SPS Popular Congress - Paperless Debate

Document Sample
SPS Popular Congress - Paperless Debate Powered By Docstoc
					SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                                 ***SPS AFFIRMATIVE***
  ***SPS AFFIRMATIVE*** .....................................................................................................................................1
  ***Plan*** ................................................................................................................................................................3
  Advantage 1: Environment ........................................................................................................................................4
  Advantage 2: Military Overstretch ............................................................................................................................6
  Advantage 3: Water ...................................................................................................................................................8
  Advantage 4: Small Farms....................................................................................................................................... 10
  Advantage 5: Leadership ......................................................................................................................................... 12
  1AC Solvency .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
SBSP is better than other alternative energy sources and has huge amounts of resources .......................................... 14
  ***Environment Adv. Ext.*** ................................................................................................................................ 16
  Uniqueness: Ocean Acidification ............................................................................................................................ 17
  Internal Link: Ocean Acidification  Species Loss................................................................................................ 18
  Internal Link: Warming  Species Loss ................................................................................................................. 19
  Solvency: Solves Energy Shortages ........................................................................................................................ 20
  Solvency: Solves Environment ................................................................................................................................ 21
  Solvency: Solves Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................................................. 22
  Solvency: Solves Pollution ...................................................................................................................................... 23
  2AC Warming Impact Module: Ocean Acidification .............................................................................................. 24
  2AC Warming Impact Module: Species Loss ......................................................................................................... 25
  ***Leadership Adv. Ext.*** ................................................................................................................................... 27
  Internal Link: SPS K2 Econ LShip .......................................................................................................................... 28
  ***Military Overstretch Adv. Ext.*** .................................................................................................................... 29
  Uniqueness: Oil Dependency Now .......................................................................................................................... 30
  Uniqueness: Overstretch Now ................................................................................................................................. 31
  Brink: Now Key....................................................................................................................................................... 32
  Internal Link: Fossil Fuel Reliance Hurts the Military ............................................................................................ 33
  Internal Link: Overstretch Crushes Heg .................................................................................................................. 34
  Solvency: SPS Solves Energy Crisis ....................................................................................................................... 35
  ***Small Farms Adv. Ext.*** ................................................................................................................................. 36
  Internal Link: Small Farms K2 Local Economy ...................................................................................................... 37
  Solvency: SPS Solves Rural Areas .......................................................................................................................... 38
  ***Water Adv. Ext.*** ........................................................................................................................................... 39
  Internal Link: Water Shortages  Wars in India .................................................................................................... 40
  Solvency: Desalination Solves................................................................................................................................. 41
  ***2AC Add-Ons*** .............................................................................................................................................. 42
  2AC Add-On: Indo-US Relations ............................................................................................................................ 43
  2AC Add-On: Jobs .................................................................................................................................................. 44
  2AC Add-On: Oil Dependency ............................................................................................................................... 46


                                                                                                                                                                            1
SDI 11
SPS Aff

  2AC Add-On: Pollution ........................................................................................................................................... 47
  ***More Case Extensions*** ................................................................................................................................. 48
  A2: ―It‘s Expensive‖ ................................................................................................................................................ 49
  **Aerospace Industry Ext.** ................................................................................................................................... 50
  **India Ext.** ......................................................................................................................................................... 51
  ***Aff Answers*** ................................................................................................................................................. 52
  2AC A2: Budget Disad (1/2) ................................................................................................................................... 53
  2AC A2: China CP .................................................................................................................................................. 56
  2AC A2: Debris Disad ............................................................................................................................................. 58
  2AC A2: International Counterplans ....................................................................................................................... 59
  2AC A2: Privatization CP ....................................................................................................................................... 60
  ***Politics Links*** ............................................................................................................................................... 63
  Public Support: Alternative Energy ......................................................................................................................... 64
  SPS Costs Political Capital ...................................................................................................................................... 65
  SPS Popular: Congress ............................................................................................................................................ 66
  SPS Popular: Government ....................................................................................................................................... 67
  SPS Popular: Public ................................................................................................................................................. 68
  SPS Unpopular: Congress........................................................................................................................................ 69
  SPS Unpopular: Generic .......................................................................................................................................... 70




                                                                                                                                                                           2
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                           ***Plan***

Plan: The United States federal government should fully fund and implement Space-based Solar Power.




                                                                                                      3
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                            Advantage 1: Environment
FIRST, The US is falling behind in its clean energy development
Paul G. Harris 08, (Department of Political Science, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong), ScienceDirect,
―Beyond Bush: Environmental politics and prospects for US climate policy‖, 30 October 2008,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508006587#cor1
The United States was a pioneer in domestic environmental lawmaking, and it was a leader in international environmental
cooperation in the final decades of the last century. During the current decade, however, it has moved away from
cooperating with other states in finding new ways to protect the global environment. While its early efforts to address
climate change were no worse, and often better than, other developed countries, it has fallen far behind as a number of European
states and the European Union have started to implement robust policies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
This chapter recounts this evolution in US policy from environmental leader to environmental laggard. It summarizes the US climate change-
related policies and diplomacy, recounting significant events during the presidential administrations of George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and
George W Bush. It then extends this summary of events to assess the prospects for US climate policy in the near future.

AND, Current talks and attempts to stop global warming fail
 ANDREW C. REVKIN, Jan. 13, 2011, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html# Global warming
has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are
becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases —
produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved
before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic
slowdown. Global talks on climate change opened in Cancún, Mexico, in late 2010 with the toughest issues unresolved , and the
conference produced modest agreements. But while the measures adopted in Cancún are likely to have scant near-term impact on
the warming of the planet, the international process for dealing with the issue got a significant vote of confidence.

AND, Unchecked CO2 emissions will lead to global warming
R. Pérez-López 08 (Laboratoire de Géophysique Interne et Tectonophysique, CNRS-OSUG-UJF, Université Joseph
Fourier Grenoble I, Maison des Géosciences, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex, France), ScienceDirect, ―Carbonation
of alkaline paper mill waste to reduce CO2 greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere‖, 11 April 2008,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292708001601
The global warming of Earth‘s near-surface, air and oceans in recent decades is a direct consequence of anthropogenic emission
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere such as CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs. The CO2 emissions contribute
approximately 60% to this climate change. This study investigates experimentally the aqueous carbonation mechanisms of an alkaline
paper mill waste containing about 55 wt% portlandite (Ca(OH)2) as a possible mineralogical CO2 sequestration process. The overall carbonation
reaction includes the following steps: (1) Ca release from portlandite dissolution, (2) CO2 dissolution in water and (3) CaCO3 precipitation. This
CO2 sequestration mechanism was supported by geochemical modelling of final solutions using PHREEQC software, and
observations by scanning electron microscope and X-ray diffraction of final reaction products. According to the experimental protocol, the
system proposed would favour the total capture of approx. 218 kg of CO2 into stable calcite/ton of paper waste, independently of initial CO2
pressure. The final product from the carbonation process is a calcite (ca. 100 wt%)-water dispersion. Indeed, the total captured CO2 mineralized
as calcite could be stored in degraded soils or even used for diverse industrial applications. This result demonstrates the possibility of using the
alkaline liquid–solid waste for CO2 mitigation and reduction of greenhouse effect gases into the atmosphere.




                                                                                                                                                   4
SDI 11
SPS Aff

AND, warming risks extinction
Oliver Tickell, environmental researcher, 2008, 8/11,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific
Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last
week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could
adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in
the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for
humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable,
bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports,
cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's
geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120
metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and
unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would
be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief
scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University
of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway
increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks,
notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea,
and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse
gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way.
To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global
temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both
as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea
levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes.
Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human
emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

AND, SBSP allows us to reduce CO2 emissions to almost zero.
Clara Moskowitz 09 (SPACE.com Senior Writer), Space.com, ―Under New Plan, Satellites to Beam Solar Power
Down From Space‖, 09 November, 2009, http://www.space.com/9491-plan-satellites-beam-solar-power-space.html
Space-based solar power could be directed to multiple locations in the world , and wouldn't suffer from outages during
nighttime or bad weather, as solar panels on the ground do, said Mark Hopkins, chair of the National Space Society's executive committee. The
technology offers the potential to deliver a tremendous amount of energy without harming the environment, he said.
"It produces virtually no carbon dioxide, therefore it's a very clean, renewable energy source," Hopkins said. However, the
full technology to achieve such a vision is not yet developed.

AND, Space Based Solar Power is an easy way to spark the movement towards clean energy
National Space Society 11, ―Space Solar Power: Limitless clean energy from space‖, July 13, 2011,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from
sunlight in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas
emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve . Space solar power can provide
large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy
available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space
solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the
largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This
technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission, can supply nearly
all the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system.
While electricity powers few vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As
batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation — but only
if we can generate the enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn
around and use fossil fuels again to generate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean
power for any future electric transportation system.




                                                                                                                                                       5
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                Advantage 2: Military Overstretch
FIRST, The military is overstretched due to dependence on fossil fuels
Erwin 6 (Sandra Erwin, editor of National Defense Magazine. ―Energy Conservation Plans Overlook Military
Realities.‖ National Defense Magazine, September 2006. Accessed July 16, 2011.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2006/September/Pages/DefenseWatch2886.aspx)
Are skyrocketing oil prices just a temporary drain on the U.S. economy or a lasting national security threat?
If one is to draw conclusions from a recent stream of Pentagon policy directives, studies and congressional rhetoric,
the Defense Department will soon have to get serious about taming its gargantuan appetite for fuel, most of which is
imported from the volatile Middle East. ―The fact is that nearly every military challenge we face is either derived
from or impacted by one thing: our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources,‖ says Rep. Steve Israel, D-
N.Y., who co-founded a ―defense energy working group‖ with Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and former CIA
Director James Woolsey. ―In a world where we borrow money from China to purchase oil from unstable Persian
Gulf countries to fuel our Air Force planes that protect us against potential threats from these very countries, it‘s
high-time to make the choices and investments necessary to protect our country,‖ Israel says.

AND, Overstretch leads to loss of hegemony
Logan 9 (Justin Logan, associate director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.
―America Unbound.‖ Foreign Policy, August 6, 2009. Accessed July 16, 2011.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/06/america_unbound)
Summing up the findings, Wohlforth et al surmised that: Not only is military expansion a well-nigh universal
behavior, but such expansion is frequently characterized by myopic advantage-seeking (boondoggling), rather than
aimed at long-term system maintenance (balancing), even among rivals to potential hegemons... The pattern of
boondoggling is a major reason why balanced systems routinely break down, and why systemic hegemons
frequently squander their advantages.

AND, Oil dependence means a collapse in US heg
American Energy Independence Ron Bengtson September 2010 http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/aei-intro.pdf (creator and
writer of Americanenergyindependence.com
The idea of energy independence was first conceived in response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The embargo
abruptly cut-off U.S. oil imports from the Middle East causing severe fuel shortages and gas rationing. Oil prices
tripled, the price of gasoline quadrupled and a new American vulnerability was exposed — America‘s dependence
on imported oil as a primary source of energy proved to be a weakness that could be exploited to influence or
subvert U.S. foreign policy; threatening to disrupt the economy and eventually impoverish the USA by transferring
billions of dollars to foreign national treasuries in exchange for oil. The idea of energy independence was not a
myth then, nor is it a myth today. Energy independence is a fact of America‘s past and a vision of America‘s future.
An achievable goal requiring sustained political will. The USA has more than enough natural resources, ingenuity
and technology to achieve energy independence… again. Yes, again. Prior to 1950 the U.S. had absolute energy
independence. In 1950 the USA was producing over 50 percent of the world‘s oil, enough for all of its own needs
with plenty left over for exports. But the post World War II U.S. economic boom eventually created demand for
more oil than U.S. wells could produce. Between 1950 and 1973 (the year of the embargo) U.S. oil imports had
grown from near zero to about 32 percent of U.S. oil consumption. By 1994, the U.S. was importing more oil than it
produced. In 2010, oil imports will provide about 60 percent of all oil consumed in the USA. Energy independence
does not require zero imports, but it does require zero dependence on imports that could directly or indirectly place
the U.S. in a position of economic, political or military vulnerability. Energy independence can be thought of as
either absolute or strategic.




                                                                                                                                6
SDI 11
SPS Aff



AND, US hegemony solves multiple scenarios for war
Command of the Commons Barry R. Posen The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony Summer 03 Barry R. Posen is Professor of Political
Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of its Security Studies Program
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/NatlSecurity2008_docs/Posen_Command.pdf
The United States enjoys the same command of the sea that Britain once did, and it can also move large and heavy
forces around the globe. But command of space allows the United States to see across the surface of the world‘s
landmasses and to gather vast amounts of information. At least on the matter of medium-to-large-scale military
developments, the United States can locate and identify military targets with considerable ªdelity and communicate
this information to offensive forces in a timely fashion. Air power, ashore and aºoat, can reach targets deep inland;
and with modern precision-guided weaponry, it can often hit and destroy those targets. U.S. forces can even more
easily do great damage to a state‘s transportation and communications networks as well as economic infrastructure.
When U.S. ground forces do venture inland, they do so against a weakened adversary; they also have decent
intelligence, good maps, and remarkable knowledge of their own position from moment to moment. Moreover, they
can call on a great reserve of responsive, accurate, airdelivered ªrepower, which permits the ground forces
considerable freedom of action. Political, economic, and technological changes since the 1980s have thus partially
reversed the rise of land power relative to sea power that Command of the Commons 9 13.

AND, SBSP would solve the fossil fuel dilemma, preventing military overstretch
Cho 7 (Dan Cho, NewScientist writer. "Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space." NewScientist,
October 11, 2007. Accessed July 18, 2011. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-
beam-solar-power-from-space.html)
A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US
military. A report released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government
sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private
development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather
sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be
collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar
power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions.
"We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul
Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US. The NSSO report (pdf)
recommends that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable of
beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth. At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy
groups announced a new alliance to promote space solar power - the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These
supporters of space-based solar power say the technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossil fuels,
wind and nuclear power combined. The NSSO report says that solar-power-generating satellites could also solve
supply problems in distant places such as Iraq, where fuel is currently trucked along in dangerous convoys and the
cost of electricity for some bases can exceed $1 per kilowatt-hour - about 10 times what it costs in the US. The
report also touts the technology's potential to provide a clean, abundant energy source and reduce global competition
for oil. Space-based solar power was first proposed in 1968 by Peter Glaser, an engineer at the consulting firm
Arthur D. Little. Early designs involved solar panel arrays of 50 square kilometres, required hundreds of astronauts
in space to build and were estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion, says John Mankins, a former NASA research
manager and active promoter of space solar power.




                                                                                                                                7
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                                Advantage 3: Water
FIRST, Water Scarcity Is Happening Now
Al-Jazeera-English is an Aribic news organization that writes on many different current events- Common Dreams.org [―Water Wars: 21st
Centrury Conflict‖ 6-30-11 http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/30-9
After droughts ravaged his parents' farmland, Sixteen-year-old Hassain and his two-year-old sister Sareye became
some of the newest refugees forced from home by water scarcity. Yemenis waiting to collect water in the capital
Sana'a on May 28, 2011. As global warming alters weather patterns, and the number of people lacking access to
water rises, millions, if not billions, of others are expected to face a similar fate as water shortages become more
frequent. (PressTV) "There was nothing to harvest," Hassain said through an interpreter during an interview at a
refugee camp in Dadaab, Kenya which is housing some 160,000 Somalis displaced by a lack of water. "There had
been no rain in my village for two years. We used to have crops." Presently, Hassain is one of about 1.2 billion
people living in areas of physical water scarcity, although the majority of cases are nowhere near as dire. By
2030, 47 per cent of the world‘s population will be living in areas of high water stress, according to the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Environmental Outlook to 2030 report. Some analysts
worry that wars of the future will be fought over blue gold, as thirsty people, opportunistic politicians and powerful
corporations battle for dwindling resources. Dangerous warnings Governments and military planners around the
world are aware of the impending problem; with the US senate issuing reports with names like Avoiding
Water Wars: Water Scarcity and Central Asia‘s growing Importance for Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
With rapid population growth, and increased industrial demand, water withdrawls have tripled over the last 50 years,
according to UN figures."The war was also a reason why we left," Hassain said. "There was a lot of fighting near
my village." "Water scarcity is an issue exacerbated by demographic pressures, climate change and pollution," said
Ignacio Saiz, director of Centre for Economic and Social Rights, a social justice group. "The world's water supplies
should guarantee every member of the population to cover their personal and domestic needs." "Fundamentally,
these are issues of poverty and inequality, man-made problems," he told Al Jazeera. Of all the water on earth, 97
per cent is salt water and the remaining three per cent is fresh, with less than one per cent of the planet's
drinkable water readily accessible for direct human uses. Scarcity is defined as each person in an area having access
to less than 1,000 cubic meters of water a year. The areas where water scarcity is the biggest problem are some
of the same places where political conflicts are rife, leading to potentially explosive situations. Some experts
believe the only documented case of a "water war" happened about 4,500 years ago, when the city-states of Lagash
and Umma went to war in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. But Adel Darwish, a journalist and co-author of Water Wars:
Coming Conflicts in the Middle East, says modern history has already seen at least two water wars. "I have [former
Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon speaking on record saying the reason for going to war [against Arab armies] in
1967 was for water," Darwish told Al Jazeera. Some analysts believe Israel continues to occupy the Golan heights,
seized from Syria in 1967, due to issues of water control, while others think the occupation is about maintaining
high ground in case of future conflicts. Senegal and Mauritania also fought a war starting in 1989 over grazing rights
on the River Senegal. And Syria and Iraq have fought minor skirmishes over the Euphrates River.

AND, water shortages will cause global nuclear war
Jonathan Weiner Professor of Molecular Biology @ Princeton University, 1990. The Next 100 Years: Shaping the
Fate of our Living Earth p.214
  If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the change bomb. And in a
  world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, from Northern Africa to the
  Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching
  what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions
  that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.




                                                                                                                                       8
SDI 11
SPS Aff



AND, SPS is the Best Way to Desalinate
W. Kent Tobiska is the President and Chief Scientist of the Space Environment Technologies- Online Journal Of
Space Communication [―‖Vision for producing fresh water using space power‖ Winter 2010
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/tobiska.html]
It is proposed that as California coastal oil and gas platforms come to the end of their productive lives, they be re-
commissioned for use as large-scale fresh water production facilities. Solar arrays, mounted on the platforms, are
able to provide some of the power needed for seawater desalination during the daytime. However, for efficient
fresh water production, a facility must be operated 24 hours a day. The use of solar power transmitted from
orbiting satellites (Solar Power Satellites - SPS) to substantially augment the solar array power generated from
natural sunlight is a feasible concept. We discuss the architecture of using a SPS in geosynchronous orbit (GEO)
to enable 24 hours a day operations for fresh water production through seawater desalination. Production of
industrial quantities of fresh water on re-commissioned oil and gas platforms, using energy transmitted from solar
power satellites, is a breakthrough concept for addressing the pressing climate, water, and economic issues of
the 21st Century using space assets.

AND, Desalination is Good- Solves Water Shortages
TIG is a company on water treatment systems- TIG Bollman [―Desalnination Waters‖ 2011 http://www.tig-
group.com/index.php?id=141&L=2]
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today
for one in three people around the world. Globally, the problem is getting worse as cities and populations
grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households. TIG Group Total Site Solutions
acknowledge these important challenges and have developed and installed a large number of desalination systems
around the world. Our solutions incorporate low energy techniques, system optimisation and energy recovery,
aligning our capabilities in automation and control expertise with our dynamic design approach to membrane
technology for desalination processes. Membrane processes use semi-permeable membranes and pressure to
separate salts from water. TIG Group have developed systems incorporating TIGCport™ dynamic flow, to
produce lower cost, smaller footprint, membrane process systems to economically produce potable water from sea
water and brackish water sources. These systems have been installed across multi-sector applications from
municipal drinking water systems, industrial processes, food and drink, chemical, pharmacutical, biotechnology and
onshore/offshore petrochemical industries.




                                                                                                                     9
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                            Advantage 4: Small Farms
FIRST, Small Farms are Declining
MacDonald, Hoppe, Korbe and Donoghue 09‘(―111 EAAE-IAAE Seminar ‗Small Farms: decline or persistence‘‘James M.
MacDonald is a Senior Economist at the Economic Research Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Bob Hoppe is an economist with the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Erik O'Donoghue
joined ERS as an economist in 2002. His research has covered topics such as farm structure, the effects of risk on farmers' production decisions,
the extent of moral hazard in agriculture, and the effects of direct (decoupled) government payments on farmers' production decisions. Erik's
primary interests lie in applied microeconomics and industrial organization.)
We use two comprehensive and representative USDA databases to assess the performance of small farms in the U.S.
Farm production is shifting to much larger farms, and the number of small commercial farms is declining. Most
large U.S. farms remain family-owned and operated enterprises, and most remain small businesses by U.S.standards.
Small commercial farms tend to focus on three commodities: beef cattle, grains and oilseeds, and poultry. On
average, large farm financial returns substantially exceed those on small farms, but the range of performance among
small farms is quite wide. About one quarter of the nearly 800,000 small commercial farms show very good
financial returns.

AND, Alternative energy takes up space for farm land- SPS doesn‘t
NSS 7‘ (National Space Society, October, ―Space Solar Power—Limitless clean energy from space‖,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm)
Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce fresh
water resources. Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm
land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider.
Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and
guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, space solar power is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or wind speed.

AND, Revitalized small farming solves monoculture
Downes 96 [What Price Biodiversity? Economic Incentives and Biodiversity Conservation in the United States,
University of Oregon Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 1996, 11 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 9, DANA CLARK
*, DAVID DOWNES ** Staff Attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL); Adjunct
Professor, American University, Washington College of Law; J.D. University of Virginia School of Law, 1992;
B.A. University of Virginia, 1988. And Senior Attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law
(CIEL); Adjunct Professor, American University, Washington College of Law; J.D., University of Michigan Law
School 1988; B.A., University of Michigan 1981.]
However, sound agricultural and biodiversity policies are mutually reinforcing. Agricultural production and stability
are directly dependent upon biodiversity. Genetic diversity is both crucial to agriculture and threatened by modern,
large-scale, consolidated agribusiness. Although several thousand plant species are used for food by various peoples,
"approximately 90% of world food for people comes from just 15 plant species and 8 animal species." n84 Not only
is much of today's farming dependent upon relatively few crop species, it is also dependent upon relatively few
varieties of these crops. This leads to heightened vulnerability to disaster. For example, in 1970, corn blight
devastated the United States crop, much of which shared a common genetic factor that made it vulnerable to the
blight. n85 Food security is fundamentally dependent upon the genetic diversity found in traditional varieties of food
crops and their wild relatives around the globe.




                                                                                                                                               10
SDI 11
SPS Aff



AND, Industrial monocultures cause extinction
Leahy 2007 [http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/03/945/]
"If all agricultural lands adopt the industrial, monocultural model, there will be enormous impacts on water and
other essential services provided by diverse ecosystems," Jackson told IPS. Societies need to recognise the value of
ecosystem services and encourage farmers to use methods that benefit biodiversity, she says. Biodiversity refers to
the amazing variety of living things that make up the biosphere, the thin skin of life that covers the Earth and is, as
far as we know, unique in the universe. The trees, plants, insects, bacteria, birds and animals that make up forest
ecosystems produce oxygen, clean water, prevent erosion and flooding, and capture excess carbon dioxide, among
other things. "There is an unbreakable link between human health and well being and ecosystems," Walter Reid,
director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and a professor with the Institute for the Environment at
Stanford University, told IPS last year. The MA is a 22-million-dollar, four-year global research initiative
commissioned by the United Nations, and carried out by 1,360 experts from 95 countries. Its mission has been to
examine ways to slow or reverse the degradation of the Earth's ecosystems, including a look at what the future may
be like in 2050. The more species and diversity there are in an ecosystem, the more robust it is. Remove some
species and it will continue to function. However, like a complex house of cards, removing key cards or too many
cards results in a collapse. For many ecosystems such as oceans, scientists do not know what the key cards are or
how many lost species is too many. Agriculture has been the biggest contributor to species loss in the past, but
Jackson and others believe that valuing agricultural lands as both sources of food and biodiversity could slow the
loss of future species.

AND, SBSP Brings Energy to Remote Areas of the Planet and Saves the Planet
Moskowitz ‗10( Senior Writer for Space.Com, Fomer Editor for LiveSpace.com, Fox News Writer ―Under New
Plan, Satellites to Beam Solar Power Down FromSpace‖,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Clara+Moskowitz&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1366&bih=643&um
=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws)
In a step toward solving the global energy crisis, a new plan aims to harvest the sun's energy from space with
satellites then beam it down to Earth. The initiative, announced Nov. 4, is spearheaded by former president of India
A.P.J. Kalam and the National Space Society, a nonprofit dedicated to making humanity a space faring civilization.
Space-based solar power has the potential to turn Earth into a "clean planet, a prosperous planet, and a happy
planet," Kalam said during a Thursday press conference announcing the Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative. The
initiative's plan is to launch a satellite containing a large array of solar panels that would collect energy from the sun,
then convert this energy into a microwave beam that could be directed back down to Earth. A special receiving
antenna on the ground ? called a rectenna ? would then turn the microwave energy back into electricity, which
would be fed into the power grid. Global energy needs are expected to grow by 87 percent by the year 2035.
Traditional renewable energy sources will only be able to meet part of that demand, proponents of the space plan
said. Space-based solar power could be directed to multiple locations in the world, and wouldn't suffer from outages
during nighttime or bad weather, as solar panels on the ground do, said Mark Hopkins, chair of the National Space
Society's executive committee. The technology offers the potential to deliver a tremendous amount of energy
without harming the environment, he said.




                                                                                                                        11
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                         Advantage 5: Leadership
FIRST, Continued development of space is required for the US to stay a leader in space
The Washington post, NASA Looks to the Future With Eye on the Past, December 4 2006,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120300691.html                                In
Griffin's big-picture view, the stakes in space are high -- which helps explain why he is so driven about return to
manned lunar exploration and beyond. Not only are there major national security issues involved -- the country
relies on space-based defense like no other nation -- but the NASA administrator said the United States can remain a
preeminent civilization only if it continues to explore space aggressively. If the United States pulls back, Griffin
said, others will speed ahead. Russia and China have sent astronauts into low-Earth orbit, and India, Japan and the
Europeans all have the technical ability to do the same now -- and far more in the future. International cooperation
has been ingrained into the government's thinking about space, but the United States and others remain committed to
manufacturing their own rockets and space capsules and will be looking for international cooperation only once they
are on the moon or Mars or some asteroids in between. "I absolutely believe that America became a great power in
the world, leapfrogging other great powers of the time, because of its mastery of the air," Griffin said. "In the 21st
century and beyond, our society and nation, if we wish to remain in the first rank, must add to our existing capacities
. . . to remain preeminent in the arts and sciences of space flight. "Space is important to our nation and will be
forevermore."

AND, space leadership is key to hegemony
Christopher stone, Christopher Stone is a space policy analyst and strategist, American leadership in space:
leadership through capability, march 14 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1
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.

AND, US hegemony solves multiple scenarios for war
Command of the Commons Barry R. Posen The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony Summer 03 Barry R. Posen is Professor of Political
Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of its Security Studies Program
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/NatlSecurity2008_docs/Posen_Command.pdf
The United States enjoys the same command of the sea that Britain once did, and it can also move large and heavy
forces around the globe. But command of space allows the United States to see across the surface of the world‘s
landmasses and to gather vast amounts of information. At least on the matter of medium-to-large-scale military
developments, the United States can locate and identify military targets with considerable ªdelity and communicate
this information to offensive forces in a timely fashion. Air power, ashore and aºoat, can reach targets deep inland;
and with modern precision-guided weaponry, it can often hit and destroy those targets. U.S. forces can even more
easily do great damage to a state‘s transportation and communications networks as well as economic infrastructure.
When U.S. ground forces do venture inland, they do so against a weakened adversary; they also have decent
intelligence, good maps, and remarkable knowledge of their own position from moment to moment. Moreover, they
can call on a great reserve of responsive, accurate, airdelivered ªrepower, which permits the ground forces
considerable freedom of action. Political, economic, and technological changes since the 1980s have thus partially
reversed the rise of land power relative to sea power that Command of the Commons 9 13.



                                                                                                                               12
SDI 11
SPS Aff



AND, SPS solves US space leadership
National Space Security Organization, 10/10/07, ―Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security‖, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
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 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.




                                                                                                                   13
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                                1AC Solvency
SBSP is better than other alternative energy sources and has huge amounts of resources
AEN 8 (No author given. "Space-based Solar Power." Alternative Energy News, June 10, 2008. Accessed July 18,
2011. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/space-based-solar-power/)
American scientist Peter Glaser proposed the idea of using space solar power in 1968. The fast depleting
conventional energy resources renewed the interest for trapping the solar power via satellites. Right now the usual
alternative energy methods have their own shortcomings. Hydro power plants disrupt ecosystems and human
habitats. Minimum rain threatens hydro power. Clouds block the sun and sunlight. Wind can choose not to blow at
the desirable speed. Alternative energy plants provide intermittent power supply, thus forcing us to store energy. All
these factors increase the complexities of using alternative fuels. If we are able to harness space based solar power,
we can overcome these shortcomings. Recently rising fuel prices and at the same time fast depleting conventional
energy sources are drawing the interest of NASA and PENTAGON to conduct further studies in the area of space
solar power. If a satellite can be placed at an appropriate height it can remain unaffected by the earth‘s shadow and
the drifting power plant can beam solar energy to ground based receivers whole year. A 2007 report released by the
Pentagon‘s National Security Space Office, encouraged the U.S. government to spearhead the development of space
power systems states: ―A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in
one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on
earth today.‖

Current technology is cheap enough to be implemented now
New energy and fuel.com. June 25, 2009. Competition Grows For Orbital Solar Power.
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/06/25/competition-grows-for-orbital-solar-power/
PowerSat‘s other cost saving concept is ―Solar Power Orbital Transfer‖ a technology that uses the solar array‘s
electricity to power the satellite‘s electronic thrusters. The thrusters boost the satellites from low earth orbit, 300-to-
1,000 miles up to the geosynchronous earth orbit, 22,236 miles up. Using its own solar energy-generated electricity
for the boost eliminates the need for an orbital vehicle, the extra fuel needed to lift the system to high orbit so cutting
the weight of the launch by some estimated 67%, which dramatically decreases the cost. It isn‘t much of a stretch to
consider using something such as SpaceX‘s Falcon 9 lift vehicle. That would skip past the Fed‘s and the NASA
determined price to lift to orbit. The investment might well pan out, becoming the cash cow to end all cash cows if
the things would stay operating with low cost maintenance over a long time. The technology to drive to higher
orbits alone may well prove worthwhile.




                                                                                                                        14
SDI 11
SPS Aff

Space solar power can be ready in less than a decade; a demonstration on the ISS would spur private-sector
development.
Frank Morring ―NSSO Backs Space Solar Power‖, Oct 11, 2007, Aviation Weekly,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.xml&headline=
NSSO%20Backs%20Space%20Solar%20Power‖
Collecting solar power in space and beaming it back to Earth is a relatively near-term possibility that could solve
strategic and tactical security problems for the U.S. and its deployed forces, the Pentagon's National Security Space
Office (NSSO) says in a report issued Oct. 10. As a clean source of energy that would be independent of foreign
supplies in the strife-torn Middle East and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could ease America's longstanding
strategic energy vulnerability, according to the "interim assessment" released at a press conference and on the Web
site spacesolarpower.wordpress.com. And the U.S. military could meet tactical energy needs for forward-deployed
forces with a demonstration system, eliminating the need for a long logistical tail to deliver fuel for terrestrial
generators while reducing risk for eventual large-scale commercial development of the technology, the report says.
"The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul E. Damphousse of
the NSSO, in presenting his office's report. That could change if the Pentagon were to act as an anchor tenant for a
demonstration SSP system, paying above-market rates for power generated with a collection plant in geostationary
orbit beaming power to U.S. forces abroad or in the continental U.S., according to Charles Miller, CEO of
Constellation Services International and director of the Space Frontier Foundation. By buying down the risk with a
demonstration at the tactical level, the U.S. government could spark a new industry able to meet not just U.S. energy
needs, but those of its allies and the developing world as well. The technology essentially exists, and needs only to
be matured. A risk buy-down by government could make that happen, according to the NSSO report. "This is not a
50-year solution," said John Mankins, an expert in the field and president of the Space Power Association. "The
kinds of things that are possible today say a truly transformational demonstration at a large scale is achievable
within this decade." As an example, Mankins listed the rapid progress in boosting the efficiency of solar cells. While
20-25 percent efficiency was once considered a long-term goal, efficiencies on the order of 40 percent already have
been achieved. And the modularity and scalability of the systems needed to build an SSP platform make testing
relatively straightforward. Even from its perch in low-Earth orbit, for example, the International Space Station could
be used as a test bed for SSP components and even demonstrate low-level power transmission from orbit to Earth.
The exposed facility on Japan's Kibo laboratory, due for launch in the first half of next year, could be used to test
pointing and transmitting hardware, Mankins said, as well as to conduct space-exposure experiments on materials
that might be used in building the large structures needed to collect sunlight in meaningful amounts. The Internet-
based group of experts who prepared the report for the NSSO recommended that the U.S. government organize itself
to tackle the problem of developing SSP; use its resources to "retire a major portion of the technical risk for business
development; establish tax and other policies to encourage private development of SSP, and "become an early
demonstrator/adopter/customer" of SSP to spur its development. That, in turn, could spur development of space
launch and other industries. Damphousse said a functioning reusable launch vehicle - preferably single-stage-to-
orbit - probably would be required to develop a full-scale SSP infrastructure in geostationary orbit. That, in turn,
could enable utilization of the moon and exploration of Mars under NASA's vision for space exploration.




                                                                                                                     15
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                        ***Environment Adv. Ext.***
Uniqueness: No Alt Energy Transition Now

The US is highly dependent on energy that hurts the environment
J. O. Jaber 06, (Faculty of Engineering Technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Amman, Jordan), ScienceDirect,
―Evaluation of conventional and renewable energy sources for space heating in the household sector‖, 10 May 2006,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032106000670
Residential, space and water heating is dependent particularly upon the combustion of fossil fuels, which thereby
contribute significantly to air pollution and build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the US, residential space
heating accounts for about two thirds of the total residential energy consumption ; with kerosene being the most popular
fuel used, followed by LPG, for heating purposes. This paper is intended to evaluate space heating systems used in Jordan based on a multi-
criteria analysis, using two different methods: the fuzzy sets and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The benefits and costs of each system are
considered, and the overall benefit-to-cost ratios are determined. Analyses using both methods showed that heating systems based on renewable
energy, i.e., wind and solar energy, are most favorable, followed by traditional stoves burning petroleum products and finally the worst heating
system is the electric heater. On percentage basis, the cost-to-benefit ratio of wind-based heating system is 4.3% and 3.9% as obtained by fuzzy
sets and by AHP methods, respectively, compared to 28.5% and 18.6% for electric heating devices, under identical operating conditions

US wants to pursue clean energy, there just isn‘t an initiative
George W. Bush 08 (President of the United States 2001 – 2009), ―State of the Union Address‖, January 2008,
http://www.saidnews.org/history/United_States_Presidents/PDF_Presidents/President_Speeches/012802-
StateoftheUnionGWBush.pdf
To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them
to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing
our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded.
Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon
emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing
in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. Let us create a new
international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of
clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and
eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.




                                                                                                                                               16
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                              Uniqueness: Ocean Acidification
Ocean Acidification is a threat that poses the near future
Goldstone 1/5/11 (Heather Goldstone, Discovery of the year: ocean acidification is happening now)
http://climatide.wgbh.org/2011/01/discovery-of-the-year-ocean-acidification/
The impacts of ocean acidification - slowed growth and thinner shells - are strikingly visible in a side-by-side
comparison of quahogs raised in water simulating past (250ppm), present (390ppm) and future (750ppm and
1500ppm) levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Scientists have generally considered the impacts of ocean
acidification to be a problem of the (near) future. But in September 2010, two marine scientists from Stony Brook
University – Stephanie Talmage and Christopher Gobler – published a paper in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences that forced a revision of that thinking, suggesting that ocean acidification may already be (and
have been for some time) taking a toll on shellfish. Talmage and Gobler reared quahogs (Mercenaria mercenaria)
and bay scallops (Argopecten irradia) under conditions simulating past, present, and likely future carbon dioxide
levels. Not surprisingly (because numerous previous studies have documented similar findings), the shellfish of the
future had severe shell defects, higher death rates, and slower growth than their modern-CO2 counterparts. What
was less expected was the observation that modern conditions produced shellfish with thinner shells, slower growth,
and death rates almost double those of shellfish grown in pre-industrial water conditions Talmage and Gobler
conclude that ocean acidification ―may [already] be inhibiting the development and survival of larval shellfish and
contributing to global declines of some bivalve populations.‖ In fact, since shellfish grown in the laboratory are
granted a relatively luxurious life with abundant food and no predators or competitors, the authors say their data
represent conservative estimates of the impacts of acidification. In the wild, slow-growing, thin-shelled animals
would likely be vulnerable to any number of untimely ends – predation, over-crowding, incidental crushing.
Stressed animals may also be more susceptible to diseases, like those that have ravaged east coast oyster populations
in recent decades.




                                                                                                                  17
SDI 11
SPS Aff

               Internal Link: Ocean Acidification  Species Loss
Ocean acidification causes coral to die, and leads up the chain to humans
Athena, 09 (Athena, Resarcher,) http://athenadr.wordpress.com/tag/acidification/
Corals are sensitive to ocean acidification. As the concentration of CO2 in the oceans increases, they become more
acidic, and acidification has impacts to the organisms that produce shells or other biological infrastructure out of
limestone (CaCO3) such as corals. CaCO3 becomes chemically unstable if the CO2 concentrations becomes too
high and eventually, lead to their destruction. Temperature is another threat for coral reefs. If the temperature of the
water rises above a threshold value, the coral respond by expelling their symbiotic algae guests, called zooxantelli
that do photosynthesis – the coral organism itself, as an animal, is incapable of doing photosynthesis. The animals
provide nutrients to the plants (zooxanthellae), which in turn harness the energy of sunlight to make organic matter
that feed the animals, and provide the characteristic colour of the coral and the reef. The expulsion of zooxantelli is
called ―bleaching‖ and quite often followed by the death of the coral. Therefore, the future for corals is dire, or
better saying, there is no future for them, even if tough regulations on greenhouse gases are put in place
immediately. Coral reefs are make up less than a quarter of 1% of the ocean‘s floor, but they provide food, income
and coastal protection for around 500 million people who live on low-lying islands and coral atolls. At a meeting
which was organised by the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (Globe) last weekend in
Copenhagen, politicians and scientists acknowledged that we are losing the fight to save coral reefs and agreed that
the best way to preserve them is by freezing coral samples and preserving them for the future. Scientists proposed to
store coral samples in liquid nitrogen (cryogenic vaults) and reintroduced them to the oceans when and if global
temperatures stabilised.

Coral will not be the only thing to die, plankton also, which affects the entire food chainScienceDaily, Science
Daily 12/18/08 (Science Daily, Ocean Acidification could have broader affects on marine ecosystems, reasearcher,)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190334.htm
Concern about increasing ocean acidification has often focused on its potential effects on coral reefs, but broader
disruptions of biological processes in the oceans may be more significant, according to Donald Potts, a professor of
ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an expert in coral reef ecology and
marine biodiversity. Potts will give an invited talk on "Geobiological Responses to Ocean Acidification" at the Fall
Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco on Wednesday, December 17. Ocean
acidification is one of the side effects of the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere due to the
burning of fossil fuels. The oceans can absorb enormous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but as the
gas dissolves it makes the water more acidic. Increasing acidity can make life difficult for corals and other marine
organisms that build shells and skeletons out of calcium carbonate. Scientists fear that acidification will slow the
growth of these organisms and cause calcium carbonate structures to dissolve. Potts agrees that dissolving shells will
certainly be a problem for many marine organisms, but he thinks the disruptions will run much deeper.
"It's not just a question of coral reefs, and it's not just a question of calcification," he said. "What we are potentially
looking at are disruptions of developmental processes and of populations and communities on many scales." The
term "acidification" refers to a slight lowering of the pH of ocean water, pushing it closer to the acidic end of the
scale, although it is still slightly alkaline. A small decrease in pH affects the chemical equilibrium of ocean water,
reducing the availability of carbonate ions needed by a wide range of organisms to build and maintain structures of
calcium carbonate. Many phytoplankton--microscopic algae that form the base of the marine food web--build
calcium carbonate shells to protect themselves from microscopic predators called ciliate protozoa, Potts said. "It's
going to change the dominant organism in the food chain, and there's a very real danger that it may short-circuit the
food chains," he said. In other words, ciliate protozoa gorging on unprotected phytoplankton may flourish at the
expense of other organisms higher up the food chain.




                                                                                                                        18
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                              Internal Link: Warming  Species Loss
Millions of species will be gone by 2050 due to global warming
John Roach, for National Geographic News, July 12, 2004, By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says, National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html
By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
could send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction, according to a recent
study. "Climate change now represents at least as great a threat to the number of species surviving on Earth as habitat-destruction
and modification," said Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Thomas is the lead author of
the study published earlier this year in the science journal Nature. His co-authors included 18 scientists from around the world, making this the
largest collaboration of its type. Townsend Peterson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and one of the study's co-
authors, said the paper allows scientists for the first time to "get a grip" on the impact of climate change as far as natural systems are concerned.
"A lot of us are in this to start to get a handle on what we are talking about," he said. "When we talk about the difference between half a percent
and one percent of carbon dioxide emissions what does that mean?" The researchers worked independently in six biodiversity-rich regions around
the world, from Australia to South Africa, plugging field data on species distribution and regional climate into computer models that simulated
the ways species' ranges are expected to move in response to temperature and climate changes. "We later met and decided to pool results to
produce a more globally relevant look at the issue," said Lee Hannah, a climate change biologist with Conservation International's Center for
Applied Biodiversity Science in Washington, D.C. Study Results According to the researchers' collective results, the predicted range of climate
change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected
to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species. "These are first-pass estimates, but
they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additional regions, but not
to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah. Writing in an accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of
the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates
"might be optimistic." As global warming interacts with other factors such as habitat-destruction, invasive species, and the build up of
carbon dioxide in the landscape, the risk of extinction increases even further, they say.

Global Warming Increases Species Extinctions Worldwide
Science Daily (Nov. 15, 2006) Global Warming has cause environmental damage and is on the verge of doing it
again
Global warming has already caused extinctions in the most sensitive habitats and will continue to cause more
species to go extinct over the next 50 to 100 years, confirms the most comprehensive study since 2003 on the effects
of climate change on wild species worldwide by a University of Texas at Austin biologist. Previously published
predictions, including those co-authored by Parmesan in a 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report,
were that species restricted to cold climate habitats like the Earth's poles or mountain tops and with narrow
temperature tolerances (for example, tropical corals) would be most affected by global warming. Less than a decade
later, those predictions have been born out




                                                                                                                                                  19
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                   Solvency: Solves Energy Shortages
A single receiver station will be enough to power thousands of homes
Michael Totty 09, (Writer for The Wall Street Journal), The Wall Street Journal, ―Five Technologies That Could
Change Everything‖, October 19, 2009,
http://powertreecorp.com/PowerTreePress/WSJ5TechnologiesChangeWorld102309.pdf
For more than three decades, visionaries have imagined tapping solar power where the sun always shines-in space. If we could place giant solar
panels in orbit around the Earth, and beam even a fraction of the available energy back to Earth, they could deliver nonstop electricity to any
place on the planet. The technology may sound like science fiction, but it's simple : Solar panels in orbit about 22,000 miles up
beam energy in the form of microwaves to earth, where it's turned into electricity and plugged into the grid. (The low-powered beams
are considered safe.) A ground receiving station a mile in diameter could deliver about 1,000 megawatts-enough to
power on average about 1,000 U.S. homes.




                                                                                                                                            20
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                 Solvency: Solves Environment
Space solar power can solve ALL our environmental problems
NSS, July 13th, 2011, National Space Society, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm The United States and
the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and
transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems.
Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities of
energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space
is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years,
making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the
Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined.
Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with
already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the electrical
needs of our planet.




                                                                                                                     21
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                  Solvency: Solves Fossil Fuels
Space-based solar power is possible now and can solve for fossil fuels
McLinko and Sagar 9 (Ryan M. McLinko, director of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, and
Basant V. Sagar, treasurer of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space. ―Space-based solar power
generation using a distributed network of satellites and methods for efficient space power transmission.‖
International Conference on Space Information Technology, 2009. Accessed July 18, 2011.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/57581)
Space-based solar power (SSP) generation is being touted as a solution to our ever-increasing energy consumption
and dependence on fossil fuels. Satellites in Earth's orbit can capture solar energy through photovoltaic cells and
transmit that power to ground based stations. Solar cells in orbit are not hindered by weather, clouds, or night. The
energy generated by this process is clean and pollution-free. Although the concept of space-based solar power was
initially proposed nearly 40 years ago, the level of technology in photovoltaics, power transmission, materials, and
efficient satellite design has finally reached a level of maturity that makes solar power from space a feasible
prospect. Furthermore, new strategies in methods for solar energy acquisition and transmission can lead to
simplifications in design, reductions in cost and reduced risk.

Space-based solar energy is necessary to replace fossil fuels
Aviation 11 (No Author Given. "Space Race: Will Space-Based Solar Take Off?" Aviation, April 4, 2011. Accessed
July 18, 2011. http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/solar-in-space)
Clean, efficient and available 24-7, space-based solar power is the Holy Grail of renewable energy to a dedicated
cadre of scientists. By 2035, oil giant ExxonMobil estimates the world will demand 35 percent more energy per year
than it did in 2005. This energy will need to come from power sources other than the carbon-intensive fuels that
have powered societies since the industrial revolution. Space solar proponents claim that our current renewable
technologies can‘t be scaled up fast enough to meet the anticipated demand. As such, space is the answer. ―The truth
is we don‘t have anything else,‖ said Martin Hoffert, an emeritus professor of physics at New York University. ―We
need to go through a revolutionary transformation away from fossil fuels.‖ David Criswell, the director of the
Institute for Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston, who proposes a system of moon-based solar
arrays that would bounce energy off satellites then down to Earth, is more direct about our need for space: ―I simply
do not see any other reasonable options.‖

Space solar power is a viable energy alternative and can solve for fossil fuel use
NSS 8 (No author given. "Space Solar Power: Limitless clean energy from space." National Space Society, October
2007. Accessed July 18, 2011. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm)
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from
sunlight in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas
emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can
provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar
energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an
estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one
part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available,
dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a
larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission, can supply nearly all the electrical
needs of our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity
powers few vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the
grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and
smaller role in transportation — but only if we can generate the enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It
doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to generate the
electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric
transportation system. While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a number
of substantial advantages over other energy sources.




                                                                                                                   22
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                               Solvency: Solves Pollution
The Space Based Solar Panels will massively cut down on non-clean energy and eliminate pollution.
United States Patent 11, US Patent Office, ―Power Generating and Distribution System and Method‖, Criswell,
David R, June 30, 2011, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0156498.html
According to another aspect of the present invention, a unified power-generating and distributing system is provided , which
comprises at least one combined power extracting, converting, and transmitting facility adjacent a source of fossil fuel, the facility having an
extraction unit for extracting the fossil fuel, an electricity-generating unit located adjacent the extraction unit for converting the fuel into
electricity, and a microwave beaming unit adjacent the electricity-generating unit for converting the electricity into at least one microwave beam,
the beaming unit including a beam director to direct the microwave beam, at least one redirector satellite orbiting the Earth for receiving the
microwave beam, and a plurality of rectenna receiver stations on Earth for receiving microwave beams and converting the beams into electricity,
the satellite having a beam directing apparatus for directing plural microwave beams to selected rectenna stations depending on current power
requirements. The microwave beam may be relayed through at least two redirector satellites before being directed onto
selected rectenna receiver stations. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the power facility also has a
collector for collecting waste gases such as carbon dioxide and pressurized gases or steam produced by the
electricity-generating unit, and an injection device for injecting the waste gases back into the buried fossil fuel
supply, which may be an oil field, natural gas field, or coal supply. This will result in enhanced recovery of fossil
fuel from a depleted field, as well as reducing or eliminating pollution of the atmosphere as a result of gases which would otherwise be released
from the electricity-generating unit. Chemicals that release oil from porous rock can be manufactured using the power and chemicals released
during power production. It is well known that, for all oil fields, most of the oil still remains after primary recovery (natural pressurization and
pumping) and secondary recovery (usually water flooding) techniques have reached their limits. Studies have indicated that more oil can
potentially be recovered using carbon dioxide injection than is extracted using primary and secondary recovery techniques. By providing the
electricity-generating facility at the same site as the oil field or other fossil fuel supply, a supply of pressurized carbon dioxide and other gases
can be recovered on site at little expense and used immediately for injection into the oil field or the like for enhanced extraction. This also
reduces or eliminates pollution from the gaseous byproducts of electricity generators such as steam turbines or the
like.




                                                                                                                                                        23
SDI 11
SPS Aff

              2AC Warming Impact Module: Ocean Acidification
CO2 Acidification causes Extinction
NYT, 2006, 31 October, (Nicholas D. Kristof, Scandal below the surface, p. Lexis)
If you think of the earth‘s surface as a great beaker, then it‘s filled mostly with ocean water. It is slightly alkaline,
and that‘s what creates a hospitable home for fish, coral reefs and plankton — and indirectly, higher up the food
chain, for us. But scientists have discovered that the carbon dioxide we‘re spewing into the air doesn‘t just heat up
the atmosphere and lead to rising seas. Much of that carbon is absorbed by the oceans, and there it produces
carbonic acid — the same stuff found in soda pop. That makes oceans a bit more acidic, impairing the ability of
certain shellfish to produce shells, which, like coral reefs, are made of calcium carbonate. A recent article in
Scientific American explained the indignity of being a dissolving mollusk in an acidic ocean: ―Drop a piece of chalk
(calcium carbonate) into a glass of vinegar (a mild acid) if you need a demonstration of the general worry: the chalk
will begin dissolving immediately.‖ The more acidic waters may spell the end, at least in higher latitudes, of some of
the tiniest variations of shellfish — certain plankton and tiny snails called pteropods. This would disrupt the food
chain, possibly killing off many whales and fish, and rippling up all the way to humans. We stand, so to speak, on
the shoulders of plankton.




                                                                                                                      24
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                         2AC Warming Impact Module: Species Loss
Global Warming leads to species loss
Julio Godoy, Apr 4, 2007, Global Warming Will Decimate Biodiversity, Writer for Inter Press Service and a member of International
Federation of Environmental Journalists
Thousands of plant and animal species are disappearing every month under the impact of global warming, leading
environmentalists say. "About 150 species disappear every day," German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel said at the conference of
environment ministers of the eight most industrialised countries (G8) in Potsdam, just outside of Berlin Mar. 16-17. "Humankind is about to
delete nature's biological databank at an unknown speed," Gabriel said at the conference opening. Gabriel's comments are based on data compiled
by scientists from around the world for the new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be released in Brussels Apr.
6. A draft of this report, which is still undergoing revisions, says a steady rise in global temperature of between one and three
degrees Celsius would be sufficient to decimate biodiversity, with up to 30 percent of species at risk of extinction. The report
predicts that global warming would endanger millions of people worldwide due to food and water shortages, floods
and the spread of tropical diseases. The document provides a comprehensive analysis of how climate change is affecting natural
and human systems. It explores how far adaptation and mitigation can reduce this impact. The paper presents likely scenarios if global
average temperature increases between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees by 2100, compared to 1990 levels. "Species must adapt to these changes, or move
with the shifting climate zones," Wolfgang Lucht, professor of biosphere dynamics and earth systems at the German Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research, and a contributor to the IPCC report told IPS. "For species which cannot adapt or emigrate, new climate conditions at
their habitats could mean extinction." In the face of global warming, "species adapted to mountainous ecosystems cannot dodge to higher, cooler
places, for these environments do not exist," he said. "In the Arctic region, on the North Pole, which is specially suffering from global warming,
flora and fauna cannot emigrate further to the north to evade the consequences of climate change." Lucht said climate scientists have modelled
global weather development scenarios for the next 100 years, which show how climate zones could change. This research has been used
by the IPCC to formulate its new report. "We cannot deliver an exact forecast, for a definitive theory of the biosphere does not exist," Lucht said.
"But hundreds of research surveys on individual species and ecosystems show that global warming could have lethal consequences in
numerous areas of the world."




                                                                                                                                                25
SDI 11
SPS Aff




          26
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                          ***Leadership Adv. Ext.***
Uniqueness: U.S. Space Leadership Decreasing

Russia is now the leader of space flight
David Greene, Moscow correspondent for NPR, In Russia, Space Ride For U.S. Spurs Nostalgia, Hope, July 15,
2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137843724/in-russia-space-ride-for-u-s-spurs-nostalgia-hope
The U.S. shuttle program will end after space shuttle Atlantis returns to Earth on July 21. Retired NASA astronaut Leroy Chiao captured this
reality on All Things Considered: "After this mission, we will no longer have the ability to send American astronauts into space
ourselves," Chiao said. "And arguably, we will no longer be the leaders in human space flight until we get that capability
back." Arguably, the leader in space flight will, for now, be Russia. American astronauts will rely solely on the Russian Soyuz
spacecraft to reach orbit. After years of space rivalry between the two sides, this might seem like a time for Russians to feel pride. But not all
Russians see it that way. On April 12, 1961, five days before the Bay of Pigs invasion, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space. "American
prestige was jolted as the world heard the quickened pulse of Vostok 1 orbiting the Earth," Walter Cronkite recalled. Gagarin got a hero's
welcome in Moscow's Red Square — he had given the Soviets the lead in the space race. Five decades later, a towering statue of the man stands
in south Moscow's Yuri Gagarin Square. "People call it 'the penguin' because if you look, it looks like a penguin," says Yuri Karash, who has
studied and written about Russian space policy for years. He remembers how Gagarin's adventure gave citizens a feeling that their sacrifice for
the state was worth it. "America could not do it, OK? Western Europe could not do it. No other country in the world could do it," Karash says.
"But the Soviet state could."




                                                                                                                                               27
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                          Internal Link: SPS K2 Econ LShip
SBSP key to economic leadership
NSSO (National Security Space Office, ―Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,‖
October 10 2007, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US
intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering
Storm report by providing a true ―Manhattan or Apollo project for energy.‖ In absolute scale and
implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which
established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The
committee expressed it was ―deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical
to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nvations are gathering strength.‖
SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐paying jobs. It would require expanded
technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the American Competitiveness
Initiative.




                                                                                                         28
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                          ***Military Overstretch Adv. Ext.***
Uniqueness: Foreign Oil Dependency Now

Foreign dependency is concentrated on ―anti-American‖ countries
Weiss and Lefton 10 (Daniel J, Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress; Rebecca,
Policy analyst, Researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress, ―Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit‖,
Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html)
In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries currently on the State Department‘s Travel Warning List,
which lists countries that have ―long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.‖ These
nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Our reliance on oil from these countries could have serious implications for our national
security, economy, and environment.

The United States depends on foreign energy supplies
Michael Graetz Energy Déjà Vu: Obama Must Break with Failed U.S. Policies
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/energy_deja_vu_obama_must_break_with_failed_us_policies/2395/(is a professor of
law at Columbia Law School and a professor emeritus at Yale Law School.) 25 April 2011
Until the 1970s, we produced domestically all the oil we needed. But since then we have had to import most of the
oil we use, much of it from the Middle East. And we rely on an even dirtier fuel — coal — to produce half our
electricity. Four decades after energy policy first took center stage in our nation‘s political discourse, the
fundamental difficulties that brought energy onto the policy forefront remain unresolved. The United States has 4
percent of the world‘s population, but consumes 25 percent of the world‘s oil. In 1970, we imported less than half a
billion barrels of oil; by 1980, our imports had increased to nearly 2 billion. Now we import about 3.5 billion barrels
annually. Much comes from Canada and Mexico, but we still depend on OPEC oil to keep our vehicles moving. We
import 13 million barrels of oil every day, 5 million from OPEC countries. Even our most effective domestic energy
policies have failed us, in large part because we have failed to put a true price on the fossil fuels we consume. In
1973 about 17 percent of our nation‘s electricity was generated from oil; now just over 1 percent is. The good news
is that producing electric power is now essentially a domestic enterprise. The bad news is that electricity accounts
for about 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, and given the risks from climate change and other pollutants,
our heavy reliance on dirty coal-fired electricity is now just another problem to solve.




                                                                                                                     29
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                     Uniqueness: Oil Dependency Now
History repeats itself as US dependence on oil increases
Bowman 3 (Michael, Assistant Professor of business and public affairs, Reporter, VOA news, ―US Foreign Oil
Dependency on Increase, say Experts‖, VOANews.com, http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/10-16-3.htm)
Thirty years ago, the United States faced an energy crisis as mostly-Muslim, oil-producing nations imposed an oil
embargo, hoping to force a halt of U.S. support for Israel. Today, U.S. dependence on foreign oil is far greater than it was in
the early 1970s. Panel of experts recently gathered in Washington to examine America's energy situation and its choices
for the future. Former Energy Secretary James Schlesinger says the 1973 oil embargo had a devastating short term
effect on the United States, but an even costlier long term effect on OPEC nations that conspired to withhold fuel. In
the years that followed, the United States built more fuel-efficient cars and sought alternate sources for oil. OPEC's
market share fell and, by the mid-1980s, world oil prices collapsed. "The Saudis did learn in that period that there was a need for
stable prices, that there was a need to show that they were the dependable sources of supply," said Mr. Schlesinger, speaking at the Washington-
based Heritage Foundation. "If they were not, other places in the world were discovered that could produce oil: the North Sea, West Africa. Not
only that, but the world's appetite for oil could be curbed if prices were high enough." But Mr. Schlesinger and other analysts contend
that any progress the United States made in the 1970s and 80s towards stable energy supplies at reasonable prices is at
risk."Our dependence [on foreign oil] has almost doubled since 1973," added Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of
Global Security. "In 1972, the United States imported 28 percent of its oil; today it imports 55 percent, and projections
show that 25 years from now it will import 70 percent of its oil ," he continued. "Our dependency is growing, and our
dependency on Middle East oil is also growing. We will import 50 percent of our oil from the Middle East by
2025."Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the Bush Administration has
renewed U.S. efforts to secure oil from non-OPEC sources, especially from Russia. Analysts say diversifying petroleum
sources is a worthwhile goal, but caution that, at best, it constitutes a short term solution. That is because the proven oil reserves of non-
OPEC producers average about 15 years at current production levels, versus more than 70 years for OPEC nations.
James Schlesinger says, as global demand for oil grows and reserves dwindle, the U nited States will have no choice but
to turn to OPEC nations to satisfy its energy needs."We should not deceive ourselves, as long as we are dependent on oil to the
degree that we are, that there is a substitute for the Middle East [as a source of oil]," said Mr. Schlesinger. " Russia sells all of its oil. Over
time, non-OPEC oil will be depleted and we will become more dependent on oil from the Middle East."

Independence is undercut by politicians- sacrificing billions of dollars from taxpayers
Shughart 11 (William F; senior fellow of the Independent Institute, Professor in Public Choice at Utah State
University‘s Huntsman School of Business, ―Obama undermines hope for energy independence‖, The Washington
Time, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/4/obama-undermines-hope-for-energy-independence/)
In May alone, Americans forked over $41 billion to import enough crude oil to meet growing energy demands here,
just 37 percent of which was supplied domestically. The payments to close that ―energy gap‖ ended up in the treasuries of
foreign governments, many of which are hostile to U.S. interests, unstable politically or both. In an ideal world, it would make
economic sense to acquire fossil fuels from least-cost producers no matter where on the globe they are located. But this
is not an ideal world. What makes no sense in such a climate is continuing to rely on unreliable foreign energy
suppliers, especially when Congress‗ own research service estimates that the United States has more proven energy
reserves - coal, oil and natural gas - than any other nation on the planet. Rather than exploiting these abundant
domestic resources, the Obama administration (1) all but shut down expansion of energy production in the Gulf of
Mexico for more than a year, (2) failed to follow through on promises to open areas in Alaska and on the Eastern and
Western seaboards for drilling permits and (3) plans to slow and possibly halt development of the nation‘s hundred-year
supply of natural gas, some of which has been discovered only recently in Pennsylvania and neighboring states. Such policies have
sacrificed billions of dollars in unrealized economic growth, unnecessary job losses and deficits larger than they
would be otherwise in our international trade balance. As a matter of fact, mesmerized by his vision of a ―green‖ economy and
apparently unfazed by losses of nearly $100 million in taxes paid to the federal government daily by the domestic oil
and gas industry, President Obama wants to punish ―Big Oil‖ even more. The president and his congressional allies are
pushing for $61 billion in new energy taxes, a proposal that if it passes will add to pain at the pump, raise utility bills
and increase the cost of doing business nationwide. Such a counterproductive policy may enlarge federal revenue in
the short run, but it surely will reduce it in the long run as a larger tax bite lessens the oil and gas industry‘s
incentives to invest in finding more energy deposits and delivering them to energy consumers.




                                                                                                                                                 30
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                    Uniqueness: Overstretch Now
The U.S. military overstretch in the Middle East is due to fossil fuel dependency
Dreher 8 (Rod Dreher, director of publications at the John Templeton Foundation. ―To be truly free is to be
responsible.‖ Peak Oil News, August 24, 2008. Accessed July 16, 2011. http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-be-
truly-free-is-to-be-responsible.html)
Nowhere in the Bacevich analysis does the phrase "peak oil" appear. But oil dependence is key to our weakness, he argues. America's
imperial military overstretch since the 1980 promulgation of the Carter Doctrine — which holds that the U.S. will defend
vital interests in the Persian Gulf "by any means necessary" — is a natural consequence of that oil dependency. Our
collective refusal to conserve oil, to learn to live more sensibly within our means, requires an ever-growing military
commitment to the Middle East.




                                                                                                                                31
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                             Brink: Now Key
We need to solve our energy problems now to end our dependence on fossil fuels
Twain 8 (Tiffany B. Twain, Earth Manifesto writer. "Reflections on War." EarthManifesto.com, May 24, 2008.
Accessed July 18, 2011. http://earthmanifesto.com/1%20-%20Reflections%20on%20War%20-
%20May%2024,%202008.htm)
In national security matters, a good defense is important. An overly aggressive offense, however, is not only the
supreme international crime, but it is also a reckless strategy that tends to make everyone less safe. It creates
heightened risks of military overstretch, social instability, expanded violence, blowback retaliation, domestic
repression, and unintended repercussions related to enormous current and deferred monetary costs. The majority of
people in the world see the occupation of Iraq as a U.S. gambit to gain access to, and control of, the oil resources of
the Middle East. This war is seen as an unjust, imperialistic, illegal and unethical state of violent aggression.
Whereas the Statue of Liberty used to be the most evocative symbol of America in the world, now our leaders have
managed to alter that perception with symbols like shock-and-awe bombings, the prisons of Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo, and images like the humiliation or waterboarding of prisoners. It is becoming obvious that our national
priorities are severely wrong-headed. We should be devoting our resources to domestic priorities, not to war and
military occupations of other countries. We should make it a top priority to solve our energy problems. We would be
far better off to invest the $12 billion per month we are spending on the Iraq occupation on reducing our reliance on
fossil fuels, and on funding programs emphasizing conservation and efficiency, and on finding alternatives to our
addiction to oil. Wouldn‘t that be a better idea? Wouldn‘t it be a better plan to invest in mitigating the extensive
threats posed by Peak Oil and the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and related climate changes?




                                                                                                                    32
SDI 11
SPS Aff

               Internal Link: Fossil Fuel Reliance Hurts the Military
Fossil fuel dependence currently poses a large risk to the US military
Rosenthal 10 (Elisabeth Rosenthal, writer for the New York Times. "U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on
Fossil Fuels." The New York Times, October 4, 2010. Accessed July 18, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html?sq=military)
Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on
hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in
remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see
overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable
and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy
now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly
expand their use over the next decade. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the huge truck convoys that haul fuel to bases have
been sitting ducks for enemy fighters — in the latest attack, oil tankers carrying fuel for NATO troops in
Afghanistan were set on fire in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, early Monday. In Iraq and Afghanistan, one Army study
found, for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. In the past
three months, six Marines have been wounded guarding fuel runs in Afghanistan. ―There are a lot of profound
reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it‘s practical,‖ said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a former
ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has said he wants 50 percent of the power for the Navy and Marines to come from
renewable energy sources by 2020. That figure includes energy for bases as well as fuel for cars and ships.

America‘s reliability on fossil fuels is a dangerous weakness
AFP 10 (No author given. ―Pentagon going green-because it has to.‖ AFP, October 13, 2010. Accessed July 16,
2011. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/pentagon-going-green-because-it-has-to-0)
The U.S. military's heavy dependence on fossil fuels is a dangerous vulnerability, officials said Wednesday as they made a
fresh push to develop renewable energy solutions for the battlefield. In the wake of a spate of deadly attacks on tankers carrying fuel to foreign
troops in Afghanistan, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of a "strategic imperative" for the U.S. military to
become more efficient and find new sources of energy. The Department of Defense is burning through 300,000 barrels of oil a
day, using more energy per soldier every year and its top import to Afghanistan is fossil fuels, the highest ranking U.S. military officer said as he
kicked off a Pentagon discussion on energy security. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has set a goal of having
renewable energy account for 50 percent of power for the Navy and Marines by 2020. "We're not going green just for green's sake. Energy reform
and the new energy future aren't about politics or slogans," he said. "It's about protecting the lives of our troops. It's about making our military
better and more capable fighters. It's about making our country more secure and more independent. That's why we are doing this, that's why we
have to change." Last month, 150 Marines from India Company, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, were the first to take portable solar panels, solar-
powered electricity generation systems, insulated tents and energy-saving lights to the battlefield in Afghanistan's rugged Helmand Province.
Other initiatives underway range from developing hybrid tactical vehicles, deploying a solar-powered microgrid to Afghanistan by the end of the
year to the U.S. Air Force and Navy certifying their fleets to operate on a 50/50 blend of standard fuel and biofuels. The Pentagon's push to
develop alternative energy could also reduce costs for the average consumer as the military becomes a steady customer of such products. Officials
speaking at National Energy Awareness Month events said getting access to more sources of renewable energy would also improve national
security because too much oil consumed by the United States comes from the Middle East and other volatile regions.
"This is raw self-interest on our part," Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment Dorothy Robyn told AFP. "We care
about improving our energy performance because it will improve our ability to carry out our mission."
She noted the push was part of President Barack Obama's pledge to help build a new green economy, a "night and day" difference compared to
the more staid approach of ex-president George W. Bush. The cost of relying too heavily on fossil fuels, both in blood and treasure, is
also a top concern for military planners.




                                                                                                                                                 33
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                         Internal Link: Overstretch Crushes Heg
The United States is especially at risk for overstretch and loss of hegemony
Florig 10 (Dennis Florig, Professor in the Division of International Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Seoul, South Korea. ―Hegemonic overreach vs. imperial overstretch.‖ Cambridge Journal Review of International
Studies, 2010. Accessed July 16, 2011.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=7918457&jid=RIS&volumeId=36&issueId=04&ai
d=7918455)
The hegemonic state tends to become overstretched, but more importantly the US, because of its messianic sense of
mission, tends to overreach. Some of the burden the hegemon has to assume is inevitable, but the US is particularly
prone to massive miscalculation. However, long cycle hegemonic theory may no longer be accurate, at least in the
short to mid term, in the prediction of the formation of a relatively coherent counter-hegemonic coalition led by a
counter-hegemonic state which will eventually go to war with the hegemon and its bloc. Perhaps in the mid to long
term future the Terrorism Wars will be overshadowed by a counterhegemonic challenge by a coalition of Asian
states led by China or some other power. Yet while signs of US and Western decline can be found, along with much
resistance to US hegemony, no powerful state has taken a position of consistent opposition to the current global
system, much less begun assembling a counterhegemonic coalition. At this point, the decline of US hegemony, if it
occurs in this century, looks more likely to take the form of a death of many cuts rather than the bang of a world
war. If so, US hegemony seems more likely to be replaced by multipolarity and regionalisation rather than a new
global hegemon.

Overstretch of military forces is damaging to American hegemony
Hendrickson 5 (David C. Hendrickson, Robert J. Fox Distinguished Service Professor at Colorado College and a
member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. ―The Curious Case of American Hegemony.‖ World Policy
Journal, Summer 2005. Accessed July 17, 2011.
http://personalwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~dhendrickson/Essays/WPJ_Curious_Case_of_Amer_Hegemony.pdf)
The response of the imperial intellectuals to such frustration is always: more effort, more staying power, more will.
But what if the problem goes beyond will? What if we just don‘t know how to conduct such enterprises successfully,
even if we had the will? Iraq has demonstrated with great clarity the old truth that it is easier to destroy than to build;
all the ―nation-building‖ expertise in the world will get you nowhere if a raging insurgency takes as its fundamental
objective the prevention of reconstruction. The unexpected duration and high combat tempo of the Iraq war have also
revealed serious constraints on any future operation involving the use of large ground forces. The Pentagon‘s initial
idea was to bring U.S. forces in Iraq down to 30,000 by the fall of 2003, whereas they have stayed well above
100,000 for the duration and reached 150,000 on the eve of the January 30, 2005 Iraqi elections. The most serious
price has been paid by reserve forces, which have constituted some 40–45 percent of soldiers serving in Iraq. The
result, according to the commander of the reserves, is a ―broken force.‖ The condition of the American ground forces
does not preclude the use of air or naval power by the United States; nevertheless, the frustrations of the Iraq
campaign and the pinched condition of U.S. ground forces do foreclose alternatives that undoubtedly seemed
attractive to the Bush administration in the confident days of 2002. In the curt summary of Boston University
professor Andrew Bacevich, the sequel to the conquest of Baghdad punctured ―the illusion that the world‘s sole
superpower has reserves of power to spare. It doesn‘t, not militarily, not financially and not morally. Iraq has shown
how narrow the margin is between global hegemony and imperial overstretch.‖ Unipolarity, then, has its hazards.
Among them is a kind of inexorable pressure to continually demonstrate the efficacy of military power. On point is
the maxim that became popular among critics during the Iraq war: ―If all you have is a hammer, every problem
looks like a nail.‖ Of course, people are perfectly capable of seeing that every problem is not a nail, but the
realization has a habit of coming too late. Once committed, the imperial power cannot lose. It straps itself to the
wheel, invests its resources in projects that will demonstrate its credibility, persists in enterprises that ought not to
have been undertaken in the first place but which, once undertaken, immediately become vital interests whose
sacrifice is unthinkable. It takes up enterprises, as Bush has acknowledged, that are difficult to achieve but would be
dishonorable to abandon.




                                                                                                                        34
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                             Solvency: SPS Solves Energy Crisis
Space-based solar power could provide energy to the entire world
Kusiolek 9 (Richard Kusiolek, chairman and president of TransGlobalNet Inc. "Space-based Solar Power Comes to
Light." TecTrends, March 2009. Accessed July 18, 2011.
http://www.tectrends.com/tectrends/article/00173501.html)
Space-based solar energy projects could support energy demands in the future, instead of fossil fuels. Researches
show that around 219 thousand billion kilowatt hours of energy per year can be extracted from the sun, benefiting
approximately 7 billion people.

SBSP is a huge opportunity for a new energy source
Space Commerce 10 (No Author Given. "Space-Based Solar Power." Space Commerce, April 7, 2010. Accessed
July 18, 2011. http://www.space.commerce.gov/power/)
Abundant energy is essential to the continued sustainment and growth of human civilization. In recent years, the
global dependence upon fossil fuels as a primary source of energy has contributed to major economic instabilities,
international conflicts, and environmental damage. As society seeks to identify and develop alternative energy
sources for the future that are clean, safe, and continuously available, the concept of space-based solar power
(SBSP) is beginning to gain traction as a potential answer to the world's long-term energy needs. The Department of
Commerce and the Office of Space Commercialization play a key role in evaluating the economic viability and
competitiveness of SBSP, as well as the potential for private sector investment and international partnerships. SBSP
projects have been studied internationally for decades. Early proposals involved enormous orbiting solar collection
structures utilizing photo-voltaic cells and gigantic mirrors. More recently, proposals have investigated lightweight
inflatable structures and nanotechnology, but the overall concept remains the same: capturing solar energy in space
and transporting it via microwaves to receivers on the ground (or other spacecraft). SBSP can be similarly compared
to hydroelectric energy production in that both systems involve high capital expenditures and long payback periods,
but both are renewable and require no fossil fuel feedstock. In 2007, the Department of Defense's National Security
Space Office (NSSO) sponsored a major study of the technical, political, and economic feasibility of the SBSP
concept. The objective was to answer the question, "Can the United States and partners enable the development and
deployment of a space-based solar power system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed it
could provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, & expandable energy for its consumers?" The NSSO
study found that SBSP does present a strategic opportunity that could significantly advance U.S. and partner
security, capability, and freedom of action, and the concept merits significant further attention on the part of the U.S.
Government and the private sector. While significant technical challenges remain, SBSP is more technically
executable than ever before, and current technological vectors promise to further improve its viability. A
government-led proof-of-concept demonstration could serve to catalyze commercial sector development.




                                                                                                                      35
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                ***Small Farms Adv. Ext.***
Internal Link: Small Farms K2 Food Production

UN States Small Farms Key to Sustain The World Population
Scientific American‘11(―Small Farms Key to Global Food Security, UN Says‖,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=small-farms-key-to-global-food)
Governments must work toward a major shift toward small-scale farming if endemic food crises are to be overcome
and production boosted to support the global population, the United Nations said on Tuesday. In its annual World
Economic and Social Survey, it said a transformation from large-scale and intensive systems of agriculture was vital
if growing environmental and land degradation was to be avoided. The food crisis of 2007-08 and a price spike this
year "have revealed deep structural problems in the global food system and the need to increase resources and
innovation in agriculture so as to accelerate food production," the survey declared. Food production, it said, would
have to increase between 70 and 100 per cent by 2050 to sustain a world population that would have grown by 35
per cent from the present 6.9 billion to around 9 billion by that time.




                                                                                                                  36
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                 Internal Link: Small Farms K2 Local Economy
AND, Small Farms are Key to Local Economy
Hazell and Dorward 7‘(Andrew Dorword Professor of Development Economics; Programme Director:
Agricultural Economics, Managing Rural Development, Peter Hazell Research assistant of the Centre for
development and environment policy, ―The Future of Small Farms For Poverty Reduction and
Growth‖http://books.google.com/books?id=Y4C2epgnL5gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Andrew+Dor
ward%22&hl=en&ei=kZchTrWbFsavsAK47rDYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6
AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
With regard to equity and poverty reduction, small farms are preferred to large. Smallholdings are typically operated
by poor people who use a great deal of labor, both from their own households and from their equally poor or poorer
neighbors. Moreover, when small-form households spend their income they tend to spend them on locally produced
goods and services, thereby stimulating the rural nonfarm economy and creating additional jobs.




                                                                                                                  37
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                    Solvency: SPS Solves Rural Areas
SBSP Will Reach Rural Areas More Effectively
Cohan and Smith 09‘ (―Only A Matter of Time: A Review of SBS‖, Lisa Cohn has worked as a writer for more than 20 years, focusing on
energy and environment. She has received ten writing awards, from the Pacific Northwest Writers Association, Willamette Writers, Associated
Oregon Industries, Parenting Publications of America and other associations, Reid Smith is a freelance writer who helps Businesses to come up
with energy effective strategy‘s, http://www.energysmith.net/articles/spacepower.pdf)
SBSP solves transmission issues because transmission can be wireless. Energy produced in spacebased
stations is converted into radio waves at asimilar frequency to cell phone and wireless internet 22 Sun & Wind
Energy 10/2009 Review signals – 2.4 GHz – and transmitted to collecting stations on Earth. From these collection
centers, radio waves may be converted to energy and transmitted along existing transmission corridors or
transported to any part of the globe via radio waves. This way, the power can be sent to rural areas without using
existing lines or building new ones.

Solar Powered Satellites are good for the Environment, Cost Effective and Can Reach Anywhere in the
World
Betancourt ‗10(―Space Based Solar Power: Worth the effort?‖ August
28,2010http://spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=56407)
One solar power satellite could provide 1 gigawatt of continuous power, enough to power 500‘000 homes, also the
equivalent of a large nuclear power plant.[17] Like a nuclear power plant, SBSP would do so without emitting any
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.[18] Unlike a nuclear power plant, SBSP would do so without any radioactive
waste by-product or danger of nuclear meltdown.[19] Unlike ground-based solar, without the interference of the
earth‘s atmosphere a solar power satellite could collect 7-10 times the amount of power.[20] The sun‘s rays would
shine continuously on a solar power satellite, thus this power could be supplied continuously without interruption.
Solar power satellites could then transmit that power anywhere in the world.[21] These are 2 properties that set
SBSP apart from other renewable energy sources.[22] Ground-based solar power requires a power storage system to
supply power when the sun is blocked by bad weather or during the night which adds to its cost and decreases its
efficiency.[23] Wind power is often available only from remote or offshore locations.[24] Even countries with
minimal energy infrastructure or people located in remote areas could install receivers to get a continuous power
supply from SBSP.




                                                                                                                                            38
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                         ***Water Adv. Ext.***
Brink: Water Conflicts Imminent

21ST Century Conflicts Will Happen Over Water
Steven Soloman is a writer for the new York times and the Econimist. He has a very interest in the future- [―Will
The Next War Be Fought Over Water?‖ 1-3-10 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122195532]
Just as wars over oil played a major role in 20th-century history, a new book makes a convincing case that many
21st century conflicts will be fought over water. In Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization,
journalist Steven Solomon argues that water is surpassing oil as the world's scarcest critical resource. Only 2.5
percent of the planet's water supply is fresh, Solomon writes, much of which is locked away in glaciers. World water
use in the past century grew twice as fast as world population. "We've now reached the limit where that
trajectory can no longer continue," Solomon tells NPR's Mary Louise Kelly. "Suddenly we're going to have to
find a way to use the existing water resources in a far, far more productive manner than we ever did before, because
there's simply not enough." One issue, Solomon says, is that water's cost doesn't reflect its true economic value.
While a society's transition from oil may be painful, water is irreplaceable. Yet water costs far less per gallon — and
even less than that for some. "In some cases, where there are large political subsidies, largely in agriculture, it does
not [cost very much]," Solomon says. "In many cases, irrigated agriculture is getting its water for free. And we in
the cities are paying a lot, and industries are also paying an awful lot. That's unfair. It's inefficient to the allocation of
water to the most productive economic ends."At the same time, Solomon says, there's an increasing feeling in the
world that everyone has a basic right to a minimum 13 gallons of water a day for basic human health. He doesn't
necessarily have an issue with that. "I think there's plenty of water in the world, even in the poorest and most water-
famished country, for that 13 gallons to be given for free to individuals — and let them pay beyond that," he says.
Solomon says the world is divided into water haves and have-nots. China, Egypt and Pakistan are just a few
countries facing critical water issues in the 21st century. In his book he writes, "Consider what will happen in
water-distressed, nuclear-armed, terrorist-besieged, overpopulated, heavily irrigation dependent and already
politically unstable Pakistan when its single water lifeline, the Indus river, loses a third of its flow from the
disappearance from its glacial water source." Solomon notes some good water news, too. The United States has
made significant progress in curbing its water use, thanks to market forces and legislation such as the Clean Water
Act. "Our water use between 1900 and 1975 actually tripled relative to population growth," he says. "Since 1975 to
the present day, it has flat-lined. And we still had a population increase of about 30 percent and our GDP continued
to grow. So it's an amazing increase in water productivity."




                                                                                                                           39
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                  Internal Link: Water Shortages  Wars in India
Water Shortages and Wars Will Have Serious Consequences
Nina Brooks is a writer for the World Biggest Problems website-Worlds Biggest Problems [―Imminant Water Crisis in India‖
August 2007 http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/global-water-crisis/606
India is facing a looming water crisis that has implications not only for its 1.1 billion people, but for the entire globe. India‘s
demand for water is growing even as it stretches its supplies. Water infrastructure is crumbling, preventing the government from
being able to supply drinking water to its citizens. Pollution is rampant due to unfettered economic growth, poor waste
management laws and practices. Although many analysts believe that demand will outstrip supply by 2020[48], there is still
hope for India. Water scarcity in India is predominantly a manmade problem; therefore if India makes significant changes in the
way it thinks about water and manages its resources soon, it could ward off, or at least mollify, the impending crisis. India has
had success with water infrastructure development, which allowed the country to take advantage of its water resources in the first
place and achieve food security. These projects did enable the expansion of urban and industrial sectors and increased availability
of safe drinking water, but then they were allowed to dilapidate. India needs to make water supply a national priority the way it
has made food security and economic growth priorities in the past. India‘s need for a comprehensive management program is so
severe because of its rapidly depleting water supply, environmental problems, and growing population. If the country continues
with a business as usual mentality the consequences will be drastic. India will see a sharp decrease in agricultural production,
which will negate all of the previous efforts at food security. India will become a net importer of grain, which will have a huge
effect of global food prices, as well as the global supply of food. A rise in food prices will aggravate the already widespread
poverty when people have to spend larger portions of their income on food. In addition to devastating the agricultural sector of
India‘s economy, the water crisis will have a big effect on India‘s industrial sector, possibly stagnating many industries. Finally,
India could become the stage for major international water wars because so many rivers that originate in India supply
water to other countries. India has the power to avoid this dark future if people take action immediately: start conserving water,
begin to harvest rainwater, treat human, agricultural, and industrial waste effectively, and regulate how much water can be drawn
out of the ground.




                                                                                                                                 40
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                Solvency: Desalination Solves
Desalination Looks Prominent and Is Low Cost
Gil K. Dhawan has a Ph.D. in science- Water Treatment Guide [‖Seawater Desalinization‖ 2007
http://www.watertreatmentguide.com/seawater_desalination.htm]
Seawater desalination to convert seawater into potable water is being used in many parts of the world. Reverse
Osmosis process using thin-film composite membranes has evolved over the last 20 years and has brought down
the cost of desalination. Major improvements in the membranes, energy recovery, pumps and pressure vessels
have brought down the cost of desalinated water significantly. The key technology in the desalination process is
Reverse Osmosis. In this process sea water is forced against semi-permeable membranes under pressure in a
continuous flow condition. The high salt content of sea water requires that the operating pressure for Reverse
Osmosis must be between 60-70 bar. As the water permeates through the membrane most of the dissolved impurities
removed and 99.5% of the total salt is removed. The impurities are left behind in the flowing water and the
concentrated stream from the membranes is discharged to the ocean. The design of the complete system must
optimize the flows, the area of the membranes and other conditions to keep the system operation at the highest
efficiency possible. Applied Membranes has installed a number of Reverse Osmosis Sytems for seawater
desalination. A typical system consists of filtration, UV, chemical injection followed by reverse osmosis
Membranes. The Table below gives typical performance of a sea water system:The future of sea water
desalination looks very good. The problem of a lack of potable water and increase in drought in many parts
of the world in coastal areas can be solved by sea water desalination. Hundreds of seawater systems are
producing drinking water or process water for municipalities, resorts, hotels, off-shore drills, ships, yachts and
military use. The size of these systems varies from 100 gallons per day to millions of gallons per day.




                                                                                                               41
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                                   ***2AC Add-Ons***
2AC Add-On: Aerospace Industry

FIRST, SSP leads to growth in the aerospace industry
Collins et al, Writer for Space Future, May 25, 2008, What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment,
Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_envi
ronmental_protection_education_culture_and_world_peace.shtml If orbital travel grows to a scale of millions of passengers/year -- as it could by
the 2030s, with vigorous investment -- it will stimulate the spontaneous growth of numerous businesses in space. These will grow progressively
from simple activities such as maintenance of orbiting hotels, to in-space manufacturing using asteroidal minerals. For example, the
development of SSP would enable a range of industrial processes using the advantages of space, including high
vacuum, weightlessness, low-cost electricity and sources of both minerals and volatile chemicals in shallow gravitational
wells. If SSP grows to supply a significant share of the terrestrial energy market, more and more industry would operate
outside the Earth's ecological system. While most industries cause growing damage to the Earth's environment as they grow in
scale, industrial activities which are outside the Earth's ecosystem need not cause any such damage. Hence the growth of
space-based industry to large scale offers the longer-term possibility of decoupling economic growth from the limits of the
terrestrial environment. Indeed, it has been convincingly argued that only the use of space resources, including especially SSP, offers the
possibility of protecting the Earth's environment while enabling sufficient economic growth to preserve civilised society [22,27].




                                                                                                                                              42
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                      2AC Add-On: Indo-US Relations
FIRST, Space Based Solar Power key to US-Indo Relations
Peter A. Garretson 10, (BS; U.S. Air Force Academy, MA; Embry Riddle Aeronautical University), Institute for
Defense Studies and Analyses, ―Sky‘s No Limit: Space-Based Solar Power, the Next Major Step in the Indo-US
Strategic Partnership?‖, August 2010, http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
This paper sought to evaluate space-based solar power, a highly scalable, revolutionary renewable energy technology, in the
context of the Indo-US bilateral strategic partnership, and determine if US and Indian interests and amities were
sufficiently aligned to allow forward motion on such a projec t, and if so, what would be an actionable form for policymakers. It is
the conclusion of the researcher that SBSP does appear to be a good fit for the US domestic, Indian domestic and bilateral
agendas, and there is adequate political space and precursor agreements to begin a bilateral programme , should
policymakers desire it. Given that SBSP appears to fit the articulated Indian criteria for suitability of energy source and to
offer a better long-term energy security solution, and that the evaluation of the current energy-climate situation is so unhopeful, with a lack of
promising and scalable solutions emerging, a no-regret, due-diligence effort in space-based solar power seems a justified and strategic
investment. An actionable, three-tiered programme, with threshold criteria/goals, has been proposed, moving from basic
technology and capacity building to a multi-lateral demo, and ultimately to an international commercial public-private-
partnership entity to supply commercial power in the 2025 timeframe . The launch of such a potentially revolutionary
programme can begin with a simple statement exchanged between the two heads of state, or articulated in a joint statement. An aggressive
bilateral space solar power programme, at its minimum, will create a forum and networked cadre for discourse on
advanced energy, space and climate technologies that can be recycled to nearer term problems, while visibly demonstrating an interest in
global challenges. But at its maximum, such a programme might be a way out of India‘s (and the world‘s) climate-energy dilemma, as well as a
$103-trillion opportunity and opportunity for India to use its successful space programme to transcend the middle income trap while shaping a
future peaceful space regime. It will certainly constitute not only a ―big ticket item‖ that will link the technical bases of the world‘s
largest democracies, but also become one of the grandest and most ambitious humanitarian and environmentalist causes that will be sure to
excite a generation as did the Apollo programme in the worthy purpose articulated by the founder of the Indian Space Programme Dr. Vikram
Sarabai, ―we must be second to none in the application of advanced technologies to the real problems of man and society.‖ In what more
meaningful way can two of the space-faring democracies contribute to the challenges of this generation than finding a
solution to energy and climate security ―in the third dimension‖, and capturing it within the dynamism of their strategic
partnership?

AND, Building relations is essential to prevent war with India
Hugh White 08, (Professor of Strategic Studies), IISS, ―Why War in Asia Remains Thinkable‖, June 2008,
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/global-strategic-challenges-as-played-out-in-asia/asias-strategic-challenges-in-
search-of-a-common-agenda/conference-papers/fifth-session-conflict-in-asia/why-war-in-asia-remains-thinkable-
prof-hugh-white
But while I agree that war in Asia is unlikely, it does seem to me to be ‗thinkable‘. Moreover I will suggest that there is a real risk
that war will become more thinkable in Asia over coming years and decades . And by ‗war‘ I mean not just the kinds of
small wars that have sadly always remained quite common in global and regional affairs. I mean big wars: wars between major
powers that can kill millions, disrupt the lives of billions and wreck the international system. I mean the kind of wars that
the founders of the IISS worried about fifty years ago when this great institution was founded, and which they and their successors have done so
much to study, understand and prevent. I should explain that am going to focus my remarks here on East and especially Northeast Asia. By
doing that I do not by any means intend to suggest that India‘s rise is not central to the long-term development of
Asia‘s strategic future. On the contrary I think it most certainly is central . Nor do I think there are not grave problems for
peace in South Asia; there clearly are, including a strong risk of major [and even nuclear] war .

AND, India War escalates to global nuclear war
V. R. Raghavan 01 (India's Director General of Military Operation, Director at the Delhi Policy Group), The
Nonproliferation Review, ―Limited War and Nuclear Escalation in South Asia‖, Fall 2001,
http://www.ghalib.com/nuclear/warindpak.pdf
The fourth theme concerned the relationship between limited war as the instrument, and the desire to achieve the goals of arms
control. It was felt at die tune, and later substantiated in U.S.-Soviet negotiations, that limits on nuclear weapons could be
introduced through die concept of limiting wars by mutual understandings regarding limited objectives. Kissinger's famous comment
that limited war provides a middle road between stalemate and total victory was a dominant theme for some time. A critique of this thinking came
from Albert Wohlstetter. He argued that fighting a limited war significantly increases the likelihood of total war
through escalation, and he cautioned against the use of nuclear weapons. Limited war, he thought, was neither likely to be
short nor small. It could prove protracted and require the mobilization of significant national resources. This pattern would tend to es-
calate the conflict into unpredictable dimension: and generate an escalatory spiral leading to a nuclear exchange.

                                                                                                                                                     43
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                          2AC Add-On: Jobs
SBSP adds jobs
Lampson 9 (Nick Lampson, former U.S. Representative from the 22nd district of Texas and chairman of the Energy
and Environment Subcommittee. Currently a member of the Coalition for Space Exploration board of advisers.
"Space-based solar power can help on energy needs." Houston Chronicle, October 22, 2009. Accessed July 18,
2011. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6681871.html)
The United States is on a serious quest to free itself from a costly and worrisome dependence on foreign oil, and
depleting supplies of domestic petroleum, coal and natural gas. The country is pushing forward, thanks to some
timely incentives from the federal government and state agencies, and we're turning to renewable sources of energy
— which will also help protect our environment. As a former member of the House of Representatives whose
legislative interests included energy, the environment and space exploration, I'm well aware of the ever-growing
innovative approaches under way at NASA that can help shape America's energy future, improve air quality and
offset greenhouse gas emissions. October is Energy Awareness Month, and this year's theme — A Sustainable
Energy Future: Putting All the Pieces Together — is especially timely. Here is my perspective on one significant
piece, which has been worked on since 1967 and was presented to Congress in 1999, that could build on the space
agency's considerable technical prowess. One of our greatest resources is all around us — sunlight. Each hour, the
Earth receives more energy from the sun than the world's population consumes in one year. And our star promises to
shine brightly for billions of years to come. With presidential direction and congressional support, NASA's
wellspring of talent could help foster the creation of solar power satellites — spacecraft that circle the Earth and
beam the energy they generate down to the ground for distribution as electricity. The International Space Station, a
NASA-led project involving 15 nations and now the permanent home to six astronauts, serves as a highly visible
symbol of how the sun's radiance can be harnessed for the benefit of many. The station's outstretched solar panels
generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 55 homes. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist to appreciate
solar power as an environmentally friendly source of energy, it will take that level of expertise to develop a
practical, economic concept to collect the sun's radiance and relay this resource to Earth. Two years ago this month,
the National Security Space Office, a research arm of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence-gathering agencies,
commented on the idea in a report, ―Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security.‖ This
document characterized the prospect of a network of solar-power satellites as a grand opportunity to address the
nation's environmental and economic concerns as well as energy security. The United States currently ranks behind
Germany, Spain and Japan in solar energy use. Even though solar power has a long way to go to catch up with other
sources of renewable energy, it is making impressive strides. With a network of solar-power satellites, we could
expect accelerated growth in the nation's solar-power industry to help invigorate our economy by creating high-
paying jobs. Since its birth in 1958, NASA has teamed with industry, academia and other federal agencies to offer
the benefits from their cutting-edge research to those well outside the field of space exploration. Environmentally
friendly fuel cells have powered NASA's human spacecraft since the 1960s. Now, the world's automakers are
turning to fuel cells as an alternative to fossil fuels. NASA's legacy also includes work with wind turbines and
biofuels, two more promising renewable energy sources. Space-based solar power, initially proposed in the late
1960s, is a concept whose time has finally come. I urge the White House, Congress and NASA to act now. Our
nation needs its brightest minds to offer alternative thinking to help solve our ever-growing energy needs.




                                                                                                                    44
SDI 11
SPS Aff



Jobs key to the economy – only way to sustain the recovery
Abromowitz et al, December 2009 [David, Heather Boushey, Michael Ettlinger, Kate Gordon, Bracken Hendricks,
Andrew Jakabovics, Michael Linden, David Madland, Sarah Rosen Wartell, American Progress writers ―Meeting
the Jobs Challenge‖ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/jobs_challenge.html]
The U.S. economy is now in ―recovery‖ in the eyes of most economists. Gross domestic product grew at a 2.8
percent pace in the third quarter of 2009—the first growth in five quarters—and is expected to grow again in the
fourth quarter. But the challenge of sustained job creation remains ahead of us. The economy is still shedding close
to 200,000 jobs per month and we have yet to have a month with net job growth since the Great Recession began in
December 2007. Indeed, there are increasing indications that even if the economy continues to grow it will not do so
at a pace fast enough to absorb quickly the 16 million people now out of work and searching for a job. Slow job
creation in and of itself could stall the nascent recovery. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of U.S.
GDP and unemployed workers are unable to be the customers that businesses need to see before they hire and
invest. Dampened consumption from unemployment drags down economic growth. Congress and the Obama
administration understand this danger. Since January, they have taken significant steps—most notably the $787
billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—to get the economy back on track. In addition, the Federal
Reserve eased credit conditions and continues to keep interest rates low to encourage investment. The actions of
Congress, the administration, and the Fed are to be applauded. The fact that we are now emerging out of a Great
Recession and not mired in a second Great Depression should not be taken for granted. The ARRA economic
recovery package provided a much-needed boost to economic growth in the third quarter and saved or created
upwards of 1 million to 1.5 million jobs. Even though we haven‘t seen net job growth, saving jobs is just as
important as creating them amid a sharp economic downturn. For every worker not laid off, there are fewer
unemployed adding to the historically high six unemployed workers vying for every job opening. Recovery dollars
will continue to pump up demand and add jobs to the economy as the remaining $553 billion is spent in 2010.

Economic collapse would escalate to full scale conflict and rapid extinction
Bearden (Lt. Col in US Army) 2K
[Thomas, ―The Unnecessary Energy Crisis‖, Free Republic, June 24, p. online]
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on
nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example,
suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there,
in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach
the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios
will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for
decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential
adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the
MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed , rapid escalation to full WMD exchange
occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United
States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.




                                                                                                                     45
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                 2AC Add-On: Oil Dependency
First, Solar power satellites are key to reduing U.S. oil dependency
William John Cox, Truthout retired prosecutor and public intrest lawyer, author and political activest, 4/30/11 ―The
race for Space Solar Energy‖, Truthout, http://www.truthout.org/race-space-solar-energy/1304186557
The failures of the General Electric nuclear reactors in Japan to safely shut down following the 9.0 Tahoka
earthquake, following in the wake of the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the
deadly methane gas explosion in Massey's West Virginia coal mine, now conclusively demonstrate the grave dangers
current energy production methods pose to human society. 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. Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy that could, potentially,
completely solve the world's energy and greenhouse gas emission problems.

AND, oil dependency risks terrorism, famine, economic chaos, extreme political tensions and war
Richard Heinberg august 2005 How to avoid oil wars, Terrorism, and economic collapse, the oil depletion protocol,
http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/how_to_avoid_oil_wars_terrorism_and_economic_collapse
Moreover, even though there may be dispute as to the timing of these events, it is becoming widely acknowledged
that the world peak in all combined petroleum sources will have significant global economic consequences.
Mitigation efforts will require many years of work and trillions of dollars in investment. Even if optimistic forecasts
of the timing of the global production peak turn out to be accurate, the world is facing an historic change that is
unprecedented in scope and depth of impact. Due to systemic dependence on oil for transportation, agriculture, and
the production of plastics and chemicals, every sector of every society will be affected. Efforts will be needed to
create alternative sources of energy, to reduce demand for oil through heightened energy efficiency, and to redesign
entire systems (including cities) to operate with less petroleum. In short, the global peak in oil production is likely to
lead to economic chaos and extreme geopolitical tensions, raising the spectres of war, revolution, terrorism, and
even famine, unless nations adopt some method of cooperatively reducing their reliance on oil.




                                                                                                                       46
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                               2AC Add-On: Pollution
FIRST, Space Based Solar Power is constant and reduces pollution
Adam Hadhazy 09, (Head Writer for Scientific American), Scientific American, ―Will Space-Based Solar Power
Finally See the Light of Day?‖, April 16, 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-
solar-power-finally-see-the-light-of-day
Why bother harvesting solar energy directly from space? It is abundant, and "you can get [this] power 24/7 ," says Marty
Hoffert, an emeritus professor of physics at New York University. Sunlight is some five to 10 times stronger in space , and its shine
would reach energy-gathering satellites placed into geostationary (fixed) orbits—the realm of many currently deployed communications
spacecraft—more than 99 percent of the time. SBSP could, according to energy experts, provide constant, pollution-free
power—unlike intermittent wind and cloud cover–sensitive ground-based solar, and without the emissions of fossil fuels or radioactive waste
from nuclear power. "[SBSP] is a disruptive technology [in that] it could change the whole energy equation," says Frederick Best, director of the
Center for Space Power (CSP) at Texas A&M University in College Station, Tex.

AND, Toxic waste threatens the survival of the planet
Deborah Katz, activist, Toxic Waste Threatens Communities, 1998,
www.resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/1998/01/art1.html
Toxic contamination of the planet threatens human survival. In our time, we will detennine whether there is clean air
to breath, water to drink and places to live for our children and theirs. Industrial technology-with its shadow of
pollution-overwhelms us and threatens the democratic structures on which we depend. The scientific community and
the nuclear industry undermine citizens' confidence in their ability to understand nuclear power and its effects. Many
people have withdrawn from the process, potentially allowing vital decisions to be dictated outside of democratic
safeguards. This "meltdown of democracy" is exemplified in the atomic power industry.




                                                                                                                                               47
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                           ***More Case Extensions***
**Solvency Ext.**
SPS Spills Over

New technologies such as SBSP will have ―spillover‖ effects into other countries
Richard K. Lester 08 (Head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), Industrial Performance Center MIT, ―Reforming the US Energy Innovation System‖, September 2008,
http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/EIP_WP_08-001.pdf
In general, whenever innovation-related activities produce beneficial ‗spillover‘ effects that cannot be captured by private
actors, there is an argument for supplementary public investment. Important spillovers occur especially during early-
stage research. It is often difficult for private firms to appropriate all the benefits of their investments in these activities. They therefore tend to
underinvest in them, and public investment is needed to compensate. Similar arguments also justify public investment in complementary
innovation assets and resources, such as education and training and the development and enforcement of the system for protecting intellectual
property. In this, the energy sector is no different from other industries where government intervention in support of
innovation occurs. But in another sense energy is different. This is because a major impetus for energy innovation comes from outside the
marketplace. Two of the three interrelated problems mentioned in the introduction – the nation‘s dependence on oil imports, and the
prospect of global climate change—generate social costs that are not factored into most of the millions of decisions
made in the marketplace every day by suppliers and consumers of energy. So, even if innovation can help solve these problems – and there is no
doubt that it can – the economic incentives created by the play of market forces alone will not be sufficient to bring it about fast enough. The
fundamental policy goal is to accelerate the deployment of new energy technologies relative to what would happen if this
were left entirely to market forces, and that acceleration will not be achievable without public intervention of some kind.




                                                                                                                                                    48
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                                   A2: ―It‘s Expensive‖
In the long Run, SPS solves for the extreme costs ends up making money
Chao and Chang (Graduated Medical Student, Graduated Engineering student, The Power of Power)
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/Solar+Power+Satellites
Merely looking at the costs of implementation would also be looking only at one side of the picture. Though the SPS system itself costs much
more than nuclear or fossil fuel system, in the long run, the SPS system begins to pay for itself. The energy, harvested from
the sun, is free and can be converted directly into electrical energy at the base station at no additional monetary
costs. Once the satellite is in orbit and the base station, built, there are no further costs to account for other than
maintenance. Both the nuclear power plants and fossil fuel systems would require considerable additional
investment. The nuclear powerplant would require money to finance security, facilities to dispose of nuclear waste, as well as a means of
transportation to move the nuclear fuel. The same applies for the fossil fuel burning plants where an extensive transportation system would be
needed to effectly move the coal to the plant. The SBS system accounts for all this ans requires no transportation costs or
security.




                                                                                                                                                 49
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                           **Aerospace Industry Ext.**
Solvency: SPS Solves the Aerospace Industry

Investing in SSP boosts the aerospace industry popularity – recent interest proves
Miller, 2008, Fellow Advocates and Skeptics of Space-Based Solar Power, Obama Team Asking for Public Input on Space-Based Solar
Power, http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/
A few weeks ago, the Space Frontier Foundation (and another group that wishes to remain nameless) submitted a white paper on
Space-Based Solar Power to the Obama transition team. Over the weekend this white paper was posted to the ―Change.Gov‖ website
by the Obama transition team to acquire public feedback on the idea that Space Solar Power (as it is called in the white paper) should be part of a
balanced federal portfolio of energy research and development. The Space Frontier Foundation‘s white paper was among the first 10 white papers
posted by the Obama transition team, and it is the only white paper on space (so far). We clearly have the attention and interest of
senior Obama policy officials. In just a few days, there are over 200 comments from the public so far on the concept of
new national initiative to invest in Space Solar Power. Quite a few of the comments are critical, and recommend that we continue to
invest nothing in Space Solar Power.

SBS boosts aeronautic industry – people will pay big money for green energy
William Fan et al, Writer of Space Based Solar Power, 6/2/11, Space Based Solar Power, pg. 22,
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf
There is a significant amount of research suggesting that consumers are willing to pay a premium for energy from renewable or
'green' sources. Such willingness is usually correlated to the extent of education the participants‘ have received regarding environmental
issues, as well as typical socioeconomic factors. Experiments and even reliable survey data are much less forthcoming in suggesting a
specific amount that a consumer might pay as a premium. While some of our interviewees proposed a premium of up 15%, this seems
optimistic based on our survey scholarly sources. It seems significantly more realistic to propose a 5% price premium for green
energy. The typical US household currently pays 0.10 dollars per kilowatt-hours (kWh), therefore even an optimistic 10% premium would
result in an electricity price of only 0.11 dollars per kWh. Given that SBSP can, at least initially, only produce a relatively small amount of
energy, this premium would have little impact (in absolute dollar terms) on our overall estimates. To wit, the price of SBSP electricity is so large
that the impact of such a premium on our economic models is negligible. In order to drive sales prior to the intersection of the electric experience
curve and the SBSP curve on the graph above, we consider selling SBSP power to niche markets. In particular, these would be costumer
for whom electricity is otherwise very costly, due (at least in part) to an inflexible demand curve. Such a costumer could
be US military forward operating bases (FOB) in dangerous and remote areas.

SBSP boosts aerospace industry – commercial capabilities
Henderson, 24 April 2009, Space based solar power flight demonstration concept,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4839572
NASA is partnering with the DOD and collaborating with industry and academia on developing a space-based solar power (SBSP)
demonstration using the space shuttle for transportation and the International Space Station (ISS) as a test platforms. This paper will present the
demonstration concept and the status of the flight preparations. The plan is to target the demonstration for one of the last shuttle flights to the ISS.
The demonstration would be a wireless power transmission (WPT) from space to the Earth. NASA is retiring the shuttle by the end of 2010,
therefore the work is accelerated to provide an opportunity before the shuttle retires. This schedule requires using existing power beaming assets,
hardware and software, to meet test objectives. Later demos will expand on these results. The purpose will be to demonstrate and validate key
SBSP hardware elements and transmission characteristics and efficiencies. Developing SBSP would enable new commercial space-
based capabilities and markets. Eventually new space transportation systems for efficiently implementing an operational system will be
required. Finally demonstrating a space-based solar capability would have great potential payoffs for space exploration ,
national defense and energy independence.




                                                                                                                                                     50
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                                          **India Ext.**
Internal Link: U.S. SPS K2 India Relations

Working on SBSP will get India involved providing it with clean energy and increasing relations with the US
Mridul Chadha 10 (Master's student of Renewable Energy Engineering and Management at TERI University),
EcoPolitology, ―US, India Launch Space-Based Solar Energy Initiative‖, November 10, 2010,
http://ecopolitology.org/2010/11/10/us-india-launch-space-based-solar-energy-initiative/
Just before President Obama started his India tour the Indian Space Research Organization and US' National Space Society
launched a joint forum to enhance partnership in harnessing solar energy through space-based solar collectors. Called
the Kalam-NSS Initiative after the former Indian President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the forum will lay the groundwork for the space-based solar
power program which could see other countries joining in as well. The idea of a multilateral space-based solar energy program
was initiated by an Indian Defense Ministry think tank, Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses. A report prepared by Peter
Garretson, a US Air Force lieutenant colonel called up on the governments of India and the United States to initiate this pathbreaking project and
make the space-based solar energy a commercially viable business venture by 2025. Addressing the press at the National Press Club in New
Delhi, Dr Kalam said, "By 2050, even if we use every available energy resource we have: clean and dirty, conventional
and alternative, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, the world will fall short of the energy we need."
One of the biggest advantages of space-based solar energy is that it is not intermittent in nature as ground-based solar energy
resource. An array of solar panels stationed in a geostationary orbit around the world will receive sunlight for 99 percent time of the year. Plus
there are no losses due to atmospheric interferences. This partnership between the two countries is likely to gain pace and
strength as the United States has now removed some technology-transfer restrictions which were imposed on some scientific research
organizations in India after the 1998 nuclear tests. Organizations like the ISRO and Bharat Dynamics will now have access to some sensitive and
unique technology. Researchers speaking at the press conference referred to this initiative as a landmark deal which would benefit both the
countries. For the US, the deal would potentially create thousands of jobs as it is likely to contribute majority of the hardware for
the project. For India, the project would mean enormous amounts of clean energy which it could use to electrify its
rural areas and drive its economy.

Only the US has the research and funds to invest in SBSP – India would benefit as the technology is
developed and tested
Peter Lorenz 08, (Associate principal in McKinsey‘s Houston office), The McKinsey Quarterly, ―The Economics of
Solar Power‖, 26 June 2008, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/economics-solar-power
Even in the most favorable regions, solar power is still a few years away from true ―grid parity‖—the point when the price
of solar electricity is on par with that of conventional sources of electricity on the power grid. The time frame is
considerably longer in countries such as China and India, whose electricity needs will require large amounts of new
generating capacity in the years ahead and whose cheap power from coal makes grid parity a more elusive goal.




                                                                                                                                               51
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                          ***Aff Answers***
2AC A2: Agent CPs

Space-based solar power only needs federal regulatory approval
Adam Hadhazy 09 Scientific American, Editor-in-Chief at Portal to the Universe, Freelance science writer<
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finally-see-the-light-of-day>
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) has long invested in renewable energy sources, including geothermal, wind and
solar. Earlier this week, the utility company reached for the stars in announcing the first-ever deal of its kind: The
California power utility, says spokesperson Jonathan Marshall, plans to purchase clean energy generated by a
satellite beaming solar power from orbit. The agreement between PG&E and Solaren Corp., an eight-year-old
company based in Manhattan Beach, Calif., still hinges on state regulatory approval. If the deal gets the green light,
Solaren must then privately raise billions of dollars to design, launch and operate a satellite as well as an energy-
receiving ground station slated for the Fresno County area, says Cal Boerman, director of energy services for
Solaren.

The cost and time is too much for corporations to handle, only the government can implement the plan
Jonathan Coopersmith, a historian of technology at Texas A&M University, April 12, 2010, Obama in space: bold
but not bold enough, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1603/1, The Space Review.
The catch is that these technologies are still in the laboratory: more promise than reality. Let‘s be honest: Research,
development and deployment will cost billions of dollars and several years. Such commitments of time and money
are beyond the reach of corporations. These commitments are, however, reasonable for a government that can invest
for the long term. Indeed, without the large investments by the American military in rocket technology in the 1950s,
the mammoth Saturn V that sent Apollo 11 to the moon could not have been built. Developing a ground-based
system should give the United States a competitive edge against foreign rocket providers. Currently, American
launch services are more expensive than their foreign counterparts, a consequence of their lower costs and, in the
case of Ariane, better geography. A ground-launched system could change the competitive dynamics of launching.
The US gov is the only one that can clean up space debris
Kiantar Betan Court, legal Challenges facing solar power satellites, Issue No. 16, winter 2010
Space debris is the largest environmental problem for satellites in outer space. There are over 19,000 pieces of
trackable debris in Earth orbit; the number of un-trackable pieces is much higher.[53] Collisions with even small
orbital debris can cause catastrophic damage. The global community has taken steps to deal with this growing
problem. The Inter-agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) is one of the most important international
sources of space debris policy. Domestically, the U.S. also has its own standards to control space debris. These
standards offer initial guidance but further improvements will be needed to fully address this problem. The IADC is
an international organization, made up of all major space faring countries, responsible for proposing solutions and
researching problems posed by space debris. It has created guidelines to help minimize debris-creating events and
avoid debris-caused hazards. The guidelines are not binding, however states can use these guidelines to formulate
their own mitigation standards. The IADC guidelines focus mainly on mitigation measures for spacecraft operators.
These include limiting debris released during normal operations, minimizing the potential for orbital break-ups,
refraining from intentionally destroying space objects, and prevention of on-orbit collisions.[54] The Orbital Debris
Mitigation Standard Practices (Standard Practices) of the U.S. Government incorporates guidelines offered by the
IADC while adding its own provisions. Like the IADC guidelines, the Standard Practices seek to avoid releasing
debris during normal operations, especially debris larger than 5mm that will remain in orbit over 25 years.[55] The
Standard Practices also offer guidelines for post mission disposal of space structures including: Atmospheric
reentry: for objects in LEO, where atmospheric drag should limit the lifetime of the object to no longer than 25
years; Maneuvering the device to a storage orbit: structures would be moved or have the capability of moving
themselves to different ―storage‖ orbital levels; or Direct Retrieval: retrieving and removing the structure from orbit
after completion of its mission.[56] Such guidelines as Standard Practices can help lessen the problem of orbital
debris but it is not clear that private actors or states will have the necessary incentives to follow them. Were
domestic and international standards made legally binding it would better ensure compliance by both public and
private entities. As space transport technologies improve, the methods for preventing and retrieving orbital debris
should improve as well. States should also continue developing their ability to track orbital debris. With better data,
states should also work toward creating a global database for orbital debris, as proposed by COPOUS. Such a
database would help prevent possible collisions and promote a heightened understanding of the orbital debris
problem.

                                                                                                                     52
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                   2AC A2: Budget Disad (1/2)
SSP saves the budget without needing to develop new technology.
Ben Bova, president emeritus of the National Space Society and author, 10/12/2008 The Washington Post, ―An
Energy Fix Written in the Stars‖. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002450.html
You're heading into some rough times as you move into the White House, Mr. Future President, what with the
economy in recession, financial markets in turmoil, global warming, terrorism, war and soaring energy prices. But I
can offer you a tip for dealing with that last issue, at least: Look to the stars. That's right. You can use the powerful
technology we've forged over a half-century of space exploration to solve one major down-to-Earth problem -- and
become the most popular president since John F. Kennedy in the process. Right now, the United States is shelling
out about $700 billion a year for foreign oil. With world demand for energy increasing, gas prices will head toward
$10 per gallon during your administration -- unless you make some meaningful changes. That's where space
technology can help -- and create new jobs, even whole new industries, at the same time. You'll have to make some
hard choices on energy. Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but it has radioactive wastes. Hydrogen fuels
burn cleanly, but hydrogen is expensive to produce and hard to distribute by pipeline. Wind power works in special
locations, but most people don't want huge, noisy wind turbines in their backyards. Solar energy is a favorite of
environmentalists, but it works only when the sun is shining. But that's the trick. There is a place where the sun
never sets, and a way to use solar energy for power generation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: Put the solar cells in
space, in high orbits where they'd be in sunshine all the time. You do it with the solar power satellite (SPS), a
concept invented by Peter Glaser in 1968. The idea is simple: You build large assemblages of solar cells in space,
where they convert sunlight into electricity and beam it to receiving stations on the ground. The solar power satellite
is the ultimate clean energy source. It doesn't burn an ounce of fuel. And a single SPS could deliver five to 10
gigawatts of energy to the ground continually. Consider that the total electrical-generation capacity of the entire state
of California is 4.4 gigawatts. Conservative estimates have shown that an SPS could deliver electricity at a cost to
the consumer of eight to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. That's about the same as costs associated with conventional
power generation stations. And operating costs would drop as more orbital platforms are constructed and the price of
components, such as solar voltaic cells, is reduced. Solar power satellites could lower the average taxpayer's electric
bills while providing vastly more electricity. They would be big -- a mile or more across. Building them in space
would be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one: We already know how to construct the International Space
Station, which is about the size of a football field. And the SPS doesn't require any new inventions. We have the
technology at hand.

Space Based Solar Power more cost-effective than a Nuclear plant.
Kiantar Betancourt 2010
http://www.spaceenergy.com/Discovery/space_energy_files/SBSP_and_Nuclear_Power_Economic_Comparison_v2
.pdf>
Although it is apparent that the capital cost outlays for SBSP are much higher than nuclear power, both methods of
power generation are estimated to be economically viable. Furthermore, since SBSP appears to have ongoing
(variable) costs that are lower than those of nuclear power, SBSP might have additional economic advantages in the
long term

Cost of SSP is Justified, and better than other space programs
William John Cox retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist Saturday 30 April 2011
The Race for Space-Solar Energy
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 reduction in the payload
cost to less than $200 per kilogram and a reduction in 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 US tax dollars on a stupid and ineffective missile defense system,
an ego trip to Mars or $36 billion in risky loan guarantees by the DOE to the nuclear power industry.




                                                                                                                      53
SDI 11
SPS Aff



Space budget to launch SPS
Cass, Stephen. Discover; Oct2008, Vol. 29 Issue 10, p46-46, 1p.
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=0b5bb5f4-71d5-455d-
830b7d790710e98f%40sessionmgr4&vid=20&hid=17&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&A
N=34251944
Hopefully better than it looks today. We must bring the solar system into the economic sphere of influence of Earth
because the resources available in space are absolutely critical to our prosperity. If people are to live lives of higher
and higher quality when there are more and more people, we must utilize the resources of space: mining asteroids
and using solar-powered satellites, for example. If we had the budget, we could launch a solar-powered satellite and
beam energy to Earth right now.

US Pentagon interested in SPS development-lack of budget main obstacle
By Jeremy Singer Staff Writer, Pentagon may study space-based solar power Satellites would have constant sun
exposure by avoiding nighttime period Space.com updated 4/11/2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18056610/
The Pentagon‘s National Security Space Office may begin a study in the near future on the possibility of using
satellites to collect solar energy for use on Earth, according to Defense Department officials. The officials said the
study does not mean that the military plans to demonstrate or deploy a space-based solar power constellation.
However, as the Pentagon looks at a variety of alternative energy sources, this could be one possible method of
supplying energy to troops in bases or on the battlefield(*), they said. The military‘s work in this area also could aid
development of a system that could provide energy to non-military users as well, according to Lt. Col. Michael
Hornitschek, chief of rated force policy on the Air Force staff at the Pentagon. Hornitschek, who has been exploring
the concept of space-based solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the concept of space-based
solar power, and stimulated interest in conducting a formal study, according to Lt. Col. M.V. ―Coyote‖ Smith, chief
of future concepts at the NSSO. The NSSO would need to find the financial resources and available manpower to
conduct the study, Smith said. Hornitschek would lead work on the study on behalf of the NSSO if the NSSO elects
to pursue it, and he said he hopes that a system could be deployed in roughly 20 years. John Mankins, president of
the Space Solar Power Association in Washington, said space-based solar power could offer a massive improvement
over terrestrial solar collection devices because constant exposure to the sun avoids the nighttime periods where
terrestrial systems cannot collect solar energy. The ability to constantly gather solar energy would allow a space-
based system to avoid safety concerns to other satellites or people on the ground by constantly transmitting energy
to Earth at a level that is high enough to be useful but low enough so as not to cause any damage , said Mankins, a
former NASA official who previously served as manager of advanced concept studies at NASA headquarters before
leaving the agency in 2005. Jeff Kueter, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank, said it is too
early to determine if space-based solar power is viable, but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a
potential ―game changer‖ for energy use. The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign energy sources, as well as liberals who are
looking for an environmentally friendly source of energy, Kueter said. While space-based solar power may sound
like a high-risk proposal, it is worth investing several million dollars in the near term to study the concept because of
the potential high payoff, Kueter said. If the studies indicated that the concept might be feasible, it would be
worthwhile for the Pentagon to conduct flight demonstrations to prove out the technology in space, he said. If the
Pentagon chose to pursue flight demonstrations or deployment of a space-based solar power system, it could share
costs by partnering with NASA, the Department of Energy and other government agencies, Kueter said. The
concept of space-based solar power might appear to threaten traditional energy industries, Kueter said. However, the
rapidly increasing demands for energy and diminishing supply of natural resources means that traditional energy
companies may need to find new ways of doing business in the future, and they could likely find a way to be a part
of the space-based solar power effort through ways like contributing expertise in areas like energy distribution, he
said. The NSSO would likely ask experts from industries like electrical power to be involved in the study if it
chooses to conduct it to draw on their experience with power distribution, Smith said. If the NSSO initiates the
study on space-based solar power, it would likely be the first time that the Pentagon has looked at the concept,
Hornitschek said. Smith said he hoped the study could create a repository of information about space-based solar
power that may have been conducted by other agencies, as well as any that may have existed within the military.
Hornitschek said it is too early to estimate the likely constellation size, types of orbits or cost of a space-based solar-
power constellation. However, the satellites would likely feature very large, powerful solar arrays. In addition, the
cost of launching a constellation of such large satellites with the types of launch vehicles available today would be a

                                                                                                                        54
SDI 11
SPS Aff

challenge, Hornitschek said. Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant launch opportunity to industry,
and could provide the stimulus needed for industry to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition.
Budget needed- United States needs alternative energy
National Space Society. Updated Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at10:35:21http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and transmits it
wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just
take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and
every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions
of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives
only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all
spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the electrical needs of
our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers few vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can
                                                                                                             but only if
use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation —
we can generate the enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from
vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to generate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space
solar power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric transportation system. While all viable
energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other
energy sources.




                                                                                                                                                                                                    55
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                          2AC A2: China CP
China‘s impending energy crisis
Taylor Dinerman, October 22, 2007, ―China, the US, and space solar power‖ , The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1
The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power status.
Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest danger to China‘s future
prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According to an International Energy Agency estimate,
demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from 2003 and 2025. China is already
experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and
Zhijiang and contributes almost 20% of China‘s GDP, faced capacity shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak
summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new power sources, including dam building and new
coal-fired power plants, China‘s economic growth is outstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to
keep it going. While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership is
certainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another Communist
superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not without strong safety
measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build. Wind power and terrestrial solar
power will not be able to contribute much to meeting China‘s demand and certainly not without government
subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to provide. At some point within the next
twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly unprepared. The crisis
may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use
of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a massive recession.

US can launch SSP for China-China only needs to build rectennas
Taylor Dinerman, October 22, 2007, ―China, the US, and space solar power‖ , The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1
Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens . The global repercussions
would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to generate enough clean
energy to satisfy China‘s mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. The capital costs for such systems are
gigantic, but when compared with both future power demands and considering the less-than-peaceful alternative
scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain. For the US this means that in the future , say around 2025, the
ability of private US or multinational firms to offer China a reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive
price would allow China to continue its economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful world power
structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this
would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe
when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project.
Experiments have demonstrated, at least on a small scale, that such receivers are safe and that cows and crops can
coexist with them.
Rectenna building helps China‘s economy
Taylor Dinerman, October 22, 2007, ―China, the US, and space solar power‖ , The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1
However, there are persistent doubts and it would be wise to plan for a world in which rectenna placement on land
will be as politically hard as putting up a new wind farm or even a nuclear power plant. China, like its neighbors
Japan and Korea, has a land shortage problem. This may seem odd when one looks at a map, but the highly
productive industrial regions of. China are confined to a limited coastal area. These areas also overlap with some of
the nation‘s most fertile agricultural lands. Conflicts caused by hard choices between land use for factories and
housing and for food production are now common. Building the rectennas at sea would help alleviate some of these
disputes. China and its neighbors could compete to see who could build the most robust and cost-effective sea-based
rectennas. They would also be able to export these large systems: a system that can survive the typhoons in the
South China Sea can also handle the monsoons of the Bay of Bengal or the hurricanes of the Caribbean.




                                                                                                                    56
SDI 11
SPS Aff



China doesn‘t have technology for SSP
Taylor Dinerman, October 22, 2007, ―China, the US, and space solar power‖ , The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1
In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be many years
before they can realistically contemplate building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-
based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the
US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel manufacturing facility up there is beyond
what can reasonably be anticipate




                                                                                                                      57
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                        2AC A2: Debris Disad
SPS solves debris
Jerry Grey ‗2k, Director, Aerospace And Science Policy American Institute Of Aeronautics And Astronautics,
Federal News Service [Congressional Testimony, 9/7, lexis]
The AIAA assessment suggested a number of opportunities for multipleuse of the SSP-enabling technologies in
terrestrial and space endeavors Of these, the following high-priority areas were identified: (1) Human space
exploration. (a) Power systems for the Martian surface. If nuclear systems turn out not be available for use, large
photovoltaic arrays in the 100 - 200 kWe range, coupled with wireless power transmission (WPT), become highly
promising.These solar power systems are especially attractive if they can be combined with an Earth-Mars
transportation system using solar- electric propulsion (SEP). (b) In-space transportation. SEP is generally considered
a viable alternative to nuclear thermal propulsion for human Mars exploration. (c) Beamed power. WPT could be
used for mobile extraction systems deployed in permanently-shadowed cold traps at the lunar poles and for in-situ
resource utilization at various locations on Mars. Other applications include beamed power to communications and
information- gathering stations on planetary surfaces or in orbit; e.g., high-power radar mappers; mobile robotic
systems; remote sensing stations; dispersed habitation modules; human-occupied field stations; and supplementary
power to surface solar power systems during periods when they are shadowed. (2) Science and robotic space
exploration (a) Multi-asteroid sample return. Visit a significant number of belt asteroids in a 2-5 year period,
collecting samples for return to Earth. (b) Asteroid/comet analysis. Determine the chemical content of comets and
asteroids on rendezvous missions (enabled by solar-electric propulsion) by using deep-penetration imaging radar and
by beaming laser and/or microwave power down to the surface to vaporize material for spectrographic analysis. (c)
Orbital debris removal. Use beamed energy to rendezvous and grapple with a piece of space junk. Space-based
lasers could also be used to vaporize smaller debris or to redirect the orbits of larger pieces to atmospheric reentry
trajectories.

No risk of collision from debris – empirics prove
Washington Times ‗7, James Hackett [―Much Ado about Space Debris,‖ 4/25/07, l/n]
<China's deliberate destruction of one of its own satellites in a January test of an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon has
led to much hand-wringing about the creation of space debris, reinvigorating the opponents of weapons in space.
Orbiting debris is dangerous, but the danger has been greatly exaggerated and is no reason for new unenforceable
arms control agreements. When the space age began 50 years ago there were no man-made objects in space. Since
then, Space Command has tracked more than 25,000 objects of baseball size or larger. More than 10,000 have fallen
into the atmosphere and disintegrated or landed, but in 50 years not one person anywhere on Earth has been killed or
injured by falling debris. Space debris is only slightly more likely to strike one of the 850 active spacecraft. Most are
in low Earth orbit below about 800 miles. These operational spacecraft are only 6 percent of the objects tracked. The
rest is space junk that includes inactive satellites, spent rockets, debris from exploding rockets and just plain trash.
Space Command monitors debris to identify threats and alerts operators of satellites to move out of the way if they
appear to be in danger. Some 80 percent of debris orbits between 500 and 600 miles altitude. The Chinese test, at
527 miles, created more debris right where traffic is heaviest. Air Force Space Command is tracking more than
1,000 pieces of debris from the Chinese test, plus 14,000 that were there before. So far, none has hit an active
spacecraft. In fact, over the last 50 years there have been only three documented debris impacts with operational
spacecraft, and none have been destroyed. A Space Command Web site describing the Space Surveillance Network
that tracks debris notes there is only a small amount in the low orbits of the space shuttle and space station, and
gives a worst-case estimate of 1 chance in 10,000 years of a piece of debris of baseball size or larger hitting either
one. Even in the debris-heavy area around 500 miles altitude, Space Command says normally there are only three or
four objects orbiting in an area equivalent to the airspace over the continental United States up to an altitude of
30,000 feet. Thus, it states, the likelihood of a collision is very small. Now there are reports U.S. intelligence
agencies knew about and monitored Chinese preparations for the ASAT test, but senior administration officials
decided to say nothing to deter Beijing in orderto protect intelligence methods. That shows that despite the anguish
about space debris the creation of more was not considered a serious danger. Most debris eventually migrates down
and burns up in the atmosphere. The main efforts are to avoid existing debris, design spacecraft and rockets that will
not explode in space, limit the release of debris on orbit, and at the end of their mission de-orbit satellites or move
them to parking orbits where there is little traffic.>




                                                                                                                      58
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                           2AC A2: International Counterplans
Perm – Do Both: Cooperation key. The technology is available to reign in the greatest source of energy, The
U.S must get it the race for this energy immediately.
William John Cox, retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist. 4/30 /11. “The Race
for Space-Solar Energy‖. Truthout, http://www.truthout.org/race-space-solar-energy/1304186557
Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy that 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 US 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 that would send 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 (DoD) National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the United States "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 reduction in the payload
cost to less than $200 per kilogram and a reduction in 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 US tax dollars on a stupid and 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
ending next year for the space shuttle and in 2017 for the space station, 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.




                                                                                                                      59
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                             2AC A2: Privatization CP
Solar Power Industry will collapse by 2016 if the Government doesn‘t increase investment – privatization will
not solve
Tom Walsh, 6/28/2011. (Tom, Environment and Energy Reporter for Time Magazine.) ―The Fading Era of Big Solar: Will Budget Woes
Swamp the Industry?‖ Time Magazine: Science Section. www.time.com
But there are clouds on the horizon for solar power — especially for big producers who want to build utility-
scale projects, not just slap panels on rooftops. The miniboom in solar in the U.S. is being driven chiefly by
U.S. Treasury grants — most funded by the 2009 stimulus — which have helped fill the gap created by the
evaporation of private capital after the recession. The only problem is that stimulus funding is just about
tapped out, the tax credits are set to expire in December and the mood on Capitol Hill is utterly hostile to
more spending. If that government money simply vanishes and private capital fails to appear, the U.S.
renewable-energy industry could be set back by years. And no one is at greater risk than those who want to
build large-scale solar. "There's a big buildup in the industry pipeline right now," says Arno Harris, the CEO of Recurrent Energy, a
utility-scale solar developer. "Financing could fall off a cliff." To understand why big solar is at such risk, you have to understand the
brave new world of renewable-energy financing. Solar projects and wind farms can be risky — in some cases you're dealing
with new technology, and you're usually producing electricity at higher prices than your fossil-fuel
competitors. So straightforward private financing isn't always easy to come by. Renewable-energy companies could
claim tax credits on the money they spend on projects, but of course, until they actually begin selling electricity they have little
to zero profits, and therefore no tax bill to worry about in the first place. They need that money up front. Before the recession,
there was a vibrant market in banks matching up renewable developers with companies that needed to offset the tax bill on their profits — but
after the recession there were, to say the least, significantly fewer profits and little need by anyone, especially in the financial
sector, for tax credits. If the government hadn't stepped in, the renewable industry might have been one of many
victims of the 2007-08 financial crisis and recession. Federal stimulus spending not only saved the solar
industry and its partners, it actually helped them thrive. Those billions in funds and loan guarantees were especially timely
because European nations had begun winding down their expensive feed-in tariffs — long-term government-set contracts for renewable energy at
favorable prices — that had helped build the global renewable-energy industry. (Even now, Germany and Italy account for two-thirds of the
worldwide solar market, thanks chiefly to years of government support.) As a result of stimulus spending and a bit of help from Europe's global
investments, "the U.S. has 30 gigawatts of utility-scale solar in the construction and permitting pipeline," says Harris.(See photos of a solar-
powered airplane.) The problem is, should those tax credits expire — as they're currently set to do by 2016 — and little
additional government funding come through, solar companies could find themselves back where they were
at the start of the recession. They can hope that private financing will begin to flow, but there's little evidence
yet that banks are eager to lend out money for big renewable projects — especially with the national energy
policy so uncertain. Big solar projects — many of which are done on federally managed land — are also held back by permitting
headaches. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have sued major solar-thermal projects in the deserts of the West on the grounds that
construction may threaten endangered species. "Large-scale projects can take three to five years to get all the permits," says Kevin Smith, the
CEO of SolarReserve, a California-based solar-thermal company. "That's significant."

Privatization fails - wide scale solar power would require a government investment
Rick Aster, 2011. ( ―How Big Would Solar Be?‖ http://shamaniceconomist.blogspot.com)
In short, we could supply the country with all the solar electricity it could use without venturing too far
beyond commercial buildings and large parking lots, and we could do it, eventually, just by purchasing and
installing the solar panels that the factories are already making. The cost, around $3 trillion, would be money
well spent, especially right now. About half of the money would go to pay the wages of factory workers and construction workers, and
there are plenty of workers idle in both skill groups. As sunny as the solar scenario outlined above sounds, we can‘t plan on getting all our
electricity from solar in the near future. Solar power provides only daytime electricity. Daytime electric capacity is the most important — two
thirds of electricity is used during the day, and the peak demand for electricity is on summer afternoons when solar panels are at their best — but
we also need nighttime power sources. The existing factories can‘t stamp out solar panels nearly as quickly as we could install them. A large-
scale investment in solar capacity would start by adding to solar manufacturing capacity. It works out better financially if we go slow and allow
time for solar panel efficiency to improve. Still, a large-scale investment in solar works out better than the status quo,
even at current prices. Prices are expected to fall as panel efficiency and manufacturing efficiency improve, so
it makes sense for a country like the United States to make solar power the centerpiece of its electric supply
plans.




                                                                                                                                                 60
SDI 11
SPS Aff



The slow rate of government funding is not good enough.
Futurism Now 5/10/11 ―Gradual, Slow Energy Changes are Not Enough‖ http://www.futurismnow.com/?p=7403\
American politicians are planning to solver our energy crisis by gradually phasing in renewable energy sources. What they know,
but aren‘t telling us, is that this won‘t be enough to stop or even slow down climate change. This is the plan: slowing
phasing in wind and solar and solar thermal (and biomass, supposedly) at the same time as spending tons,
and oodles, and truckloads of money on the pursuit of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This is a big
mistake, and our politicians know it, but they don‘t really care because they‘ll all be dead in 100 years. Mortality is the biggest block
to effective climate change legislation. If politicians knew they would live 100-200 or more years, when the hot air really hits the fans, they
would be working much harder to solve the problem and stop greenhouse gas emissions. They would also realize they would be held directly
accountable for inaction. But humans don‘t live long enough for repercussions on long term issues, and they know they will not be around when
the blame is meted out by future sweltering generations of angry people. It is possible that their anger may boil over before or after the collapse of
the entire system, if business as usual continues. It‘s true that renewable energy is making many promising inroads, but
not so much in the United States, and not fast enough anywhere . Politicians are constantly complaining about
the costs. And anyone who knows about climate change should be insisting, like the Sierra Club seems to be trying to do, on the immediate
closing of all coal fired power plants. In fact, the Sierra Club and its Beyond Coal campaign seems more worthy of our support than many other
―campaigns‖ coming out of the Big Greens. I really admire Bill McKibben, but I can‘t think of one actual thing 350.org has done to stop climate
change, or even slow it down. If you are going to be a giant world-wide climate change organization — do something! (Asking people to send in
photos of their signs saying ―350″ doesn‘t count). Most puzzling of all is Obama‘s slow-motion approach to solving the
climate change problem. Like most politicians after their campaigns have ended, he seems to have reverted to
the idea that it‘s a slow-moving future problem that we can deal with once all of our other big problems are
dealt with. Worst of all, he seems to have concluded that green energy, renewable technology, and scientists
working furiously behind the scenes with a minimum amount of government money for research will
eventually solve all of our climate and energy problems. That won‘t happen. He also says we need to get off foreign oil.
(Apparently in the mind of politicians, foreign oil is so much worse than oil from say, the Gulf of Mexico). Yet, that idea is belied by the fact that
we are now at war with Libya, one of the world‘s top oil producers. Yeah, they are. And the U.S. and Europe want to control their oil.

Space privatization fails- no clear plan
Rep. David Wu 4/15/10 ―Debate: Obama's Space Privatization Plan Is a Costly Mistake‖
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/15/debate-obamas-space-privatization-plan-is-a-costly-mistake/ (Wu is the U.S.
Representative for Oregon's 1st congressional district. He is a member of the Democratic Party)
President Barack Obama is in Florida today to argue his case for privatizing the human spaceflight program. It will be a tough sell. The
president's vision for privatizing American space exploration may sound appealing initially, but it rests on flawed
assumptions and could result in the United States surrendering our lead in space exploration to our
international competitors, including China and Russia . The president has proposed a radical restructuring of U.S. space policy,
which includes the termination of the next phase of the human spaceflight program, known as the Constellation program. The Constellation
program is the architecture developed to deliver American astronauts to the International Space Station -- and later to the moon and other
destinations in our solar system -- following the retirement of the space shuttle program, which is on pace to fly its last mission late this year or
early next year. In place of Constellation, the Obama administration supports the development of commercial
capabilities for delivering Americans to the space station and beyond. This may sound good rhetorically, but
it fails to meet the standards of sound space policy. The president's plan to privatize space exploration rests
on ill-defined objectives and unsubstantiated assumptions. For instance, the administration has not adequately
explained where the space program's shifted trajectory will lead our nation and cannot explain how its plan
affects our nation's previously established goals of returning humans to the moon by 2020 and some day
sending astronauts to Mars and beyond. Without clearly defined goals, including specific destinations and timelines for reaching
them, how can we ensure that taxpayers are receiving an adequate return on their investments in space exploration? It is simply unwise to
carry out such a dramatic shift in how our nation conducts space exploration without a clear objective in
mind. More concerning is the administration's inability to explain what assumptions were used in developing its proposed commercial crew-
delivery strategy. In testimony before the House Science and Technology Committee on Feb. 25, NASA administrator Charles Bolden admitted
that his agency had not conducted a single market survey on the potential costs of privatizing space exploration. Instead, the administration relied
solely on information provided by the aerospace industry when formulating its plans for privatizing the human spaceflight program. While these
estimates may indeed be accurate, we cannot know for sure what the potential costs associated with this dramatic move will be without
independent, unbiased estimates. Simply put, the president's vision lacks clearly defined objectives and metrics for
measuring success. The administration cannot adequately explain where the space program's shifted focus
will lead. And the president's justification for privatizing human space exploration relies on the proverbial
fox guarding the hen house. The American people deserve better.




                                                                                                                                                        61
SDI 11
SPS Aff



Privatization is too costly and will take 20 years.
Larry West, 8/20/09 ―Solar Power: The Pros and Cons of Solar Power‖
http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/solar_power.htm (West is a professional writer and editor who
has written many articles about environmental issues for leading newspapers, magazines and online publications. He
has been a guide at About.com since 2004.
The prospect of generating pollution-free power from the sun‘s rays is appealing, but to-date the low price of oil combined with the
high costs of developing new technology have prevented the widespread adoption of solar power in the United
States and beyond. At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power costs as much as five times more than
conventional fossil fuel-based electricity. And dwindling supplies of polysilicon, the element found in traditional photovoltaic cells,
are not helping. The Politics of Solar Power According to Gary Gerber of the Berkeley, California-based Sun Light & Power, not long after
Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in 1980 and removed the solar collectors from the roof that Jimmy Carter had installed, tax credits
for solar development disappeared and the industry plunged ―over a cliff.‖ Federal spending on solar energy picked up under the Clinton
administration, but trailed off again once George W. Bush took office. But growing climate change worries and high oil prices
have forced the Bush administration to reconsider its stance on alternatives like solar, and the White House
has proposed $148 million for solar energy development in 2007 , up almost 80 percent from what it invested in 2006.
Increasing the Efficiency and Lowering the Cost of Solar Power In the realm of research and development, enterprising
engineers are working hard to get solar power‘s costs down, and expect it to be price-competitive with fossil
fuels within 20 years. One technological innovator is California-based Nanosolar, which replaces the silicon used to absorb sunlight and
convert it into electricity with a thin film of copper, indium, gallium and selenium (CIGS).

The private sector is not qualified for such a job.
Taylor Dinerman 2/13/10 ―Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?‖
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059263418508030.html (
The private sector simply is not up for the job. For one, NASA will have to establish a system to certify
commercial orbital vehicles as safe for human transport, and with government bureaucracy, that will take
years. Never mind the challenges of obtaining insurance. Entrepreneurial companies have consistently overpromised and
under-delivered. Over the past 30 years, over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the launch business.
The only one to make the transition into a respectably sized space company is Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va. Building vehicles capable
of going into orbit is not for the fainthearted or the undercapitalized. The companies that have survived have done so
mostly by relying on U.S. government Small Business Innovation Research contracts, one or more angel investors, or both. Big aerospace firms
tempted to join NASA's new projects will remember the public-private partnership fiasco when Lockheed Martin's X-33 design was chosen to
replace the space shuttle in 1996. Before it was canceled in 2001 this program cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357
million.




                                                                                                                                           62
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                         ***Politics Links***
Bipartisan Support: Alternative Energy

Both Democrats and Republicans like alternative energy
Jones 11, Jeffery Jones 2/2/11, (Assistant Director of research, Hoover Institution, In U.S. Alternative Energy Bill
Does Best) http://www.gallup.com/poll/145880/alternative-energy-bill-best-among-eight-proposals.aspx
Of the eight proposals, the alternative energy bill and tax code overhaul ideas show the greatest bipartisan
agreement, with 74% or more of each party group favoring these . Majorities of all three party groups also favor
faster withdrawal from Afghanistan and expanded exploration for oil and gas, though with less widespread party
consensus: Republicans are much less likely to back a speedier withdrawal from Afghanistan and Democrats less
likely to endorse increased oil and gas exploration. Slim majorities of all three party groups favor passage of a free-
trade agreement with South Korea. The party groups show the most disagreement on stronger gun control laws and a
path to legal status for some illegal immigrants, both of which are favored by most Democrats but opposed by most
Republicans. None of the party groups shows solid support for taking steps to deny automatic citizenship to children
of illegal immigrants, with Republicans most supportive at 51%. With Republicans in control of the House of
Representatives and Democrats in control of the Senate, it would appear the proposals with the best chances of
passing are those that generate strong bipartisan support. That is clearly the case for a bill that would provide
incentives for increased use of alternative energy.




                                                                                                                    63
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                  Public Support: Alternative Energy
The Public likes the plan
Hempsell 05, Mark Hepsell 6/5/05, (University of Bristol Researcher, Space power as a result of Catastrophes)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755
The oil crisis changed the set of strategies and solutions to power generating problems considered by regulators and legislators. Fringe energy
experts and environmentalists, who had for years advocated conservation instead of growth strategies and soft
alternative energy instead of fossil fuels and nuclear power, were granted access to the political elite and suddenly
found themselves explaining their ideas in Congressional committees ([Hyman, 1988 and Hirsh, 1999]). Experts in
cogeneration and alternative energy educated policy makers at all levels about various pockets of resources that the industry had
been ignoring for decades. For example, between 1968 and 1972 cogeneration and alternative energy sources were discussed
briefly in committee meetings only four times (all in 1972), while during the next 4 years, they were a topic in 74 hearings and a
focus of 28 committee prints and three reports ( Fig. 4). Before 1973, many alternative energy experts were unable to present
their ideas to key legislators ( [Righter, 1996]). Economists arguing against the standard conception of the electric power industry
as a natural monopoly became highly involved in discussing alternative industrial forms with policy think tanks ( [Primeaux,
1986]). Most of the solutions considered by policy makers in Congressional committees during the crisis were not recent
discoveries. Instead they were either from fringe areas of the industry or borrowed from other industries; in effect, they were pre-
packaged. This is similar to what [Kuhn, 1970], p. 75) noted in his discussion of scientific revolutions: the solutions in question
had ―at least been partially anticipated during a period when there was no crisis … [but] in the absence of crisis those
anticipations had been ignored‖. In other words, the jolt of the oil crisis did not create a new set of solutions, but merely altered
the focus of the public and policy makers to include pre-existing solutions as legitimate alternatives.




                                                                                                                                            64
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                            SPS Costs Political Capital
SPS requires tons of political capital
David 8 (Leonard, Research Associate – Secure World Foundation and Senior Space Writer – Space.com, ―Space-
Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space‖, CleanTech, 5-15, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?
ArticleId=69)
Space Based Solar Power: Science and Technology Challenges Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and
one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management
Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new
systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any
fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies,
said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with
continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home
run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP,
including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this
project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a
lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.




                                                                                                                                              65
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                       SPS Popular: Congress
Congress wants the plan to keep creating technology
Guggenheim 11 (School of Areospace and Technology, Georgia Tech, A US India Power Exchange Towards
Space) http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2011-US-IndiaPowerExchange.pdf
In this paper, we will start by pointing out that SSP is an old dream, not a new idea. It has not been realized, because
SSP is hard. There is no short-term viable prospect for SSP as a significant source of power except for some very
special and high-valued markets. The periodic spikes of media interest in SSP through the past six decades correlate
with drives to develop something else, where large scale construction in Space for SSP was advanced as a popular
civilian justification. We argue for a strategy where SSP helps, rather than competes, with terrestrial renewable
energy initiatives, as a way to establish the technology and the infrastructure to exchange power between markets. In
other words, Space is a venue for power exchange rather than just generation, and as such we call our architecture
the Space Power Grid (SPG). This approach will also buy time to develop the best technological options for the
Gigawatt- level SSP satellites that will replace the first-generation relay satellites. We have shown in recent work
that such a strategy can lead to an economically viable infrastructure with a continuing revenue stream. This will
help develop the massive satellites needed to expand SSP to the 4 Terawatt level of today‘s fossil-based primary
power supply.




                                                                                                                     66
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                           SPS Popular: Government
Government likes the plan
Shea 11, Karen Cramer Shea 2011 (Researcher for Space Solar Power Service, Demand Action on Base load solar
Power) http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/demand-action-on-base-load-solar-power/
An idea for a Conference on Space Solar Power was the most popular idea across the entire government on the Open
Government Ideascale. It was the most popular idea for NASA, the Department of Energy and for the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. The reaction has been mainly to ignore it. OSTP saying it is not specific enough. DOE saying nothing
about enacting any of the hundreds of ideas proposed by the public. NASA is saying a space solar power conference is infeasible and unpractical.
A conference is infeasible and unpractical?




                                                                                                                                            67
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                        SPS Popular: Public
Public likes SPS
Preble, ‗6 – Darel, systems analyst, physicist and chair of the Space Solar Power Workshop
(http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf)
 According to repeated surveys, public perception of America‘s Space Goals places SSP construction clearly as
America‘s top space priority1:
2002 2005 What should be America‘s Goal in Space?
32% 35% Build satellites in Earth orbit to collect solar energy
to beam to utilities on Earth
23% 17% Develop the technology to deflect asteroids or comets
that might destroy the Earth
13% 10% No Opinion
4% 10% Send humans to Mars
2% 7% Search for life on other planets
6% 7% Build a human colony in space
3% 6% Develop a passenger rocket to send tourists into space
5% 4% Build a base on the moon for humans to use for moon exploration
11% 2% None of the above, we should stop spending money on space




                                                                                                                68
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                   SPS Unpopular: Congress
Congress doesn‘t want to invest in SPS – power problems
Dinerman 7 [Taylor, well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space activities, part-
time consultant for the US Defense Department., wrote a science textbook, "Solar power satellites and space radar,"
7-16, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/910/1]
One of the great showstoppers for the Space Radar (SR) program, formerly known as Space Based Radar, is power.
It takes a lot of energy to transmit radar beams powerful enough to track a moving target on Earth from space. What
is called the Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) is what makes SR so much better than other space radar
systems, such as the recently-launched German SAR-Lupe or the NRO‘s Lacrosse system. While many of the
details are classified, the power problem seems to be the main reason that the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis,
has been extremely reluctant to fund this program.




                                                                                                                 69
SDI 11
SPS Aff

                                               SPS Unpopular: Generic
Zero Congressional support for SPS --- its too expensive and tied to unpopular military space programs
Day 8 (Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, ―Knights in Shining
Armor‖, The Space Review, 6-9, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)
If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the
economic case for space solar power is abysmal. The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt
hour of even relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations,
which could possibly change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is
the need for deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent
policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly ―falls through the cracks‖ because
neither NASA nor the Department of Energy wants responsibility. If the military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will
finally have a home. But there‘s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled
with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to
realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military
space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public
record for cost overruns, the DoD‘s less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which
would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those
who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is
nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim that ―the military supports space solar power‖ based solely on a
study that had no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

SPS is extremely expensive
Chao and Chang (Graduated Medical Student, Graduated Engineering student, The Power of Power)
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/Solar+Power+Satellites
Perhaps one of the greatest downfalls of the SPS system would be cost. In the range of 80 billion dollars, the costs of
this system far exceed any of the other systems of production. Even the fact that the technology offers benefits far
into the future would seem unreasonable in terms of cost. In comparing SPS to the two systems that generate most of
the world‘s power, nuclear and coal, the cost of SPS drastically outweighs. Take nuclear power for example. A typical reactor
costs approximately 5 billion to build, a mere 20th of a SPS without taking into account, the base stations. Fossil fuels account for 65% of the
world‘s energy production and are even cheaper due to its availability and flexibility with regards to use. It would seem then, that currently
established means of energy production are capable enough of handling the power needs of any developing nations. Yet with any growing
society, energy demands are expected to rise and without stable energy sources, demand will exceed supply and costs will begin to rise. It is then
that in terms of cost and sustainability, the true benefit of the SPS system begins to outweigh those monetary costs in the long run.

SPS unpopular – no political will
Boswell 4 [David, was a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1 (Andrew Giovanny Alvarado)
Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed
to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more
expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar
power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has
been made?There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into
orbit about every week on average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to
explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the
ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite
that would help the world develop a new source of energy?In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over
$260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy
research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion
industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial,
but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further
development.There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes the point
that ―the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not
lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and
typically more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or
more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the capital market.‖




                                                                                                                                                70

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:1/8/2012
language:
pages:70