
Gasification plants clean up fluorine. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) Fluoride is a common constituent in the effluent streams from coal-fired power plants due to the fluorine content of U.S. coals, ranging from 10 to 295 ppm.14 The relatively low fluorine content of coal limits fluoride levels in effluent streams to

low levels. Most of the fluorine in coal is organically bound and during gasification, is converted to hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas in the raw syngas. The concentration in the solid streams (slag and ash) is affected primarily by a volatilization/condensation mechanism. The highly soluble vapor-phase HF, and particulatephase fluorides can be efficiently removed from the raw syngas in a water scrubber.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

288 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Sulfur (1/2)
Coal gasification solves for sulfur. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Sulfur recovery processes recover sulfur either as sulfuric acid or as elemental sulfur. Sulfuric acid plants convert the H2S to SO2 by combustion with air. The SO2 is oxidized to form SO3, which is then scrubbed with weak sulfuric acid to make 98% H2SO4, which can be sold commercially. The remaining SO2 and SO3 are at low enough concentrations to permit discharge to the atmosphere. A sulfuric acid plant typically recovers 99.8% of the H2S feed. For high recovery efficiency, sulfur recovery processes often are comprised of two processes, one for bulk removal, and a second for fine recovery from the bulk tail-gas. The most common removal system is the Claus process followed by a tail-gas treating process such as the SCOT (Shell Claus Off gas Treatment) process. A Claus sulfur recovery unit produces elemental sulfur from the H2S in the syngas in a series of catalytic stages. Part of the H2S is burned to produce SO2, which is then reacted with the remaining H2S to produce elemental sulfur and water. The Claus process removes about 98% of the sulfur in the syngas, and the tailgas is then sent to a SCOT process for further sulfur recovery.g The SCOT system is amine-based and can achieve an overall sulfur recovery of 99.8%. High quality elemental sulfur is recovered which can be sold commercially.4 Other commercially available processes include wet oxidation systems such as Stretford, LO-CAT, and Sulferox.

95% of sulfur is removed in the process of coal gasification. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf) As described in Section 1.1.5, the acid gas removal equipment extracts

from 95% to greater than 99% of the H2S and COS, once hydrolyzed, from the fuel gas and converts it to a salable sulfur or sulfuric acid (H2SO4) byproduct.2 The small amount of residual sulfur that remains in the syngas is converted to SO2 in the combustion turbine and released to the atmosphere in the HRSG stack gas. Other secondary sources of SO2 emissions in an
IGCC plant will typically include the sulfur recovery system’s tail gas incinerator stack, auxiliary boilers (if applicable), and the syngas flare during gasifier startup and system upset conditions. These secondary SO2 sources are typically be significantly

smaller than the HRSG stack emissions.

Coal gasification plants control sulfur emissions. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

Sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) has been identified as a constituent of incinerator tail gas emissions at the Wabash IGCC plant. In general, emissions are controlled by limiting fuel gas to less than or equal to 360 ppmdv of sulfur and ensuring that exhaust stack temperature is maintained at or above 264 ºF.11 Initial compliance testing at the
plant measured acid emissions of 2.69 lb/hr versus a permit limit of 3.79 lb/hr (6.8 tons/yr). 1997 annual emissions of sulfuric acid were estimated to be 3.84 tons/yr, and 1998 emissions were estimated to be 0.63 tons/yr.

Another potential source of sulfate emissions, as mentioned in Section 2.2.1.1, is the flare system that is used during cold start-up, shutdown, and during upset conditions, when the combustion turbine is unavailable. Since the flare is designed to efficiently combust the clean syngas at high temperatures (> 1830o F), emissions of H2SO4 are small compared to the rest of the plant.

Gasification solves the problems of sulfur waste by making it more pure and usable. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

In contrast with IGCC, the amount of solid waste discharged from direct coal combustion can increase by a factor of 2 to 3 with the use of throw-away desulfurization systems and high-sulfur coals. Coal gasification avoids this problem totally by recovering the fuel’s sulfur as a pure, byproduct that is readily marketable or as marketable sulfuric acid. Most direct coal combustion processes recover the sulfur as wet
scrubber sludge or a dry or semi-dry spent sorbent, or gypsum. These forms of sulfur have significantly larger mass and volume than pure sulfur. Furthermore, they are more difficult to handle, market, and dispose of. If the gypsum is pure enough, it can be

marketed for a variety of applications.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

289 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Sulfur (2/2)
Gasification is better than all other methods for removing sulfur. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

The approach to sulfur control in an IGCC plant is fundamentally different than that used with other power plants. Emission control strategy usually is focused on the fuel gas, which is pressurized (typically 300 to 500 psi) and has a substantially lower volumetric flow rate than combustion flue gas, which flows near atmospheric pressure. Furthermore, the sulfur in the fuel gas is in a reduced form (mostly H2S) which can be removed by a variety of commercial processes such as the Selexol® process previously mentioned. H2S and COS are removed and the concentrated acid gas is then processed for elemental sulfur recovery. Up to 99% of the sulfur can be removed.

Treatment of water can increase valuable sulfur. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

One method of treatment for process water offers an additional opportunity to recover sulfur. Process water taken directly from high temperature and pressure systems can be “flashed” in a vessel at low or negative pressure to release dissolved gases. The flash gas is routed to the sulfur removal unit with the raw synthesis gas, and the water is either recycled to the system or it is blown down to a conventional wastewater treatment unit before discharge. Gas condensate, also known as sour water, may also be steam-stripped to
remove ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. The stripper overhead can be routed to the sulfur recovery unit or incinerated, subject to permit limitations for NOx and SO2 emissions. The sour water stripper recovers water suitable for recycling to the process as make-up. A portion of the recovered water from the sour water stripper may be discharged to a conventional wastewater treatment system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

290 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Toxins DA – Cyanide
Gasification plants also solve for cyanide. US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

IGCC process effluent gas streams that may contain HCN are the gas turbine/HRSG stack gas and the incinerator stack gas. Cyanide compounds may also occur on surfaces of particle entrained in gas streams. Aqueous streams may also contain dissolved cyanide as a result of syngas scrubbing to remove particulates and acid gases. Emissions testing at both the LGTI and Wabash plants indicates extremely low levels of cyanide in both the turbine and incinerator stack gases, as indicated in TABLE 2-6.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

291 Green Military Aff

***A2: Econ DA’s***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

292 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: 2AC General
The plan is a massive boost in growth Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 2)
Implementation of these technologies could generate unprecedented socioeconomic benefits for the American people for decades to come. If the recommendations presented by the National Coal Council are implemented, an independent scholarly analysis conducted at Penn State University indicates that by 2025 energy prices would be reduced by 33%, more than 1.4 million new jobs per year would be created, and the cumulative gain in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would exceed $3 trillion (see Volume II). If carbon dioxide from these technologies is captured and used to enhance domestic oil production, these benefits would exceed $4 trillion.

The plan is critical to U.S. economic growth Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 117)
Even though the U.S. and other market economies are far more flexible in responding to energy price shocks than in the past, there remains a measurable relationship between energy prices, economic growth and employment. High energy prices reduce consumer discretionary income, consumer confidence, and consumption. Business costs increase and profitability declines under the weight of higher energy prices. The coal energy conversion future envisioned in this report will ensure protection from these adverse impacts and foster the low inflation/high productivity economic environment the United States has enjoyed since the early 1990s. In short, the vision for coal developed in this report should be considered an integral component of economic policies for ensuring long-term economic growth and full employment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

293 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Renewables Bridge
New energy sources inevitable and high cost – The plan bridges the gap, saving the economy Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 117)
Under reasonable projections for world energy demand and somewhat more uncertain expectations for conventional oil and NG production over the next two decades, the world appears to be on a threshold of a historical transition to a growing reliance on more unconventional sources of energy. This transition will involve a shift from primary energy extraction to a greater reliance upon energy product manufacturing that will require significant infusions of capital, labor and technology. Such a transition is similar to the historical development of many mineral resources in which high-grade deposits were depleted and replaced with large volumes of low-grade reserves that became economic with advances in technology. For example, high oil prices are once again renewing interest in developing oil shale and coal liquefaction. Similarly, expensive NG is stimulating interest in coal gasification. The U.S. government, in partnership with the coal industry and electric generation companies, has been developing these technologies to reduce and, in some cases, virtually eliminate the environmental residuals generated from using coal to produce electricity. After more than 20 years of development, these technologies are now poised for full-scale commercial development. With superior environmental performance and competitive costs, these coal technologies could displace significant quantities of imported oil and NG.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

294 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Manufacturing
The plan results in massive business spin-offs and saves US manufacturing Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 118)
This import displacement could significantly reduce our energy trade deficit, which presently accounts for nearly half of our current trade account deficit. Also, additional energy supply in a capacity constrained market would reduce the frequency of periods with high energy prices. In such a world, hurricanes would no longer imply sharply higher prices for gasoline and NG. Coal-based energy manufacturing would stimulate domestic production of coal and employment in rural coal-producing regions in Appalachia, the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions. The construction of coal gasification and liquefaction plants would stimulate a wide range of industries including building trades, steel, concrete and industrial equipment. The operation of these facilities would create large numbers of high-wage, skilled manufacturing jobs and revitalize the manufacturing base of America.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

295 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Aviation (1/3)
Commercial airlines are critical to US economic dominance Meilinger 3 (Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, “The Air and Space Power Nation is in Peril” Air and Space Power Journal Spring 2003.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXL/is_1_17/ai_100727610/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1) THIS IS A GOOD news, bad news story. The United States is the world's first and only air and space nation. That fact is evidenced in our dominance of air and space technology and infrastructure, as well as in the future visions shared by our political, economic, military, and cultural leaders. This domination has important implications for our national security. Unfortunately, many Americans have come to view air and space dominance as their birthright. It is not, and troubles are brewing, so we must take steps now to ensure our dominance in the future. Americans have always looked to technology to ease their problems, so they took naturally and quickly to air and space power-the epitome of advanced technology. America was the birthplace of aviation, and it is now difficult to

imagine life without our television satellites, cell phones, Internet, and air travel. Indeed, US airline-passenger traffic has tripled over the past 25 years (fig. 1). Speed is the engine of commerce and economic growth. Rapid means of transportation have been essential for nations seeking economic dominance. The rise of Britain in
the eighteenth century was based on global trade carried by its large merchant fleet, which in turn was protected by the Royal Navy, the world's largest and most powerful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was also a maritime power, possessing a sizeable merchant fleet and navy. As the twentieth century progressed, however, speed became synonymous with aircraft, and expanding American aviation began to push out the ship. Over the past 40 years, the growth of the US airline industry has been dramatic, in contrast to the decline of our shipping industry. Since 1960 the number of airliners has quadrupled (and aircraft have more than doubled in size), while the size of the US merchant fleet has dropped 84 percent, a mere 2 percent of the world's total (fig. 2). In addition, airport expansion is under way at many airports because airline-passenger travel is expected to double over the next decade. As for cargo, 95 percent of the world's air-cargo capacity resides in Boeing airframes, and the value of goods shipped is telling. In 1997 the average pound of cargo traveling by boat was worth seven cents; by rail it was 10 cents, but by air it was $25.59. When Americans have something important and

valuable to ship and it needs to get there quickly, they send it by air. Air and space trade has significantly increased over the past several decades. In 1999 America's air and space industry contributed $259 billion to the nation's economy. The black ink in the air and space balance of trade rose to over $32 billion in 2000, making it the largest net
exporter in the US economy (fig. 3). At the same time, the overall US trade balance has been negative for 27 of the past 30 years, and the deficit now exceeds $250 billion annually. Given these statistics, it is apparent that the United States has now become an air and space nation--indeed, the air and space nation. One must remember, however, that America once led the world in other transportation technologies, but over the past two centuries, it has relinquished leads in railroads, shipbuilding, and automaking. The US share of the world auto market, for example, has fallen from 48 percent to 15 percent over the past 40 years. We cannot allow our lead in air and space to evaporate similarly.

High oil prices cripple aviation industry and cause US econ collapse ETN 8 (Global Travel Industry News Service, 7/23/08, “Oil-fueled catastrophe in the airline industry would cripple US economy and
eliminate US jobs, study reveals” http://www.eturbonews.com/3283/oil-fueled-catastrophe-airline-industry-would) A new study prepared by the Business Travel Coalition (BTC) has revealed that the skyrocketing price of aviation

fuel will have devastating implications far beyond new surcharges for checked bags and in-flight beverage services. According to the BTC study, not only are US airlines and their passengers facing their darkest future, but fast-approaching airline liquidations will cripple the US economy that depends on affordable, frequent intercity air transportation. The BTC study, “Beyond the Airlines’ $2 Can of Coke: Catastrophic Impact on the US Economy from Oilprice Trauma in the Airline Industry,” is projecting that massive job losses, supply chain disruption, declining business activity, shrinking tax revenues, weakened American competitiveness, devastated communities, and reduced tourism are just some of the predictable results from airline liquidations that could happen as early as the second half of 2008 as a direct result of unsustainable fuel prices. The study expands on the analysis released on June 13, 2008 by AirlineForecasts, LLC and BTC and points to the real news about the airlines’ fuel problems: how multiple liquidations at legacy US airlines – now a serious possibility – would have a wide-ranging impact on many facets of the US economy. “The airline industry stimulates so much economic activity – much more than many people currently understand,” said BTC chairman Kevin Mitchell. “Airline networks are an integral part of the transport grid that supports the US economy, and without immediate action to bring down fuel costs, we face the economic equivalent of a major blackout later this year or early next. Unlike in a blackout, however, the cabin lights may never
come back on for many US airlines.” “The runaway price of oil is seriously hurting working families at every level, and as the airline fuel crisis intensifies, the risk of major job losses in all travel and tourism sectors and in other airline-dependent industries increases as well,” stated Jean McDonnell Covelli, BTC member and president of The Travel Team, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Rich Products Corporation. “As a matter of highest priority, elected officials must focus on devising an energy policy that will keep Americans productively traveling and working.” According to the paper, “Airlines move people, but also high-value, time-sensitive or perishable cargo. Failure of one large airline would disrupt the travel of 200,000 to 300,000 passengers per day and thousands of tons of goods. The almost-full planes of remaining airlines would not be able to absorb much of these volumes. Failure of multiple airlines would paralyze the country and our American way of life, leaving us less productive, more isolated, less happy and more vulnerable.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

296 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Aviation (2/3)
High oil prices threaten airline collapse The Dallas Morning News 8 (June 9, 2008 “Fuel costs may ground more airlines”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Airlines_09bus.ART.State.Edition2.45f91e7.html)

It's certain that the summer of 2008 won't be pretty for the airline industry: higher fares and fees for customers, more red ink for the airlines. But what about next year, assuming that jet fuel prices remain at their historic highs? Experts are predicting higher fares, a lot fewer travelers, a lot less capacity, fewer flights to fewer places and maybe a lot fewer airlines. U.S. airlines are already outlining plans to make huge cuts in capacity. In recent days, United Airlines Inc., American Airlines Inc. and Continental Airlines Inc. have announced airplane groundings and schedule reductions for the latter part of 2008 and into 2009. Many airlines have revealed plans to defer or cancel airplane deliveries in 2008 and 2009. Even rapid growers such as AirTran Airways, Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. have slammed on the brakes. But retrenching won't be enough to avoid big financial losses, industry observers say. Finance professor Harlan Platt at Northeastern University in Boston said he expects oil prices to drop as the U.S. economy slows down and the impact ripples to other countries such as India and China. But oil prices must drop considerably from today's levels to save the airlines. "If you don't have an oil price of about $75 or $80 a barrel, at the end of 2009, you'll have most of the airline industry on the financial ropes," Dr. Platt said. "They will have run out of cash or virtually run out of cash." He noted one industry analyst's prediction that oil will hit $150 a barrel soon. "If
that happens and if that price holds, the industry will continue to hemorrhage through the end of 2009, and they'll have run out of options," he said. "They'll need to file for bankruptcy protection. And by 'they,' I mean most of the airline industry." Richard Gritta, finance professor at the University of Portland, also sees major financial problems in 2009 if jet fuel bills keep draining money from airlines. "I think you're going to see more consolidations," Dr. Gritta said. "I think we're going to see a couple more bankruptcies, although at this juncture, it's hard to predict which ones. They're all so weak." Since Dec. 24, six airlines including Aloha Air Inc. and ATA Airlines Inc. have filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations. Frontier Airlines Inc. has filed for bankruptcy and kept flying. Four others have either stopped flying or announced plans to do so. For customers, the prospects of the future aren't pretty either, he warned.

High oil prices are hurting the airline industry, which is key to the economy May`8 (James C., Aviation woes Cap-and-trade bill will harm industry, June 5, 2008,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/05/aviation-woes/)

The U.S. airline industry is undergoing a fuel crisis of epic proportions. The cost of crude oil is hitting all-time highs and increased refining costs are adding to expenses incurred. As a result, jet fuel firmly constitutes the industry's largest expense - accounting for 30 percent to 50 percent of costs, depending on the carrier. This year, U.S. airlines are projected to spend $61.2 billion on fuel, $20 billion more than in 2007 - an increase equivalent to the compensation and benefits of 267,000 airline workers or the acquisition of 286 new, more fuelefficient jets. Ticket prices and other travel costs continue to rise. Simultaneously, routes are being cancelled. Just when we thought things could not get worse, along comes the climate change cap-and-trade legislation sponsored by Sens. Joseph I.
Lieberman , Connecticut independent Democrat, and John W. Warner, Virginia Republican. The bill, if enacted, would impose a carbon tax on the airline

This would throw a cold, wet blanket on a U.S. economy that is already hamstrung by soaring food and energy costs. Compounding injury with irony, the Lieberman-Warner bill would require cashand other transportation industries. strapped airlines to remit their carbon taxes to cash-rich oil companies. The airline industry does not require climate-change legislation in order to fly green. Since the cost of jet fuel is the industry's largest cost center, no industry in America is more motivated to limit energy consumption and resulting emissions than commercial aviation. Between 1978 and 2007, U.S. airlines improved their fuel efficiency by 110 percent. Also, between 2000 and 2006, the airlines reduced fuel burn and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 4 percent - while moving 12 percent more passenger traffic and 22 percent more cargo traffic. In fact,

U.S. airlines account for only 2 percent of this nation's GHG emissions. Yet they drive three times more economic activity.

No other industry is more economical and carbon-efficient in moving people and critical goods. Further taxing this already over-taxed industry will hinder significantly the airlines' ability to invest in the innovations that have driven its exceptional environmental track record. It is indisputable that the Lieberman-Warner bill would significantly increase the cost of transportation fuel. Let us assume that emissions allowances are modestly priced at $25/metric ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2012 when the bill would go into effect: In this scenario, this legislation would add another $5 billion to the airlines' fuel costs. These costs would escalate each year thereafter. Such costs would result in further job losses, higher ticket prices, elimination of services and a negative economic ripple effect beyond what we are experiencing today. Instead of piling on additional punitive measures to the airlines, the federal government should focus on measures that complement the airlines' initiatives and enhance our nation's transportation infrastructure. For example, modernizing the nation's aging air traffic control (ATC) system would enable more efficient flying routes and decrease emissions by an additional 10 to 15 percent. The airlines want Congress to give them credit for their exceptional environmental record, fuel-efficiency achievements and history of investing in new technologies and innovations that benefit our economy. If a cap-and-trade system is applied to aviation, why doesn't Congress reinvest proceeds into aviation, allowing for additional funding of programs and technologies (ATC modernization, environmentally-friendly synthetic jet fuels, etc.) that promise to further reduce aviation's GHG emissions? Congress should work with the airlines so as not to counter the industry's investments. For generations, flying has contributed to

a better quality of life for Americans. Commercial aviation has been an engine of growth for our economy, yielded breakthrough technologies, brought people together, and transported critical cargo while achieving a stellar environmental track record. As Congress debates the Lieberman-Warner bill and the significant additional fuel tax it proposes to levy on aviation, we urge lawmakers to consider commercial aviation's environmental efforts to

date and how dependent our economy is on the growth of air transportation in the United States.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

297 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Aviation (3/3)
CTL saves airlines money on fuel costs, pollution abatement, and components Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)
F-T fuels offer numerous benefits for aviation users. The first is an immediate reduction in particulate emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown in laboratory combustors and engines to reduce PM emissions by 96% at idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other turbine engine emissions is still under way. Concurrent to the PM reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel. F-T fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy content per carbon content of the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load of fuel. The fuel also offers increased turbine engine life through lowered peak combustion temperature. This reduces stress on hot components in the turbine engine thereby increasing the life of those components. Fuels that burn cooler may also help to reduce the heat signature of aircraft, making them less vulnerable to infrared missile attacks. (Figure 3 shows some of the many applications for F-T jet fuel in military equipment ranging from tanks to fuel cells to spacecraft.) Also critical to meeting the needs of aviation, F-T fuels are truly “drop-in replacements” for their petroleum-based counterparts, requiring no new pipelines, storage facilities, or engine modifications, barriers that have stalled other alternative aviation fuels programs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

298 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Rare Mineral Extraction
CTL allows extraction of valuable minerals Liles 8 (Patricia, J of Comm, 5-18)
Additionally, the chemical conversion process gives off heat, which, if captured, could add to the amount of energy produced by the coal plant, Metz said. In addition to storing carbon dioxide, the process may allow recovery of copper, nickel and platinum minerals from the volcanic rock, Metz said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab

299 Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Econ DA – Turn: Coal Industry (1/2)
The plan saves the coal industry WSJ 7 (9-11)
Expanding coal demand beyond the traditional uses of generating electricity and making steel could lead to big profits for both coal miners and companies that develop coal-to-liquids technology. Greg Boyce, chief executive of major coal miner Peabody Energy Corp. of St. Louis, said at a conference last week that using coal to make transportation fuel could increase annual U.S. coal demand by one billion tons by 2030, compared with demand of 1.2 billion tons in 2006.

The effect on growth is massive Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 12)
The National Coal Council's recommendations are tantamount to the creation of an entirely new energy manufacturing industry in the United States, generating millions of jobs, resulting in a significantly improved balance of trade, and producing greater income, wealth, and environmental quality for all Americans. The initial expenditures to jumpstart this new energy manufacturing industry will require a significant investment of capital. The risk associated with such an undertaking will be perceived as substantial, given the historic volatility of oil prices, and more recently, the price of natural gas. The most significant contribution government can make to this endeavor is to lower the risk profile of investment. The National Coal Council recommends that capital funding policies be implemented to encourage the private sector to step forward on a massive scale. The specific fiscal, tax, financial, and regulatory recommendations presented here are all designed to encourage private sector commitments to seize this opportunity and secure America’s energy future.

More ev… Kraemer 6 (Thomas, Chair-Nat’l Coal Council, Coal: America’s Energy Future, p. 18)
These technologies, and the industries arising from them, will reinvigorate U.S. industry, make our country more secure, significantly reduce the trade deficit, contribute to lower and more stable fuel prices, and stimulate economic growth. For these reasons, coal should become part of our thinking, planning and investment in the provision of liquid fuels for society.

The plan saves the coal industry Brown 8 (Matthew, Associated Press, March 22, http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/032208/bus_260502419.shtml)
Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The Air Force's involvement comes at a

critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan. "This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone." Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry. That means the Air Force would need at least seven plants of the same size to meet its 2016 goal, said Col. Bobbie "Griff"