SS Xu Marshall 1AC Rd 7-8.doc - ddi11

Document Sample
SS Xu Marshall 1AC Rd 7-8.doc - ddi11 Powered By Docstoc
					Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                                        File Title – 1

Plan text: The United States federal government should deploy Space Based Solar Power

                                                           ADV 1 is Deterrence
                                                        Scenario one is Aerospace
Uncertain Space Policy is Crippling the Aerospace Industry- Government action is key
Maser 11
[Jim, Chair of the Corporate Membership Committee – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and President – Pratt &
Whitney Rocketdyne, ―A Review of NASA‘s Exploration Program in Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry‖, U.S. House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee Hearing, 3-30,]
      Access to space plays a significant part in the Department of Defense‘s ability to secure our nation. The lack of a unified national strategy
      brings uncertainty in volume, meaning that fixed costs will go up in the short term across all customers until actual demand
      levels are understood. Furthermore, the lack of space policy will have ripple effects in the defense budget and elsewhere,
      raising costs when it is in everyone‘s interests to contain costs.Now, it is of course true that there are uncertainties about the best way to
      move forward. This was true in the early days of space exploration and in the Apollo and Shuttle eras.Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of
      waiting until we have all the answers. We must not ―let the best be the enemy of the good.‖ In other words, selecting a configuration that
      we are absolutely certain is the optimum configuration is not as important as expeditiously selecting one of the many
      workable configurations, so that we can move forward.This industry has smart people with excellent judgment, and we will figure the details
      out, but not if we don‘t get moving soon. NASA must initiate SLS and MPCV efforts without gapping the program efforts already in place intended to
      support Constellation.The time for industry and government to work together to define future space policy is now. We must
      establish an overarching policy that recognizes the synergy among all government space launch customers to determine the right sustainable industry size,
      and plan on funding it accordingly.The need to move with clear velocity is imperative if we are to sustain our endangered U.S. space industrial base, to
      protect our national security, and to retain our position as the world leader in human spaceflight and space exploration. I believe that if we work together
      we can achieve these goals.We are ready to help in any way that we can. But the clock is ticking.

Infrastructure and tech advances of SPS provide a framework to ensure the US remains the aerospace
NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed Defense
Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
     FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace
     Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace
     technical and industrial base, our ―national jewel‖ which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP
     program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United
     States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st
     century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long‐term
     research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several
     decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold
     War…Government policies and investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation
     does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure
     investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort.
     Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national
     aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives
     necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission
     recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our
     industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased
     and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission
     concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that our
     freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer
     new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States
     create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - necessary for developing and
     supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to
     Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to
     commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and
     global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                                        File Title – 2
    a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and
    supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that
    government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to
    government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international
    sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national
    security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions
    affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without
    constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a
    fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research
    to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through
    continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation
    was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems
    and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace
    research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of
    national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that,
    ―America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific
    discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership
    in space.‖ An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.

Aerospace Power in space is key to Heg
Snead 07 – [Mike Sead Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development ,
―How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,‖ Spacefaring America Blog, 6/3,
true-spacefaring-nation.aspx, Caplan]
    Why is being a great power important to the United States? The reason is quite fundamental and clearly evident from the events of the 20th
    century. A nation whose citizens wish to remain free either establishes strong political and military alliances with a great power willing to protect their
    freedom or, absent such a protector, becomes a great power. In the Revolutionary War, Americans broke free of Great Britain by forming an alliance with
    France—another great power of the day that was willing to expend its treasure to help Americans gain freedom (and without requiring a formal, permanent
    alliance with France!). The U.S. repaid this moral debt to France in World War I and II and accepted the great power protector role with many other
    countries. Because there is no great power protector nation waiting in the wings to assure America's freedom, America must
    act to sustain its great power status. What role does becoming a true spacefaring nation play in great power status? Recall, from SA
    Blog 4, the Aerospace Commission's conclusion: "The Commission concludes that the nation will have to be a space-faring nation to be the global leader
    in the 21st century—our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it." (Note: this was the Aerospace Commission's conclusion and not from
    the national security-focused Space Commission.) A "global leader" is a great nation. This conclusion is an extension of the fact that many great nations
    have depended on their seafaring and, most recently, air-faring capabilities to sustain their great power status. In looking at Waltz's five great power
    criteria, seafaring/air-fairing extended territory, increased population, provided access to new and different resources, increased economic strength through
    trade, provided the logistics mobility to forge new political alliances, and, obviously, added military power. While seafaring and air-fairing extend, in two
    dimensions, a great nation's power projection capabilities beyond its contiguous land borders to enable it to access the entire planet,
    spacefaring will enable great nations to extend their power in three dimensions into space. Several of Waltz's great power
    criteria will be influenced by a great power becoming spacefaring: Territory: A spacefaring nation will in the mid-term
    have access to the entire Earth-Moon system followed by the entire central solar system. In the longer term, this access will
    grow to the entire solar system. A spacefaring great power will reach across the solar system just as today's great power's
    have economic, political, and security reach across the planet. Resource endowment: A spacefaring nation will have access
    to traditional, but extraterrestrial material resources from, in the mid-term, the Moon, asteroids, and comets. (Note: We
    don't think of these as traditional raw material resources today, but neither was the ocean bottom viewed as a significant
    source of energy resources only a century ago.) A spacefaring nation will also have access to new, non-traditional resources in space—vacuum;
    zero-gravity; unlimited, 24/365 solar energy; and, potentially, entirely new physics-based energy sources. Economic capability: Economic capability arises
    from human enterprise applied to extracting wealth (either material or intellectual) from accessing resources. A spacefaring nation will have the
    spacefaring logistics infrastructure to enable its citizens and private enterprises to access and make use of the resources of space. Military
    strength: A spacefaring nation will have the technologies and spacefaring logistics infrastructure necessary to enable its
    military to: (1) exploit space to better provide for national security; (2) protect and defend the spacefaring nation's space
    enterprises and its citizens living and working in space; (3) protect the Earth and the Moon from impact by significant
    asteroids and comets; (4) use its military space capabilities to support human and robotic scientific discovery and exploration; and, (5) use the
    development of advanced military capabilities to "prime the technology pump" for further commercial technology and capability advancements—
    particularly with respect to spacefaring logistics. Why is it important for the U.S., as a great power today, to become spacefaring to preserve
    great power status in the 21st century? Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This
    competition is often based on advancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new
    operational capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power that does
    not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively less powerful. Eventually, it loses the great
    power status and then must align itself with another great power for protection. As the pace of science and technology
    advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered
    flight in 1903, a decade later leadership in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights, the
    great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                                         File Title – 3
    was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war,
    the U.S. found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930's—you may recall
    that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage
    compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "game changer" for conventional
    warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive and generally needed air superiority to prevail.
    With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from becoming air-
    faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths through expanded national space
    power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the rapid growth of current great powers to the point
    that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S. Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already
    speaking of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace
    technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation, starting in 2009 with
    the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through prudent increases in
    military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is an advantage that the
    next presidential administration should exercise.

And Aerospace Decline Kills Air Power
Thompson 9 (David, President – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ―The Aerospace Workforce‖,
Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis)
    Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological vitality,
    and global leadership. Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies abroad. They connect
    the farthest corners of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and satellite communications, and they monitor
    the Earth, explore the solar system, and study the wider universe . The U.S. aerospace sector also contributes in major ways to America's
    economic output and high- technology employment. Aerospace research and development and manufacturing companies generated approximately $240
    billion in sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75 percent of our country's gross national product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout our
    country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees to the sector's
    workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people. Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the largest
    concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth. However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the most serious demographic challenge in his
    100-year history. Simply put, today, many more older, experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental
    aerospace workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become even more severe over the next five years as the
    final members of the Apollo-era generation of engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact,
    around 50 percent of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years. Meanwhile, the supply of younger
    aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we
    see in the near future. In part, this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our country's universities
    continue a multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other industries keeps increasing. Today, only about
    15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in engineering or science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and
    Asian countries. Due to the dual-use nature of aerospace technology and the limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S. citizens, our
    industry's ability to hire the best and brightest graduates from overseas is also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse
    current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second
    question concerns the implications of a cutback in human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human spaceflight
    programs directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers, its influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow's
    aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate employment contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human
    spaceflight have been tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to pursue careers in the aerospace
    sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA members have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show
    in brief video interviews at the end of my statement. Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a recent study conducted
    earlier this year by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they
    chose this field of study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a major cutback in U.S. human space programs would be
    substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback would put even greater stress on an already weakened strategic sector of
    our domestic high-technology workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be considered as decisions are made on the funding and
    direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the
    previously noted critical influence on the future supply of aerospace professionals, administration and congressional leaders should also consider the
    collateral damage to the space industrial base if human space programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low annual production rates and
    highly-specialized product requirements, the domestic supply chain for space systems is relatively fragile. Many second-
    and third-tier suppliers in particular operate at marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could
    force some critical suppliers to exit this sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in
    total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008. Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending could have
    large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and scientific space programs as well, potentially
    triggering a series of disruptive changes in the common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on.

Airpower controls escalation to all conflicts
Tellis 98 (Ashley, Senior Political Scientist – RAND, ―Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century‖, http://www.rand.
    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
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                            File Title – 4
     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. 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.

                                     Scenario two is forward deployment
SPS is key to foreward deployment and eliminates supply lines
Taylor Dinerman, senior editor at the Hudson Institute‘s New York branch and co-author of the forthcoming Towards a Theory of
Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National Defense University Press, 11/24/2008, ―Space solar power and the Khyber Pass‖, The
Space Review,
    Last year the National Security Space Office released its initial report on space solar power (SSP). One of the primary
    justifications for the project was the potential of the system to provide power from space for remote military bases.
    Electrical power is only part of the story. If the military really wants to be able to operate for long periods of time without
    using vulnerable supply lines it will have to find a new way to get liquid fuel to its forward operating forces. This may seem
    impossible at first glance, but by combining space solar power with some of the innovative alternative fuels and fuel
    manufacturing systems that are now in the pipeline, and given enough time and effort, the problem could be solved. The
    trick is, of course, to have enough raw energy available so that it is possible to transform whatever is available into liquid
    fuel. This may mean something as easy as making methanol from sugar cane or making jet fuel from natural gas, or
    something as exotic as cellulosic ethanol from waste products. Afghanistan has coal and natural gas that could be turned
    into liquid fuels with the right technology. What is needed is a portable system that can be transported in standard
    containers and set up anywhere there are the resources needed to make fuel. This can be done even before space solar
    power is available, but with SSP it becomes much easier. In the longer run Pakistan‘s closure of the Khyber Pass supply
    route justifies investment in SSP as a technology that landlocked nations can use to avoid the pressures and threats that they
    now have to live with. Without access to the sea, nations such as Afghanistan are all too vulnerable to machinations from
    their neighbors. Imagine how different history would be if the Afghans had had a ―Polish Corridor‖ and their own port.
    Their access to the world economy might have changed their culture in positive ways. Bangladesh and Indonesia are both
    Muslim states whose access to the oceans have helped them adapt to the modern world.

Shifting to renewables is key to maintain forward deployment capabilities and sustain military power
Wald and Captain 09
[ General Charles F. Wald (USAF Ret) Director and Senior Advisor, Aerospace & Defense Industry, Tom Captain Vice Chairman,
Global and U.S. Aerospace & Defense Industry Leader, ― Energy Security America‘s Best Defense‖ 2009,, Caplan]
      Energy security and national security are closely interrelated: threats to the former are likely to translate as threats to the
      latter. The U.S. military, in its planning for the future, recognizes the ability of an adversary (or adversaries) to use the ‗oil
      weapon.‘ The control over enormous oil supplies gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose
      democratic interests and values — and the United States and its allies. Case in point — Russia has withheld natural gas
      supplies to both Ukraine and Georgia in the last few years alone, demonstrating that, as the Economist wrote in 2006,
      ―when it comes to hydrocarbons, geopolitics, and geology are inextricable.‖ The global oil market is highly vulnerable to
      potential supply disruptions. Global energy reserves are heavily concentrated among a handful of major producers and the
      largest consuming centers are often far from producing basins. Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global
      sea routes. These ―lines of communication‖ (LOCs) represent a critical part of the global energy security infrastructure due
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                                         File Title – 5
   to the high percentage of the world‘s daily energy supply that passes through their narrow straits. The Straits of Hormuz,
   Strait of Malacca, Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Bab el-Mandeb, and Bosporus/Turkish Straits are all extremely critical and
   vulnerable LOCs. Disruptions at any one of these chokepoints could interrupt a significant percentage of the world‘s daily
   requirement for fuel. The Straits of Hormuz is the world‘s most important oil chokepoint, with over 17 million barrels of oil
   passing through it every day. That equates to roughly 40% of all seaborne traded oil and more than 20% of oil traded
   worldwide. At its narrowest point, the straits are 21 miles wide, and the shipping lanes consist of two-mile wide channels
   for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a two-mile wide buffer zone. In early 2009, the U.S. DoD Under
   Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), Dr. Ashton Carter, testified to Congress that
   ―protecting large fuel convoys imposes a huge burden on the combat forces.‖ He went on to say that ―reducing the fuel
   demand would move the department more towards efficient force structure by enabling more combat forces supported by
   fewer logistics assets, reducing operating costs, and mitigating budget effects caused by fuel price volatility.‖ At the U.S.
   Marines Corps‘ (USMC) 2009 Energy Summit, Commandant General James Conway identified fuel convoy security in
   Afghanistan as one of his most pressing problems related to risk of casualties. General Conway said he was in the process
   of reorganizing the USMC/Headquarters (HQ) staff to better address energy problems and to more clearly focus on energy
   efficiency. During that conference, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, made the same comment
   regarding his U.S. Navy HQ staff. On any given day, the U.S. military hosts a substantial forward contingent abroad,
   serving in strategically critical support missions. Since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began in 2001 and 2003,
   respectively, the amount of oil consumption at forward bases has increased tenfold. Every forward operating base (FOB) in
   Afghanistan requires a minimum of 300 gallons of diesel daily to satisfy its requirements. A typical USMC combat brigade
   alone requires over 500,000 gallons of fuel per day. High fuel requirements in forward deployed locations present the
   military with a significant logistical burden. More importantly, the transport of this fuel via truck convoy represents
   casualty risks, not only from IEDs and enemy attacks, but also rough weather, traffic accidents, and pilferage. DoD officials
   reported that in June 2008 alone, a combination of these factors caused the loss of some 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel .
   The following pictures illustrate the logistical difficulty in fuel transport and distribution in theaters of war. They dramatically illustrate the magnitude,
   vulnerability, and conditions that the operation consists of in the type of expeditionary warfare experienced in the last 20 years. According to a 2001
   Defense Science Board (DSB) report, over 70% of the tonnage required to position today‘s U.S. Army into battle is fuel. With the logistics, fuel convoys
   and distribution requirements to transport fuel into battle, it is not surprising that U.S. adversaries are targeting one of its most vulnerable assets. In
   addition, the number of fuel convoys — trucks traveling over unimproved roads in remote areas — has skyrocketed in the
   Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, in order to supply the engines of the personnel carriers, camp generators, jeeps, tanks and
   other equipment requiring a continuous oil supply to operate. Between July 2003 and May 2009, IEDs accounted for some 43% of U.S.
   fatalities in Iraq. For many months between 2005 and 2008, the IED-related fatality rate exceeded 50% (as seen in the chart below). Convoys, whose
   primary tonnage is fuel, represent a substantial target of IED-related assaults. Over the past five fiscal years (FY 2005 through FY 2009), IEDs accounted
   for about 38% of U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan. In contrast to the situation in Iraq where IED related U.S. casualties declined both in absolute numbers and
   as a percentage of total U.S. casualties beginning in the second half of 2007, the situation in Afghanistan has only worsened, both in absolute numbers and
   as a percentage of total U.S. fatalities, as seen in the chart below. Indeed, the total U.S. IED-related fatalities in Afghanistan for just the two months of July
   and August 2009 were 50% higher than they were for the entirety of FY 2007. For FY 2009, IEDs will likely have accounted for slightly more than half of
   all U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the following chart correlates the number of total U.S. casualties in Afghanistan — killed in action and
   wounded — from 2002 through the present, to the increasing consumption of fuel by U.S. forces. This demonstrates that the number of convoys required
   to transport an ever increasing requirement for fossil fuels is itself a root cause of casualties, both wounded and killed in action. As mentioned, the use of
   improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and roadside bombs by U.S. adversaries has been an especially effective means to
   disable friendly fighting forces by disrupting their supply of energy. The chart shows that the current Afghan conflict may
   result in a 124% increase in U.S. casualties through 2014 (17.5% CAGR), should the war be prosecuted with a similar
   profile to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Beyond the danger to lives — the most important issue raised here — there is the issue
   of cost. Beyond the basic purchase cost of fuel are other ‗hidden‘ costs, including maintaining fuel transport equipment,
   training personnel, and maintaining and protecting the oil supply chain. The military currently pays between $2 and $3 per
   gallon for fuel depending on market conditions. The process of getting the fuel to its intended destination, even assuming
   that no protection is provided to the convoys during transport, increases the cost to nearly $15 a gallon. Protection of fuel
   convoys in combat zones requires an enormous show of force in the form of armored vehicles, helicopters, and fixed wing
   aircraft, forcing costs even higher. Protecting fuel convoys from the ground and air costs the DoD upward of 15 times the
   actual purchase cost of fuel, depending on the level of protection required by the convoy and the current market prices of
   the fuel commodity. Fuel costs grow exponentially as the delivery distance increases or when force protection is provided
   from air. The following chart illustrates the fully burdened costs of fuel and shows how high the cost is to protect and
   transport this fuel to its final destination, bringing the cost per gallon to almost $45 per gallon, compared to the average cost
   at the retail gas pump of approximately $3 per gallon in 2009. The business case for alternative energy development has
   rested first on the concept of a sustainable planet, resulting in reductions in hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions in
   the creation and use of fossil fuels. With the dramatic rise in the price of oil seen in 2008, and increased recognition that the
   oil supply may be limited, the business case has shifted emphasis to the economic benefit for developing and using
   renewable energy sources. This study demonstrates that the development and use of alternative energy can be a direct cause
   for reductions in wartime casualties and may rank on par with the business cases for development of ever more effective
   offensive weapons, sophisticated fuel transport tankers, mine resistant armored vehicles, and net-centric sensing
   technologies. Aerospace and Defense firms, their government customers, and research labs around the world are well
   positioned to accelerate the development and deployment of such technologies.
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                                      File Title – 6

That’s key to deter conflict and sustains leadership
Gerson 9 – Michael S. Gerson, Research analyst @ Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research center, where
he focuses on deterrence, nuclear strategy, counterproliferation, and arms control, Autumn 2009, ―Conventional
Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age,‖ Parameters
   Conventional deterrence also plays an important role in preventing nonnuclear aggression by nuclear-armed regimes. Regional nuclear
   proliferation may not only increase the chances for the use of nuclear weapons, but, equally important, the possibility of conventional aggression. The potential
   for conventional conflict under the shadow of mutual nuclear deterrence was a perennial concern throughout the Cold War, and that scenario is still relevant. A
   nuclear-armed adversary may be emboldened to use conventional force against US friends and allies, or to sponsor terrorism , in
   the belief that its nuclear capabilities give it an effective deterrent against US retaliation or intervention.15 For example, a regime
   might calculate that it could undertake conventional aggression against a neighbor and, after achieving a relatively quick victory,
   issue implicit or explicit nuclear threats in the expectation that the United States (and perhaps coalition partners) would choose not to get
   In this context, conventional deterrence can be an important mechanism to limit options for regional aggression below the nuclear
   threshold. By deploying robust conventional forces in and around the theater of potential conflict, the United States can credibly
   signal that it can respond to conventional aggression at the outset , and therefore the opponent cannot hope to simultaneously
   achieve a quick conventional victory and use nuclear threats to deter US involvement . Moreover, if the United States can convince an
   opponent that US forces will be engaged at the beginning of hostilities—and will therefore incur the human and financial costs of war from the
   start—it can help persuade opponents that the United States would be highly resolved to fight even in the face of nuclear threats
   because American blood and treasure would have already been expended.16 Similar to the Cold War, the deployment of conventional power in the
   region, combined with significant nuclear capabilities and escalation dominance, can help prevent regimes from believing that nuclear
   possession provides opportunities for conventional aggression and coercion.

                                                   Scenario 3 is Space Leadership
Developing SPS is key to maintain the lead in space technology
Cox 11
[ William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist.                                                                  ,
3/30/11, Caplan]
      Presently, only the top industrialized nations have the technological, industrial and economic power to compete in the race
     for space solar energy. In spite of, and perhaps because of, the current disaster, Japan occupies the inside track, as it is the
     only nation that has a dedicated space solar energy program and which is highly motivated to change directions. China,
     which has launched astronauts into an earth orbit and is rapidly become the world‘s leader in the production of wind and
     solar generation products, will undoubtedly become a strong competitor. However, the United States, which should have
     every advantage in the race, is most likely to stumble out of the gate and waste the best chance it has to solve its economic,
     energy, political and military problems. A miraculous source of abundant energy Space-solar energy is the greatest source
     of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely solve the world‘s energy and greenhouse gas emission problems.
     The technology currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites into geostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the
     Sun‘s radiant energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to safely transmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying
     antennas on Earth. Following its proposal by Dr. Peter Glaser in 1968, the concept of solar power satellites was extensively
     studied by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By
     1981, the organizations determined that the idea was a high-risk venture; however, they recommended further study. With
     increases in electricity demand and costs, NASA took a ―fresh look‖ at the concept between 1995 and 1997. The NASA
     study envisioned a trillion-dollar project to place several dozen solar-power satellites in geostationary orbits by 2050,
     sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to Earth. The NASA effort successfully demonstrated the
     ability to transmit electrical energy by microwaves through the atmosphere; however, the study‘s leader, John Mankins,
     now says the program ―has fallen through the cracks because no organization is responsible for both space programs and
     energy security.‖ The project may have remained shelved except for the military‘s need for sources of energy in its
     campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the cost of gasoline and diesel exceeds $400 a gallon. A report by the
     Department of Defense‘s National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the U.S. ―begin a coordinated national
     program‖ to develop space-based solar power. There are three basic engineering problems presented in the deployment of a
     space-based solar power system: the size, weight and capacity of solar collectors to absorb energy; the ability of robots to
     assemble solar collectors in outer space; and the cost and reliability of lifting collectors and robots into space. Two of these
     problems have been substantially solved since space-solar power was originally proposed. New thin-film advances in the
     design of solar collectors have steadily improved, allowing for increases in the efficiency of energy conversion and
     decreases in size and weight. At the same time, industrial robots have been greatly improved and are now used extensively
     in heavy manufacturing to perform complex tasks. The remaining problem is the expense of lifting equipment and materials
     into space. The last few flights of the space shuttle this year will cost $20,000 per kilogram of payload to move satellites
     into orbit and resupply the space station. It has been estimated that economic viability of space solar energy would require a
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                                          File Title – 7
     reduction in the payload cost to less than $200 per kilogram and the total expense, including delivery and assembly in orbit,
     to less than $3,500 per kilogram. Although there are substantial costs associated with the development of space-solar
     power, it makes far more sense to invest precious public resources in the development of an efficient and reliable power
     supply for the future, rather than to waste U.S. tax dollars on an ineffective missile defense system, an ego trip to Mars, or
     $36 billion in risky loan guarantees by the DOE to the nuclear power industry. With funding for the space shuttle ending
     next year and for the space station in 2017, the United States must decide upon a realistic policy for space exploration, or
     else it will be left on the ground by other nations, which are rapidly developing futuristic space projects. China is currently
     investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energy-efficient green technology, and has become
     the world‘s leading producer of solar panels. In addition, China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts
     and by demonstrating a capability to destroy the satellites of other nations. Over the past two years, Japan has committed
     $21 billion to secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plans to ―put into
     geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a
     large nuclear power plant.‖ Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately, they will be able to deliver electricity at a cost of
     $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive with all other sources.

Maintaining Space Leadership is key to heg
Stone 11
Chris Stone - space policy analyst and strategist, MBA from Georgetown, 3-2011, ―American leadership in space:
leadership through capability,‖
   When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedman‘s
   assertion that space is ―often‖ overlooked in ―foreign relations and geopolitical strategies‖. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national
   grand geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that
   the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to
   ―shape‖ the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as ―The World We Seek‖. Using space to shape
   the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of ―shaping‖ is that we appear to have
   changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to
   base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional
   national leadership would start by advancing United States‘ space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward
   shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States‘ goal should be leadership through
   spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased
   space security and opportunities for all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and
   political example. The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological
   advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did
   not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary
   commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved
   exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of
   leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting
   down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying
   millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion‘s share of the cost of construction. Why
   would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and
   whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner
   rather than later. Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world ―hegemony‖ or ―superiority‖ as dirty words . Some
   seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of
   access to space for the purpose of advancing their ―security, prestige and wealth‖ through exploration like we do. However, to
   maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership
   model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion,
   space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude
   international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security,
   prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you
   that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not
   all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as ―congested, contested, and competitive‖; the quest for excellence is
   just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in
   space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires
   expanded international engagement in space. If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space
   programs as the advancement of its national ―security, prestige and wealth‖ by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities
   and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community. These energies and
   influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will
   require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a
   requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives ―worthy of a great nation‖.

The Guiding impact is great power war
Zhang and Shi, 1/22/11 – Yuhan Zhang is a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.;
Lin Shi is from Columbia University. She also serves as an independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                                File Title – 8
World     Bank      in   Washington,     D.C.     (America‘s     decline:    A      harbinger              of    conflict     and      rivalry,

This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps
alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the world‘s largest, the once
seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is shifting,
and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict
regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these
circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a
subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined
the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers
together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more
diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history
attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century America‘s emergence as
a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the
increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‗rules the
waves.‘ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere‘s security to become
the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are
three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some
degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and
flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system,
proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America‘s influence declines? Given
that America‘s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe,
the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a
profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the
problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the
World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill
the vacuum left by Washington‘s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free
markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such
power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the
rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power
eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American hegemony is one where
great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves
into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of
unrivalled US primacy.

No Risk of Heg Bad- control of space means no backlash
Posen 03
[Posen, Barry R. "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony." International Security. Vol. 28, No. 1
(Summer 2003): 5-46., Caplan ]
Command of the commons creates additional collective goods for U.S. allies. These collective goods help connect U.S. military power
to seemingly prosaic welfare concerns. U.S. military power underwrites world trade, travel, global telecommunications, and
commercial remote sensing, which all depend on peace and order in the commons. Those nations most involved in these activities,
those who profit most from globalization, seem to understand that they benefit from the U.S. military position which may help explain
why the world‘s consequential powers have grudgingly supported U.S. hegemony.

                                                   Advantage 2 is Energy

                                                  Scenario 1 is Warming-
It’s real, anthropogenic and causes extinction
Deibel, Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007 (Terry L., ―Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft‖ pages
     Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which,
     though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which
     all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and
     what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles
     on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                           File Title – 9
     occurring. ―In legitimate scientific circles,‖ writes Elizabeth Kolbert, ―it is virtually impossible to find evidence of
     disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.‖ Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort
     accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts ―brutal droughts,
     floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century‖; climate change could ―literally alter ocean currents, wipe
     away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria‖; ―glaciers in the Antarctic and in
     Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade
     ago‖; ―rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes‖;
     ―NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with
     1998 a close second‖; ―Earth‘s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million
     illnesses each year‖ as disease spreads; ―widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals‖ due
     to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. ―The world is slowly disintegrating,‖ concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives
     30 miles from the Arctic Circle. ―They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.‖ From the founding of the
     first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
     remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by
     2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so
     there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the
     only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already
     experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and
     animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the
     Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a
     sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina‘s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and
     inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the
     Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise
     allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at
     1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is
     runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both
     caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in
     average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of
     carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that ―humankind‘s continuing
     enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth‘s climate and humanity‘s
     life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, ―we‘re just going to burn
     everything up; we‘re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at
     the poles, and then everything will collapse.‖ During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear
     winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both
     countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era‘s equivalent of nuclear winter at
     least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and
     traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but
     potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.

Models prove our argument and your authors are paid off
Robert Hunter, cofounder of Greenpeace and a Canadian environmentalist, journalist, author and politician, 20 03, ―Thermageddon:
Countdown to 2030‖, pg. 139
    In its initial report, the IPCC concluded, famously, that ―the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
    global climate.‖ It also noted that the ―anthropogenic signal‖ — evidence of human activity at the root of changes — was
    still emerging from the background of natural variability. Now, however, the authors state that new estimates of climate
    response to natural and anthropogenic forcing are available, and new detection techniques have been applied. These studies
    ―consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 [to] 50 years.‖ Model estimates
    of the rate of anthropogenic warming are consistent with observations in the majority of cases. Simulations of the response
    to natural ―forcings‖ alone, including the response to solar variability and volcanic eruptions, indicate that natural pressures
    may play a role in the observed warming in the first half of the twentieth century, but fail to explain the warming in the
    latter half of the century. ―The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases over the last 50 years can be identified despite
    uncertainties in other forcings‖ [my italics] The scientists conclude that the twentieth century‘s climate was unusual. The
    observed warming in the latter half of the century is ―inconsistent‖ with models of natural internal climate variability.
    Thus, anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation for the twentieth-century temperature change. There is still a handful
    of people getting their funding or salaries from the oil, coal, and chemical industries who continue to try to argue that it is
    purely a coincidence that greenhouse=gas concentrations, particularly CO2, are at their highest levels in millions of years,
    just as global temperatures begin to soar. It is to be expected that such people would deliberately distort or ignore the
    IPCC‘s findings. Their behavior, under the circumstances, is merely repugnant.
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                  File Title – 10
And, we’re nearing the point of no return—holding the line on current emissions while transitioning to
solar power key to check feedback cycles
Biello 10 (David Biello, award winning journalist and associate editor for Scientific American, 9/9/10, Scientific
American, ―How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Plants Today?‖,

Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new
calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations
below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—
both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a
new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-
burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural gas—every day. A team of scientists
analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if
all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon
dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions". That assumes life spans of roughly 40
years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively,
given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500
gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm
with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than
present levels and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations. Still, we are rapidly approaching a point
of no return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global
Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-emitting devices will
be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as
highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting
alternatives, such as electric cars. And since 2000 the world has added 416 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, 449
gigawatts of natural gas–fired power plants and even 47.5 gigawatts of oil-fired power plants, according to the study's
figures. China alone is already responsible for more than a third of the global "committed emissions," including adding
2,000 cars a week to the streets of Beijing as well as 322 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants built since 2000. The U.S.—
the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, among major countries—has continued a transition to less
CO2-intensive energy use that started in the early 20th century. Natural gas—which emits 40 percent less CO2 than coal
when burned—now dominates new power plants (nearly 188 gigawatts added since 2000) along with wind (roughly 28
gigawatts added), a trend broadly similar to other developed nations such as Japan or Germany. But the U.S. still
generates half of its electricity via coal burning—and what replaces those power plants over the next several decades will
play a huge role in determining the ultimate degree of global climate change. Coal-burning poses other threats as well,
including the toxic coal ash that can spill from the impoundments where it is kept; other polluting emissions that cause
acid rain and smog; and the soot that causes and estimated 13,200 extra deaths and nearly 218,000 asthma attacks per
year, according to a report from the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. "Unfortunately, persistently elevated
levels of fine particle pollution are common across wide swaths of the country," reveals the 2010 report, released
September 9. "Most of these pollutants originate from combustion sources such as power plants, diesel trucks, buses and
cars." Of course, those are the same culprits contributing the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet "programs to scale up
'carbon neutral' energy are moving slowly at best," notes physicist Martin Hoffert of New York University in a
perspective on the research also published in Science on September 10. "The difficulties posed by generating even [one
terawatt] of carbon-neutral power led the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley and colleagues to call it the 'terawatt
challenge'." That is because all carbon-free sources of energy combined provide a little more than two of the 15 terawatts
that power modern society—the bulk of that from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. At least 10 terawatts each from
nuclear; coal with carbon capture and storage; and renewables, such as solar and wind, would be required by mid-century
to eliminate CO2 emissions from energy use. As Caldeira and his colleagues wrote: "Satisfying growing demand for
energy without producing CO2 emissions will require truly extraordinary development and deployment of carbon-free
sources of energy, perhaps 30 [terawatts] by 2050."

Warming makes all your war impacts inevitable- climate change is the catalyst for all instability
James R. Lee is a Professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC and Associate Director of
American University's Center for Teaching Excellence. He is author of several books on international relations. 1/4/20 09 ―Global
Warming Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg‖
    The Cold War shaped world politics for half a century. But global warming may shape the patterns of global conflict for
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                         File Title – 11
    much longer than that -- and help spark clashes that will be, in every sense of the word, hot wars. We're used to thinking of
    climate change as an environmental problem, not a military one, but it's long past time to alter that mindset. Climate change
    may mean changes in Western lifestyles, but in some parts of the world, it will mean far more. Living in Washington, I may
    respond to global warming by buying a Prius, planting a tree or lowering my thermostat. But elsewhere, people will
    respond to climate change by building bomb shelters and buying guns. "There is every reason to believe that as the 21st
    century unfolds, the security story will be bound together with climate change," warns John Ashton, a veteran diplomat
    who is now the United Kingdom's first special envoy on climate change. "The last time the world faced a challenge this
    complex was during the Cold War. Yet the stakes this time are even higher because the enemy now is ourselves, the choices
    we make." Defense experts have also started to see the link between climate change and conflict. A 2007 CNA Corp.
    report, supervised by a dozen retired admirals and generals, warned that climate change could lead to political unrest in
    numerous badly hit countries, then perhaps to outright bloodshed and battle.

                                                 Scenario 2 is Peak Oil
Its’ real, fast, and there’s no escape- alternatives are unfeasible, destroy the environment, and are
politically inflated, but the government won’t do anything about it
 John Bellamy Foster, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, 20 05, ―Peak Oil and Energy Imperialism‖
    In the five years that have elapsed since the United States invaded Iraq the world oil supply problem has drastically
    worsened. Estimates of the potential for increased Iraqi oil production made prior to the war had suggested that Iraq free of
    sanctions could potentially increase its crude oil production within a decade from its previous 1979 high of 3.5 million
    barrels a day (mb/d) to 6 or even 10 mb/d. 15 Instead, Iraq‘s average annual oil production in 2007 had fallen to 13 per cent
    below its 2001 level, having declined from 2.4 to 2.1 mb/d. Oil production in the Persian Gulf as a whole increased by 2.4
    mb/d on average between 2001 and 2005 and then dropped by 4 per cent in 2005–07, along with the stagnation of world oil
    production as a whole. 16 At the time U.S. troops reached Baghdad peak oil was already a specter looming over the globe.
    Today it is present in all establishment discussions of the world oil issue. Peak oil is not the same as running out of oil.
    Rather it simply means the peaking and subsequent terminal decline of oil production, as determined primarily by
    geological and technological factors. The extraction of oil from any given oil welltypically takes the form of a symmetrical,
    bell-shaped curve with extraction steadily rising, e.g., by 2 per cent a year, until a peak is reached when about half of the
    accessible oil has been extracted. Since oil production for an entire country is simply a product of the aggregation of
    individual wells, national oil production can be expected to take the form of a bell-shaped curve as well. Geologists have
    become adept at estimating the point at which a peak in national production will occur. These methods were pioneered in
    the 1950s by oil geologist M. King Hubbert, who achieved fame for successfully predicting the U.S. oil peak in 1970. The
    eventual peak in oil production is therefore sometimes known as ―Hubbert‘s peak.‖ Peak oil is generally viewed in terms of
    the peaking of conventional crude oil supplies on which the main estimates of oil reserves are based. There are also
    unconventional sources of oil that can be produced at much greater cost and with a much lower energy returned on energy
    invested (EROEI) ratio. These include heavy oil, petroleum derived from oil sand, and shale oil. As the price of oil rises
    some of these sources become more exploitable, but also at much greater cost—monetarily and to the environment. It is
    estimated that it takes an equivalent of two out of three barrels of oil produced to pay for the energy and other costs
    associated with extracting oil from the tar sands in Alberta. It requires one billion cubic feet of natural gas to generate one
    million barrels of synthetic oil from oil sands. Two tons of sand must be mined to get one barrel of oil. Oil sand mining also
    requires vast quantities of water, producing two and a half gallons of toxic liquid waste for every barrel of oil extracted.
    This liquid waste is stored in enormous and rapidly expanding ―tailing ponds.‖ The economic and environmental costs are
    thus prohibitive. Peak oil therefore inevitably signals the end of cheap oil. 17 A key part of the argument on peak oil is the
    fact that discoveries of oil fields worldwide peaked in the 1960s, while the average size of new discoveries has also
    declined over time. Those who argue that peak oil is imminent insist that estimates of proven reserves are commonly
    exaggerated for political reasons, and that actual retrievable reserves may be considerably less. The conventional notion
    that there are forty years of crude oil production remaining at current rates of output is seen as misleading, since it
    exaggerates the reserves in the ground and downplays the fact that the economy requires that oil demand and production
    levels increase. Peak oil analysts therefore focus on production levels rather than reserves. The peak oil crisis is more
    sharply defined than the more general crisis in energy, since not only is petroleum the most protean fuel, but it is also the
    preeminent liquid fuel in transportation, for which there is no easy substitute in the quantities needed. Therefore more than
    two-thirds of U.S. oil demand is in the form of gasoline andpetrodiesel consumption by cars and trucks. An imminent peak
    in conventional oil thus strikes at the lifeblood of the existing capitalist economy. It presents the possibility of a drastic
    economic dislocation and slowdown. 18 The peak oil debate, which has often been fierce over the past decade, has now
    narrowed down to two basic positions. One of these is that of ―early peakers‖ (usually seen as peak oil proponents proper).
    These analysts argue that peak oil will probably be reached by 2010–12, and may have already been reached in 2005–06.
    The alternative position, represented by ―late peakers,‖ is that the world oil peak will not be reached until 2020 or 2030. 19
    Hence, there is a growing consensus that peak oil is or will soon be a reality. The chief question now is how soon, and
    whether it is already upon us. An added consideration is whether world oil production will face a classic bellshaped curve,
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                          File Title – 12
   culminating in a slender, rounded peak, to be followed quickly by a decline (within what can be viewed as a symmetrical
   curve)—or whether production will rise to a plateau and then stay there for a while, before declining. In fact, world oil
   supply appears already to have reached a plateau over the last three years at the level of 85 mb/d. This therefore has lent
   credence to the notion that this is the form the peak will initially take. Chart 1: World oil production and supply Source:
   Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, International Petroleum Monthly, April 2008,, tables 1.4d and 4.4.Chart 1 shows world oil production/supply from 1970 to 2007.
   ―Oil‖ according to the IEA (and the EIA, which has adopted an almost identical approach) is defined to include ―all liquid
   fuels and is accounted at the product level. Sources include natural gas liquids and condensates, refinery processing gains,
   and the production of conventional and unconventional oil.‖ Conventional or crude oil is readily processed oil ―produced
   from underground hydrocarbon reservoirs by means of production wells.‖ Unconventional oil is derived from other
   processes, such as liquefied natural gas, oil sands, oil shales, coal-to-liquid, biofuels, ―and/or [other fuel that] . . . needs
   additional processing to produce synthetic crude.‖ 20 The lower line in chart 1, labeled ―crude oil production,‖ refers
   simply to production of conventional oil. The higher line, labeled ―world oil supply,‖ also includes unconventional sources
   plus net refinery processing gains (losses). The ―crude oil production‖ line shows a very slight dip in 2005–07, reflecting
   the fact that crude oil production fell from an average of 73.8 mb/d in 2005 to 73.3 mb/d in 2007. The ―world oil supply‖
   line, however, remains level at about 85 mb/d due to a compensating rise in unconventional sources over the same period,
   resulting in what appears to be a more definite plateau. Explaining that a plateau is the most likely initial outcome at the
   world level, Richard Heinberg, a leading peak oil proponent, writes: Why the plateau? Oil production is constrained by
   economic conditions (in an economic downturn, demand for oil falls off), as well as by political events such as war and
   revolutions. In addition, the shape of the production curve is modified by the increasing availability of unconventional
   petroleum sources (including heavy oil, natural gas plant liquids, and tar sands), as well as new extraction technologies. The
   combined effect of all of these factors is to cushion the peak and lengthen the decline curve. 21 The notion that a partly
   geological-technical, partly political-economic, plateau is emerging has now become the dominant view in the industry. In
   November 2007 the Wall Street Journal reported a growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long
   deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every
   day . . . The near adherents [to the peak oil view]— who range from senior Western oil-company executives to current and
   former officials of the major world exporting countries—don‘t believe that the global oil tank is at the half-empty point.
   But they share the belief that a global production ceiling is coming for other reasons: restricted access to oil fields, spiraling
   costs and increasingly complex oil-field geology. This will create a production plateau, not a peak, they contend, with oil
   output remaining relatively constant rather than rising or falling. The Wall Street Journal article referred to the estimates of
   Cambridge Energy Research Associates, asserting that the peak will not be reached until 2030 and that it will manifest itself
   at first as an ―undulating plateau.‖ But the Journal article also took seriously the views of Simmons, who pointed out that,
   due to declining production in old fields, an increased average daily oil production equivalent to ten times current Alaskan
   production was needed ―just to stay even.‖ Indeed, ―at the furthest out,‖ he suggested, the crisis associated with the world
   peak in conventional oil production would be reached ―in 2008 to 2012.‖ Echoing many of the same worries, some oil
   executives have raised the specter of an oil supply ceiling of 100 million barrels (conventional and unconventional), with
   petroleum supply likely falling short of expected demand within a decade or less. 22 Given the appearance of a world oil
   production plateau at present, and with oil supply seemingly stuck at the 85 mb/d level, it is not surprising that some
   analysts believe that peak oil has already been reached. Thus Simmons and Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens have
   both raised the question of whether the peak was reached in 2005. While the Energy Watch Group in Germany, which
   includes both scientists and members of the German parliament, contends that ―world oil production . . . peaked in 2006.‖
   23 Publicly of course the peak oil problem has often been characterised by establishment sources and the media as a ―fringe
   issue.‖ Yet over the past decade the question has been pursued systematically with increasing concern within the highest
   echelons of capitalist society: within both states and corporations. 24 In February 2005 the U.S. Department of Energy
   released a major report that it had commissioned entitled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk
   Management. The project leader was Robert L. Hirsch of Science Applications International Corporation. Hirsch had
   formerly occupied executive positions in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Exxon, and ARCO. The Hirsch report
   concluded that peak oil was a little over two decades away or nearer. ―Even the most optimistic forecasts,‖ it stated,
   ―suggest that world oil peaking will occur in less than 25 years.‖ The main emphasis of the Hirsch report commissioned by
   the Department of Energy, however, was on the issue of the massive transformations that would be needed in the economy,
   and particularly transportation, in order to mitigate the harmful effects of the end of cheap oil. The enormous problem of
   converting virtually the entire stock of U.S. cars, trucks, and aircraft in just a quarter-century (at most) was viewed as
   presenting intractable difficulties. 25 In October 2005, Hirsch wrote an analysis for Bulletin of the Atlantic Council of the
   United States on ―The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production.‖ He declared therethat, ―previous energy transitions
   (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. The world has
   never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation at least a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive
   and long lasting.‖ 26 Similarly, the U.S. Army released a major report of its own in September 2005 stating: The doubling
   of oil prices from 2003–2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching its peak; low
   growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years. As worldwide petroleum production peaks, geopolitics and
   market economics will cause even more significant price increases and security risks. One can only speculate at the
   outcome from this scenario as world petroleum production declines. 27 Indeed, by 2005 there was little doubt in ruling
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                            File Title – 13
     circles about the likelihood of serious oil shortages and that peak oil was on its way soon or sooner. In its 2005 World
     Energy Outlook the IEA raised the issue of Simmons‘s claims in Twilight in the Desert that Saudi Arabia‘s super-giant
     Ghawar oil field, the largest in the world, ―could,‖ in the IEA‘s words, ―be close to reaching its peak if it has not already
     done so.‖ Likewise the U.S. Department of Energy, which had initially rejected Simmons‘s assessment, backtracked
     between 2004 and 2006, degrading its projection of Saudi oil production in 2025 by 33 per cent. 28 In February 2007 the
     U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a seventy-five-page report on Crude Oil pointedly subtitled:
     Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil
     Production. It argued that almost all studies had shown that a world oil peak would occur sometime before 2040 and that
     U.S. federal agencies had not yet begun to address the issue of the national preparedness necessary to face this impending
     emergency. For the GAO the threat of a major oil shortfall was worsened by the political risks primarily associated with
     four countries, accounting for almost one-third of world (conventional) reserves: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The
     fact that Venezuela contained ―almost 90 per cent of the world‘s proven extra-heavy oil reserves‖ made it all the more
     noteworthy that it constituted a significant ―political risk‖ from Washington‘s standpoint. 29 In April 2008, Jeroen van der
     Ver, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, pronounced that ―we wouldn‘t be surprised if this [easy] oil would peak somewhere in the
     next ten years.‖ Due to a combination of factors including production shortfalls and a declining dollar, oil in May 2008
     reached over $135 a barrel (it averaged $66 in 2006 and $72 in 2007). The same month Goldman Sachs shocked world
     capital markets by coming out with an assessment that oil prices could rise to as much as $200 a barrel in thenext two years.
     Western oil interests were particularly distressed that the first production from Kazakhstan‘s Kashagan oil field (considered
     the largest oil deposit in the world outside the Middle East) was eight years behind schedule due in part to waters frozen
     half the year. By May 2008 the IEA, according to analysts for the New York Times, was preparing to reduce its forecast of
     world oil production for 2030 from its earlier forecasts of 116 mb/d to no more than 100 mb/d.3

Richard Heinberg, CORE FACULTY MEMBER AT NEW COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA, The Party‘s Over: Oil, War and the
Fate of Industrial Societies, 2003, p. 230
      Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. Even citizens of nations that export oil
     – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita. The Carter Doctrine,
     declared in 1980, made it plain that US military might would be applied to the project of dominating the world‘s oil wealth:
     henceforth, any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an ―assault on the vital interests
     of the United States‖ and would be ―repelled by any means necessary, including military force.‖ In the past 60 years, the
     US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope, power, and durability. While
     the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and
     stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of others. During the Cold War, the US military
     apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end
     of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree.
     Rather, their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for
     their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that
     hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical.
     US strategists labeled such challenges ―terrorism‖ — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any
     threat from any potential enemy, foreign or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its
     agents, or its allies. This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is pursued
     with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization, but of
     humanity and most of the biosphere.

The plan provides infinite cheap energy that can completely replace oil and solve global warming- acting
now lets us dominate the energy market and spreads it globally
William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist, May 20 10,
      The industrial revolution has been driven for the past two centuries by the burning of hydrocarbons, first by coal in the Age
      of Steam, and then by oil and natural gas in the Age of Petroleum; however, as the flow of these fossil fuels slows down as
      demand goes up, ever-more-intrusive and massive extraction efforts increasingly threaten the progress of industrialization
      and the civilization it has produced. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the latest and
      largest of hundreds of such ocean spills, and the recent methane gas explosion in Massey‘s Montcoal mine was just another
      example of the continuing disasters, worldwide, which snuff out the lives of workers who labor in dangerous conditions to
      feed our fossil-fuel addiction. All around the planet we live upon, the quest for hydrocarbons is threatening the ability of
      humans to survive in the degrading environment and to govern their own corporate-dominated societies. It is not just the
      environmental destruction caused by the extraction of coal-bed methane in Wyoming and Montana, the ―fracking‖ of deep
      shale-gas formations and the consequential contamination of fresh water aquifers and rivers in the northeastern United
      States, or the blasting away of mountain tops in Appalachia; it is the fact that these extreme efforts are facilitated by a
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                        File Title – 14
   concert of corporate and governmental corruption that erodes freedom and democracy in the United States and threatens
   human civilization around the world. There is no hope for the recovery of earth‘s environment and the survival of human
   civilization as long as extraction decisions are governed by corporate greed. Public energy policy must be based on what is
   good for the people who vote for their representatives, not on what produces profits for the corporations who buy the votes
   of the people‘s representatives. It may already be too late. The environmental destruction caused by the production and
   burning of fossil fuels may have already set in motion irreversible events which will ultimately spell the extinction of
   humanity. But, not to worry. Our loving and forgiving Mother Earth will survive. It may take eons for her oceans, winds,
   and rains to wipe clean the crap we have produced, but someday, never fear, another of Gaia‘s children will learn to fly and
   will study the artifacts of our existence and will wonder of we and why? There may be, however, a more sensible and
   realistic alternative which will preserve the environment and human civilization, and which offers a more exciting and
   rewarding future for our children, as they learn to fly throughout the universe and to explore its adjacent dimensions. So,
   let‘s expand our vision and imagine for a moment how life could be after just a decade or two of innovation in the public
   interest. A Vision for the Future Imagine that the Interstate Highway System and most major streets and freeways in
   America were improved to provide a constant source of electromagnetic energy sufficient to power a standard automobile,
   with comfortable seating for five adults, anywhere in the United States at no cost to the owner-operator. Imagine the
   introduction of triple-hybrid cars designed to operate primarily on electromagnetic energy supplied by induction through
   the surface of most highways and freeways, and which are equipped with small fuel-efficient internal combustion engines
   to supplement rechargeable batteries for trips on local streets and byways. Imagine people could travel for free throughout
   the United States as a matter of national privilege. Workers could get to their jobs without having to labor for the first hour
   each day just to pay for getting there. People would have more money to spend on vacations, and they would be able to tour
   the nation, see the grand sights, and visit with friends and relatives along the way. Imagine the positive economic
   consequences flowing from the rehabilitation of America‘s transportation infrastructure and the creation of a domestic
   manufacturing capacity to build the space-solar and other energy-efficient systems. Is this a realistic dream? If the United
   States decided to provide free power on its national highways as a matter of innovative public policy, where would it obtain
   the energy? A Miraculous Source of Abundant Energy First proposed by Dr. Peter Glaser in 1968, space-based solar
   technology can provide an inexhaustible, safe, pollution-free supply of energy and may offer a far more logical solution to
   current energy problems than petroleum or ethanol-based or even nuclear-fueled hydrogen systems. The technology
   currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites into geostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the Sun‘s radiant
   energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to safely transmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying antennas
   (rectennas) on Earth. Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely
   solve the world‘s energy and greenhouse gas emission problems. Following its proposal, the concept of solar power
   satellites was extensively studied by both the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space
   Administration. By 1981, it was determined that the concept was a high-risk venture; however, further study was
   recommended. With increases in electricity demand and costs, NASA took a ―fresh look‖ at the concept between 1995 and
   1997. The NASA study envisioned a trillion-dollar project to place several dozen solar-power satellites in geostationary
   orbits by 2050, sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to Earth. However, the study‘s leader, John
   Mankins, now says the program ―has fallen through the cracks because no organization is responsible for both space
   programs and energy security.‖ The project may have remained shelved except for the military‘s need for sources of energy
   in its campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where petroleum costs $400 a gallon. A report by the Department of Defense‘s
   National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the U.S. ―begin a coordinated national program to develop
   [space-based solar power].‖ There are three basic engineering problems presented in the deployment of a space-based solar
   power system: The size, weight and capacity of solar collectors to absorb energy; the ability of robots to assemble solar
   collectors in outer space; and the cost and reliability of lifting collectors and robots into space. Two of these problems have
   been substantially solved since space-solar power was originally proposed. New thin-film advances in the design of solar
   collectors have steadily improved, allowing for increases in the efficiency of energy conversion and decreases in size and
   weight. At the same time, industrial robots have been greatly improved and are now used extensively in heavy
   manufacturing to perform complex tasks. The remaining problem is the expense of lifting equipment and materials into
   space. At a cost of $20,000 per kilogram of payload, the U.S. is currently relying the last few remaining flights of the space
   shuttle to move satellites into orbit and to resupply the space station. It has been estimated that economic viability of space
   solar energy would require a reduction in the payload cost to less than $200 per kilogram and the total expense, including
   delivery and assembly in orbit, to less than $3,500 per kilogram. An American president once said, ―We choose to go to the
   moon in this decade, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.‖ The United States readily achieved that objective and,
   effectively, won the Cold War. A similar challenge is now presented in the ―Energy War.‖ What, if anything, will the
   current president say or do? Although there are substantial costs associated with the development of space-solar power, it
   makes far more sense to invest the precious space exploration budget in the development of an efficient and reliable power
   supply for the future, rather than to waste tax dollars on a stupid and ineffective missile defense system or on an ego trip to
   Mars. With funding for the space shuttle ending in 2012 and for the space station in 2017, America must decide upon a
   realistic policy for space exploration, or else it will be left in the dust by other nations, which are rapidly developing
   futuristic space projects. China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts and by demonstrating a capability
   to destroy satellites. The nation is investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energy-efficient
   green technology and has become the world‘s leading producer of solar panels and a major exporter of windmills. Over the
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                            File Title – 15
     past two years, Japan has committed $21 billion to secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration
     Agency plans to ―put into geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth,
     equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant.‖ Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately, they will be able to
     deliver electricity at a cost of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive with all other sources. The first nation that
     captures and effectively makes use of space-solar energy will dominate the world energy market for generations to come
     and will provide its citizens with a much healthier and a far more secure society.

The plan kick starts the market- demonstrating that SPS is feasible and practical is only possible in the
US but spreads globally
Geoffrey  A.    Landis     Glenn   Research  Center   for   NASA,     Cleveland,   Ohio,   February    20 04,
      Space solar power is potentially an enormous business. Current world electrical consumption represents a value at the
      consumer level of nearly a trillion dollars per year; clearly even if only a small fraction of this market can be tapped by
      space solar power systems, the amount of revenue that could be produced is staggering. To tap this potential market, it is
      necessary that a solar power satellite concept has the potential to be technically and economically practical. Technical
      feasibility requires that the concept not violate fundamental laws of physics, that it not require technology not likely to be
      developed in the time frame of interest, and that it has no technological show-stoppers. Economic feasibility requires that
      the system can be produced at a cost which is lower than the market value for the product, with an initial investment low
      enough to attract investors, and that it serve a market niche that is able to pay. The baseline "power tower" developed by the
      "Fresh Look" study in 1996 and 1997 [1,2.7] only partially satisfies these criteria. One difficulty is the power distribution
      system. The distribution system required to transfer power from the solar arrays to the microwave transmitters, consisting
      of a long highvoltage tether system, can not operate in the environment of near-Earth space at the voltages required without
      short-circuiting to the space plasma. Lowering the voltage to avoid plasma discharge would result in unacceptable resistive
      losses. Power distribution is a general problem with all conventional solar power system designs: as a design scales up to
      high power levels, the mass of wire required to link the power generation system to the microwave transmitter becomes a
      showstopper. A design is required in which the solar power can be used directly at the solar array, rather than being sent
      over wires to a separate transmitter. (The "solar sandwich" design of the late 70's solved this problem, but only with the
      addition of an unwieldy steering mirror, which complicates the design to an impractical extent). In addition to technical
      difficulties, the baseline concept does not meet economic goals. As shown in table 6-4 of the "Fresh Look" final report [1],
      even with extremely optimistic assumptions of system cost, solar cell efficiency, and launch cost, each design analyzed
      results in a cost which is either immediately too expensive, or else yields a cost marginally competitive (but not
      significantly better) than terrestrial power technologies, with an internal rate of return (IRR) too low for investment to make
      money. Only if an "externality surcharge" is added to non-space power sources to account for the economic impact of
      fossil-fuels did space solar power options make economic sense. While "externality" factors are quite real, and represent a
      true cost impact of fossil-fuel generation, it is unlikely that the world community will artificially impose such charges
      merely to make space solar power economically feasible. The value of the solar power concept, however—both the dollar
      value and the potential value of the ecological benefits—is so great that the concept should not be abandoned simply
      because one candidate system is flawed. It is important to analyze alternative concepts in order to find one that presents a
      workable system. At the technical interchange meeting which kicked off the "Fresh Look" study of solar power satellites in
      1995, innovative concepts for solar power satellites were solicited in the "brainstorming" sessions [1,2,8]. However, none
      of the new concepts were developed in detail. NASA/TM—2004-212743 16 1 Space Power Markets There are a large
      number of potential markets for space solar power. The greatest need for new power is in the industrializing third world;
      unfortunately, this market segment is by most analyses the least able to pay. Possibly the most interesting market is third-
      world "Mega-cities," where a "Mega-city" is defined as a city with population of over ten million, such as São Paolo,
      Mexico City, Shanghai, or Jakarta. By 2020 there are predicted to be 26 mega-cities in the world, primarily in the third
      world; the population shift in the third world from rural to urban has been adding one to two more cities to this category
      every year, with the trend accelerating. Even though, in general, the third world is not able to pay high prices for energy, the
      current power cost in mega-cities is very high, since the power sources are inadequate, and the number of consumers is
      large. Since the required power for such cities is very high-- ten billion watts or higher-- they represent an attractive market
      for satellite power systems, which scale best at high power levels since the transmitter and receiver array sizes are fixed by
      geometry. In the future, there will be markets for power systems at enormous scales to feed these mega-city markets.
      Therefore, it is very attractive to look at the mega-city market as a candidate market for satellite power systems. For more
      near-term economic feasibility, however, it is desirable to look at electricity markets within the United States. The
      economic climate of the United States is more likely to allow possible investment in large-scale electric power projects than
      the poorer "developing" nations, and hence it is more likely that the first satellite-power projects will be built to service the
      electrical market in the U.S. Although in the long term the third-world mega-cities may be the region that has the greatest
      growth in electrical power demand, the initial economic feasibility of a space solar project will depend on the ability of
      such a facility to be competitive in the U.S. electric market
Edgemont Debate                                                                                                           File Title – 16
SPS is better than all other alternatives- it makes economic sense while being completely safe while
solving oil dependance
 Al Globus, serves on the National Space Society Board of Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors Research
and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, May 20 07,
     Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al Qaeda
     and dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear weapons.
     unlike terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and coal, does not emit
     greenhouse gasses, warming our planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous
     opportunities for terrorists. unlike coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us to
     send hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women to war and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a
     military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to
     electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar
     energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP
     - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will heat the atmosphere
     slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and that's not all.
     Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built from lunar
     materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most
     environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the
     sun's energy will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is
     nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal
     structures, and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign
     governments, so America will have no need to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions. The catch is
     cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP requires enormous up-front expense, although after development of a largely-
     automated system to build solar power satellites from lunar materials SSP should be quite inexpensive. To get there,
     however, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and infrastructure development - just what America is good at.
     And you know something, we're spending that kind of money, not to mention blood, on America's Persian Gulf military
     presence today, and gas went over $3/gallon anyway. In addition, we may end up spending even more to deal with global
     warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP may be the best bargain we've ever had. What should
     we do? Besides having NASA do interesting and inspiring things, direct and fund NASA to do something vital: end U.S.
     dependence on foreign oil by developing SSP. Redirect the lunar base to do the mining, and develop the launch vehicles,
     inter-orbit transfer, and space manufacturing capacity to end oil's energy dominance completely and forever. It will be
     expensive, but it's a better, cheaper, safer strategy than military control of oil in far flung lands.

Defer aff on irreversibility- even if the chance of solvency or warming existing is low, not being able to
come back is means you vote aff anyway
Cass R Sunstein, Professor in the Department of Political Science and at the Law School of the University of Chicago, 20 07,
―Worst-Case Scenarios‖
    Most worst-case scenarios appear to have an element of irreversibility. Once a species is lost, it is lost forever. The special
    concern for endangered species stems from the permanence of their loss (outside of Jurassic Park). One of the most serious
    fears associated with genetically modified organisms is that they might lead to irreversible ecological harm. Because some
    greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for centuries, the problem of climate change may be irreversible, at least for all
    practical purposes. Transgenic crops can impose irreversible losses too, because they can make pests more resistant to
    pesticides. If we invest significant wealth in one source of energy and neglect others, we may be effectively stuck forever,
    or at least for a long time. One objection to capital punishment is that errors cannot be reversed. In ordinary life, our
    judgments about worst-case scenarios have everything to do with irreversibility. Of course an action may be hard but not
    impossible to undo, and so there may be a continuum of cases, with different degrees of difficulty in reversing. A marriage
    can be reversed, but divorce is rarely easy; having a child is very close to irreversible; moving from New York to Paris is
    reversible, but moving back may be difficult. People often take steps to avoid courses of action that are burdensome rather
    than literally impossible to reverse. In this light, we might identify an Irreversible Harm Precautionary Principle, applicable
    to a subset of risks.' As a rough first approximation, the principle says this: Special steps should be taken to avoid
    irreversible harms, through precautions that go well beyond those that would be taken if irreversibility were not a problem.
    The general attitude here is "act, then learn," as opposed to the tempting alternative of "wait and learn." In the case of
    climate change, some people believe that research should be our first line of defense. In their view, we should refuse to
    commit substantial resources to the problem until evidence of serious harm is unmistakably clear.' But even assuming that
    the evidence is not so clear, research without action allows greenhouse gas emissions to continue, which might produce
    risks that are irreversible, or at best difficult and expensive to reverse. For this reason, the best course of action might well
    be to take precautions now as a way of preserving flexibility for future generations. In the environmental context in general,
    this principle suggests that regulators should proceed with far more aggressive measures than would otherwise seem

Shared By: