Docstoc

Novice SPS Aff

Document Sample
Novice SPS Aff Powered By Docstoc
					Document1                                       DDW 2011
                                                       1


   Plan: The United States federal government should
            deploy space based solar power.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                       1
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1

                                                                                                 Contention 1 is Inherency

Tech barriers to SPS have been resolved – all that remains is government inaction
Edmonton Journal, Austin Mardon received an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Alberta on Friday. He is a
member of the Order of Canada and is a full member of the International Academy of Astronautics. Pauline Balogun is a U of A
student who is interested in green technologies for the future, 6/12/ 11, “Solar satellites key to green energy”,
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Solar+satellites+green+energy/4933251/story.html//jchen
      With gas prices on the rise, the race is on for cheap alternative fuel sources, including solar power, but amid a wash
      of criticism, the solar industry may not even be in the running. The major criticisms against solar power facilities,
      such as wind farms, are unreliability and inefficiency. Solar power depends on environmental factors beyond human
      control and that makes investors anxious. These facilities also require areas with high amounts of sunlight, usually
      hundreds if not thousands of acres of valuable farmland and all for relatively little power production. This is why, in
      the 1960s, scientists proposed solar-powered satellites (SPSs). SPSs have about the most favourable conditions
      imaginable for solar energy production, short of a platform on the sun. Earth's orbit sees 144 per cent of the
      maximum solar energy found on the planet's surface and takes up next to no space in comparison to land-based
      facilities. Satellites would be able to gather energy 24 hours a day, rather than the tenuous 12-hour maximum that
      land-based                  plants have, and direct the transmitted energy to different locations, depending on where power was needed most. So, with so many points in its favour, why hasn't anyone built one yet? Obviously, putting anything into outer space takes a lot of money. Many
     governments claim there simply isn't any money in the budget for launching satellites into space, but in 2010, amid an economic crisis, the United States managed to find $426 million for nuclear fusion research and $18.7 billion for NASA, a five-per-cent increase from 2009. The most recent
     projections, made in the 1980s, put the cost of launching an SPS at $5 billion, or around 8-10 cents/ kWh. Nuclear power plants cost a minimum of $3 billion to $6 billion, not including cost overruns, which can make a plant cost as much as $15 billion. In the U.S., nuclear power costs about 4.9
     cents/kWh, making SPS power supply only slightly more expensive. But these estimates are over two decades old and the numbers likely need to be re-examined. The idea for space-based solar energy has been around since the '60s; given the technological advancements since then, surely

                                                . Governments and investors are rarely willing to devote funding to
     governments would have invested in making an SPS power supply more budget-friendly. That is not the case

     something that doesn't have quick cash returns. The projected cost of launching these satellites once ranged from $11 billion to $320 billion. These figures have been adjusted for
     inflation, but the original estimates were made back in the 1970s, when solar technology was in its infancy, and may have since become grossly inaccurate. How long an SPS would survive in orbit is anybody's guess, given the
     maintenance due to possible damage to solar panels from solar winds and radiation. As for adding to the ever-expanding satellite graveyard in Earth's orbit, most solutions to satellite pollution remain theoretical. Still, these satellites should
     not be so largely dismissed. There is a significant design flaw keeping these satellites from production. One of the major shortfalls in the design of SPSs is simply in getting the power from point A to point B. This remains the most controversial aspect of SPSs: the use of microwaves to transmit
     power from high orbit to the ground. Critics often cite the dangers of microwave radiation to humans and wildlife, however, the strength of the radiation from these beams would be equal to the leakage from a standard microwave oven, which is only slightly more than a cellphone. A NASA

                                                                                         also recommended that NASA
     report from 1980 reveals that the major concern with solarpowered satellites was problems with the amplifier on the satellite itself. Several workable solutions were proposed in that same report. The report

     develop and invest in SPS technology, so that by the 2000s, these satellites would be a viable alternative fuel source.
     This recommendation was ignored. We should already have the technology and the infrastructure in place for green
     energy, but we don't. Instead, we are engaged in a mad dash for the quickest, cheapest alternative to oil and that may
     be the source of our downfall. For the sake of the future, expediency must take a back seat to longevity and
     longevity may just be found in outer space.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1

                                                                                                 Contention 2 is Hegemony
Scenario 1 is Power Projection
SPS is key to force mobility – provides the only sustainable power source to the military
Taylor Dinerman, senior editor at the Hudson Institute’s New York branch and co-author of the forthcoming Towards a
Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National Defense University Press, 11/24/2008, “Space solar power and the
Khyber Pass”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1255/1
     Last year the National Security Space Office released its initial report on space solar power (SSP). One of the primary
     justifications for the project was the potential of the system to provide power from space for remote military bases.
     Electrical power is only part of the story. If the military really wants to be able to operate for long periods of time
     without using vulnerable supply lines it will have to find a new way to get liquid fuel to its forward operating forces.
     This may seem impossible at first glance, but by combining space solar power with some of the innovative
     alternative fuels and fuel manufacturing systems that are now in the pipeline, and given enough time and effort, the
     problem could be solved. The trick is, of course, to have enough raw energy available so that it is possible to transform whatever is available into liquid fuel. This may mean something as easy as making
        methanol from sugar cane or making jet fuel from natural gas, or something as exotic as cellulosic ethanol from waste products. Afghanistan has coal and natural gas that could be turned into liquid fuels with the right technology.

                is a portable system that can be transported in standard containers and set up anywhere there are the
        What is needed

        resources needed to make fuel. This can be done even before space solar power is available, but with SSP it becomes
        much easier.                   In the longer run Pakistan’s closure of the Khyber Pass supply route justifies investment in SSP as a technology that landlocked nations can use to avoid the pressures and threats that they now have to live with. Without access to the sea, nations such as
        Afghanistan are all too vulnerable to machinations from their neighbors. Imagine how different history would be if the Afghans had had a “Polish Corridor” and their own port. Their access to the world economy might have changed their culture in positive ways. Bangladesh and Indonesia are
        both Muslim states whose access to the oceans have helped them adapt to the modern world.




Forward deployment solves multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict.
Robert Kagan, 2007, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [“End of Dreams, Return of
History”, 7/19, web)
        Finally, there is      the United States          itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans
        have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second
        World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward

                                                                               is also engaged in hegemonic
        across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it

        competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and
        Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a
        traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a
        region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to
        the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations

                                                          Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went
        and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system.

        away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American
        predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global
        predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently
        the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in
        the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and
        wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is
        that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less
        likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.
        It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the
        dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of
        international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the

                                                                                              Conflict
        waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond.

        between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the
        kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now
        impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a
        foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle,
        owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would


Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           3
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1
     never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but
     even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes
     unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the
     continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger
     of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the
     order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain
     in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the
     distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United
     States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international
     order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.

                                                                              Even under the umbrella of
     The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world's great powers.

     unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China
     and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and
     Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the
     consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does
     conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great
     powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the
     United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws
     from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations
     agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of
     most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an

                         In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it
     ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.

     remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even
     more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some
     realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West,
     and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without
                    If the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of
     Soviet communism.
     "offshore balancing" -- this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its
     near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.
     It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and
     the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United
     States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the
     powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to
     come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy

                                                                                                                                                          In
     American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation.

     the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has
     raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. It only adds
     a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict
     between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change.
     The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further
     competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American
     influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect
     deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region,
     particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward
     Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new
     instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning
     nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should
     imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.


Scenario 2 is Soft Power
SPS has immense international support – US development key to soft power
NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, “Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen



Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                              4
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1
     FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no outright policy or legal showstoppers exist to prevent the
     development of SBSP. Full‐scale SBSP, however, will require a permissive international regime, and construction of
     this new regime is in every way a challenge nearly equal to the construction of the satellite itself. The interim
     review did not uncover any hard show‐stoppers in the international legal or regulatory regime. Many nations are
     actively studying Space‐Based Solar Power. Canada, the UK, France, the European Space Agency, Japan, Russia,
     India, and China, as well as several equatorial nations have all expressed past or present interest in SBSP.
     International conferences such as the United Nations‐connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject
     and there is even a UN‐affiliated non‐governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is dedicated to
     promoting the study and development of SBSP. The International Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at
     least one document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject by the International Telecommunications
     Union (ITU) is presently ongoing. There seems to be significant global interest in promoting the peaceful use of
     space, sustainable development, and carbon neutral energy sources, indicating that perhaps an open avenue
     exists for the United States to exercise “soft power” via the development of SBSP.                                                                                                                                                  That there are no show‐stoppers should in no way imply that an
     adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a regime must address liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and parking orbits, and transit corridors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space Situational
     Awareness, data‐sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some significant similarities to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) role for facilitating safe international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the satellite
     technology development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the construction of such a framework immediately.




SPS is key to international collaboration in space
Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities,
Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, “The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor”,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date
accessed June 25, 2011
     If a non-integrated, decentralized SSP system were to be a truly international effort, perhaps costs for such an effort
     could be reduced. It is conceivable that a sense of global mobilization (being part of a common human endeavor)
     might take hold in an international effort to build thousands of SSP space and ground segments. The peoples of poor
     nations might be able to find employment in digging the foundations for and in the maintenance of SSP assembly
     and launch facilities and ground rectennae. Borrowing from FDR’s New Deal philosophy, these facilities could
     purposely be built around the globe so that vocational training in aerospace technology could also be offered,                                                                                                                                                                             adding to the
     human capital in developing countries. This new environment of international cooperation could and should be constantly verified by UN inspectors to ensure that these new facilities remain true to peaceful purposes. There are of course risks in any new relationship, but in light of the track
     record of other attempts to maintain international security, these acceptable risks are perhaps worth the effort to make them work. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is conscious of making every member of the U.S. Military feel needed in the war on terror. This is the same approach

                                     . Making poor people of the world actually feel needed should be a focal point of U.S.
     that could be taken when building a system of SSP for the peoples of Earth

     foreign policy. This would reduce the general sense of marginalization in many parts of the world, perhaps making
     terrorism at least flourish less. This approach could start by abandoning “diplomatic” terms                                                                                                                                                 such as “periphery” and “international development.” These
     terms only reinforce the idea that other countries and other cultures have nothing of inherent value to offer the West. When Rumsfeld was a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry, he said that the role of serendipity in developing new products increased with the number of separate areas of
     research and development that were funded. This idea should be even more true as human capital is developed around the world. Some see involvement in space as a luxury that much of the world cannot afford. This same logic would also deny golf lessons for inner city youth. Perhaps this

                                    playing golf and by exploring space.14A global mobilization for a common human
     worldview fails to see the value in “teeing up” unknown lessons to be learned, both by

     endeavor via the common language of science and technology, as it relates to outer space need not be seen as naïve                                                                                                                                                                                          or
     some call for one world government. Ronald Reagan for instance, characteristically and perhaps instinctively invoked the rhetorically inclusive phrase, “the people of this planet” when he attempted to marshal international condemnation against terrorism during his administration.26




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      5
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1

Independently, international space cooperation cements US leadership
CSIS “National Security and the Commercial Space Sector”, 2010 CSIS Draft for Comment, April 30th,
http://csis.org/files/publication/100430_berteau_commercial_space.pdf
     “New opportunities for partnership and collaboration with both international and commercial space actors have the
     potential to support future national security space activities and enhance U.S. leadership.” Forming alliances and
     encouraging cooperation with foreign entities could provide several benefits to the United States, including ensuring
     continued U.S. access to space after a technical failure or a launch facility calamity, strengthening the competitive
     position of the U.S. commercial satellite sector, enhancing the U.S. position in partnerships, and reinforcing
     collaboration among other space-faring nations.                                                                             As the Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2000 Defense Industry Viewpoint notes, strategic commercial alliances: (1) provide capabilities to expand quickly service offerings and
     markets in ways not possible under time and resource constraints; (2) earn a rate of return 50 percent higher than base businesses—“returns more than double as firms gain experience in alliances”; and (3) are a powerful alternative to acquiring other companies because they “avoid costly
     accumulation of debt and buildup of balance sheet goodwill.” In those respects, international commercial alliances could help U.S. firms access foreign funding, business systems, space expertise, technology, and intellectual capital and increase U.S. industry’s market share overseas, thus

                                                                                            systems in other countries,
     providing economic benefits to the United States. Moreover, U.S. experiences with foreign entities in foreign markets could help those entities obtain the requisite approvals to operate U.S. government satellite

     resolve satellite spectrum and coordination issues, and mitigate risks associated with catastrophic domestic launch
     failures by providing for contingency launch capabilities from foreign nations. Multinational alliances would also
     signal U.S. policymakers’ intent to ensure U.S. commercial and military access to space within a cooperative,
     international domain, help promote international cooperation, and build support for U.S. positions within various
     governmental and business forums. First, partnerships could allow the United States to demonstrate greater
     leadership in mitigating those shared risks related to vulnerability of space assets through launch facility and data
     sharing, offering improved space situational awareness, establishing collective security                                                                                                                                        agreements for space assets, exploring space deterrence and satellite
     security doctrines, and formulating and agreeing to rules of the road on the expected peaceful behavior in the space domain. Second, partnerships could also help the United States build consensus on important space-related issues in bilateral or multilateral organizations such as the United

                                                                                                                   ,
     Nations, the International Telecommunication Union, and the World Trade Organization; working with emerging space-faring nations is particularly important because of their growing presence in the marketplace and participation in international organizations. Third

     alliances could serve as a bridge to future collaborative efforts between U.S. national security for                                                                                                                                                  ces and U.S. allies. For example, civil multinational

                                                                                                , developing government,
     alliances such as the International Space Station and the international search and rescue satellite consortium, Cospas-Sarsat, involve multiple countries partnering to use space for common public global purposes. Finally

     business, and professional relationships with people in other countries provides opportunities for the United States
     to further the principles upon which U.S. national security relies—competition, economic stability, and democracy.


Soft power prevents extinction
Joseph Nye, Harvard, US MILITARY PRIMACY IS FACT - SO, NOW, WORK ON 'SOFT POWER' OF PERSUASION, April 29, 2004,
p, http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_soft_power_csm_042904.htm
      Soft power co-opts people rather than coerces them. It rests on the ability to set the agenda or shape the preferences
      of others. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public                                                                                                                          relations, and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of power - a means of pursuing national
     interests. When America discounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price. When US policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce its leverage. The manner with which the US went into
     Iraq undercut American soft power. That did not prevent the success of the four-week military campaign, but it made others less willing to help in the reconstruction of Iraq and made the American occupatio n more costly in the hard-power resources of blood and treasure. Because of its

                                                                               But not all the important types of power
     leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the US probably will remain the world's single most powerful country well into the 21st century.

     come from the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting desired outcomes, but transnational issues such as
     climate change, infectious diseases, international crime, and terrorism cannot be resolved by military force alone.
     Soft power is particularly important in dealing with these issues, where military power alone simply cannot produce
     success, and can even be counterproductive. America's success in coping with the new transnational threats of
     terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will depend on a deeper understanding of the role of soft power and
     developing a better balance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   6
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1

                                                                                                      Contention 3 is Warming
SPS is the ideal clean energy to solve warming – minimal pollution and resource use
Garretson, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in India, previously the Chief of Future Science and
Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs, 09 (Peter A., “Sky’s No Limit:
Space-Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo-US Strategic Partnership?”,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf)
     While no energy source is entirely benign, the SBSP concept has significant things to recommend it for the
     environmentally conscious and those wanting to develop green energy sources. An ideal energy source will not add
     to global warming, produce no greenhouse gasses, have short energy payback time, require little in the way of land,
     require no water for cooling and have no adverse effects on living things. Space solar power comes very close to this
     ideal. Almost all of the inefficiency in the system is in the space segment and waste heat is rejected to deep space
     instead of the biosphere.14 SBSP is, therefore, not expected to impact the atmosphere. The amount of heat
     contributed by transmission loss through the atmosphere and reconversion at the 19 receiver-end is significantly
     less than an equivalent thermal (fossil fuel                                                                   ), nuclear power plant, or terrestrial solar plant, which rejects significantly more heat to the biosphere on a per unit (per megawatt) basis.15 The efficiency of a Rectenna is above 80 per
     cent (rejects less than 20 per cent to the biosphere), whereas for the same power into a grid, a concentrating solar plant (thermal) is perhaps 15 per cent efficient (rejecting 85 (per cent) while a

                            (rejecting 60 per cent to the biosphere). The high efficiency of the receivers also means that
     fossil fuel plan is likely to be less than 40 per cent efficient

     unlike thermal and nuclear power plants, there is no need for active cooling and so no need to tie the location of the
     receiver to large amounts of cooling water, with the accompanying environmental problems of dumping large
     amounts of waste heat into rivers or coastal areas.


ONLY SPS supplies the power needed for a sustainable energy transition
James M. Snead, P.E., is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) a past chair of the
AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee, and the founder and president of the Spacefaring Institute LLC, 5/4/ 2009, “The
vital need for America to develop space solar power”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1
      A key element of a well-reasoned US energy policy is to maintain an adequate surplus of dispatchable electrical
      power generation capacity. Intelligent control of consumer electrical power use to moderate peak demand and
      improved transmission and distribution systems to more broadly share sustainable generation capacity will
      certainly help, but 250 million additional Americans and 5 billion additional electrical power consumers worldwide
      by 2100 will need substantially more assured generation capacity. Three possible energy sources that could achieve
      sufficient generation capacity to close the 2100 shortfall are methane hydrates, advanced nuclear energy, and SSP.
      The key planning co                                   nsideration is: Which of these are now able to enter engineering development and be integrated into an actionable sustainable energy transition plan? Methane hydrate is a combination of methane and water ice where a methane molecule is

                                                                                                   estimate that the
     trapped within water ice crystals. The unique conditions necessary for forming these hydrates exist at the low temperatures and elevated pressures under water, under permafrost, and under cold rock formations. Some experts                                                          undersea methane

                                                           hydrates? The issues are the technical feasibility of recovering
     hydrate resources are immense and may be able to meet world energy needs for a century or more. Why not plan to use methane

      methane at industrial-scale levels (tens to hundreds of billions BOE per year) and doing so with acceptable
      environmental impact                                        . While research into practical industrial-scale levels of recovery with acceptable environmental impact is underway, acceptable production solutions have not yet emerged. As a result, a rational US energy plan cannot yet include
     methane hydrates as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. Most people would agree that an advanced nuclear generator scalable from tens of megawatts to a few gigawatts, with acceptable environmental impact and adequate security, is a desirable long-term
     sustainable energy solution. Whether this will be an improved form of enriched uranium nuclear fission; a different fission fuel cycle, such as thorium; or, the more advanced fusion energy is not yet known. Research into all of these options is proceeding with significant research

                      , until commercialized reactor designs are demonstrated and any environmental and security issues
     advancements being achieved. However

     associated with their fueling, operation, and waste disposal are technically and politically resolved, a rational US
     energy plan cannot yet include advanced nuclear energy as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future
     energy scarcity. We are left with SSP. Unless the US federal government is willing to forego addressing the very real
     possibility of energy scarcity in dispatchable electrical power generation, SSP is the one renewable energy solution
     capable of beginning engineering development and, as such, being incorporated into such a rational sustainable
     energy transition plan. Hence, beginning the engineering development of SSP now becomes a necessity. Planning
     and executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the development of SSP will jump-start America on the
     path to acquiring the mastery of industrial space operations we need to become a true spacefaring nation                                                                                                                                                                       . Of course, rapid
     advancements in advanced nuclear energy or methane hydrate recovery or the emergence of a new industrial-scale sustainable energy source may change the current circumstances favoring the start of the development of SSP. But not knowing how long affordable easy energy supplies will
     remain available and not knowing to what extent terrestrial nuclear fission and renewable energy production can be practically and politically expanded, reasonableness dictates that the serious engineering development of SSP be started now.




And, we’re nearing the point of no return—holding the line on current emissions while
transitioning to solar power key to check feedback cycles
David Biello, award winning journalist and associate editor for Scientific American, 9/9/10, Scientific American, “How Much


Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    7
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1
Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Plants Today?”,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-
infrastructure{jchen}
     Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new
     calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas
     concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above
     preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing
     climate change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding
     more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural
     gas—every day.                                    A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons
            more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions". That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively, given that some coal-fired
            power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average

                                  and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations. Still, we are rapidly
            temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present levels

            approaching a point of no return,                                                           cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-
            emitting devices will be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.
            And since 2000 the world has added 416 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, 449 gigawatts of natural gas–fired power plants and even 47.5 gigawatts of oil-fired power plants, according to the study's figures. China alone is already responsible for more than a third of the global "committed
            emissions," including adding 2,000 cars a week to the streets of Beijing as well as 322 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants built since 2000. The U.S.—the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, among major countries—has continued a transition to less CO2-intensive energy
            use that started in the early 20th century. Natural gas—which emits 40 percent less CO2 than coal when burned—now dominates new power plants (nearly 188 gigawatts added since 2000) along with wind (roughly 28 gigawatts added), a trend broadly similar to other developed nations

                      But the U.S. still generates half of its electricity via coal burning—and what replaces those power
            such as Japan or Germany.

            plants over the next several decades will play a huge role in determining the ultimate degree of global
            climate change. Coal-burning poses other threats as well, including the toxic coal ash that can spill from the
            impoundments where it is kept; other polluting emissions that cause acid rain and smog; and                                                                                                                                                   the soot that causes and estimated 13,200 extra deaths
            and nearly 218,000 asthma attacks per year, according to a report from the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. "Unfortunately, persistently elevated levels of fine particle pollution are common across wide swaths of the country," reveals the 2010 report, released September 9.

                                           plants, diesel trucks, buses and cars." Of course, those are the same culprits
            "Most of these pollutants originate from combustion sources such as power

            contributing the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet "programs to scale up 'carbon neutral' energy are moving
            slowly a            t best," notes physicist Martin Hoffert of New York University in a perspective on the research also published in Science on September 10. "The difficulties posed by generating even [one terawatt] of carbon-neutral power led the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley and

                                                                                                            power plants. At least
            colleagues to call it the 'terawatt challenge'." That is because all carbon-free sources of energy combined provide a little more than two of the 15 terawatts that power modern society—the bulk of that from nuclear and hydroelectric

            10 terawatts each from nuclear; coal with carbon capture and storage; and renewables, such as solar and wind,
            would be required by mid-century to eliminate CO2 emissions from energy use. As Caldeira and his colleagues
            wrote: "Satisfying growing demand for energy without producing CO2 emissions will require truly extraordinary
            development and deployment of carbon-free sources of energy, perhaps 30 [terawatts] by 2050."


Substantial U.S. action will guarantee spillover
Trevor Houser, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics; Shashank Mohan, research analyst
with the Rhodium Group; --AND-- Robert Heilmayr, research analyst at the World Resources Institute, 09
[“A Green Global Recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International Coordination,”
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/houser0309.pdf]

The G-20 group of developed and developing countries has emerged as the lead forum for orchestrating an international
response to the economic crisis. At their meeting last November, G-20 leaders pledged to work together to combat the global
recession through coordinated fiscal stimulus. Washington is not alone in looking to meet long-term energy and
environmental goals while bolstering short-term economic growth. Japan and South Korea have both trumpeted their stimulus
plans as “Green New Deals,” China has earmarked much of its $586 billion in spending for energy and environmental projects,
and the United Kingdom and Germany have followed suit.14 The G-20 will meet again in April to compare notes on the
recovery effort and take stock of each country’s plan of attack. Leaders will be                                                                                                                      looking to coordinate their respective stimulus packages to ensure the greatest economic bang for the buck. Given that
this same group of countries will be tackling climate change later in the year—either in a small grouping like the Major Economies Process, or through the UN-led negotiations in Copenhagen—they would be wise to assess the cumulative effect of these efforts on global carbon dioxide emissions and work together to

                                                                               provides three benefits: 1. Investments by one
ensure that various green stimulus efforts complement each other as well as longterm emissions reduction goals. Discussion of the energy and environmental components of national recovery efforts

country in an emerging low-carbon technology reduce the cost of that technology for everyone. Coordinating government-
driven R&D and governmentfunded demonstration projects can maximize the energy and environmental benefits of every
public dollar spent. 2.Efficiency investments that reduce energy demand in one country impact energy prices around the
world and thus 14. Michael Casey, “UN welcomes Korea, Japan green stimulus plans,” Associated Press, January 22, 2009; Li
Jing, “NDRC: 350b yuan to pour into environment industry,” China Daily, November 27, 2008, available at www.
chinadaily.com.cn (accessed on February 2, 2009). the cost-benefit analysis used by national policymakers when evaluating
domestic programs. 3. The cumulative effects of green recovery programs on national emissions will shape international
climate negotiations and the type of commitments that are made as part of a multilateral climate agreement.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         8
Document1                                                                                                               DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                  1
Runaway warming causes extinction
Deibel ‘7 (Terry L. Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007. “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft”,
Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
     Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which,
     though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon
     which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades
     now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than
     900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic
     warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence
     of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring
     effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal
     droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean
     currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the
     Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days
     earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most
     destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the
     hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than
     150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to
     Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,”
     concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just
     call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial
     revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At
     present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels.
     Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their
     increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be.
     As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more
     violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of
     low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland
     and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s
     outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.
     Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather
     in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the
     United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26
     percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the
     buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age
     transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even
     though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the
     best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing
     Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty
     Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the
     temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During
     the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war
     between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this
     planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better
     supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It
     is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on
     this planet.

And, there’s no question about warming—it’s real and anthropogenic
Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics @ Potsdam University, Member of the German Advisory Council on Climate Change,
2008 (Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, ed. Ernesto Zedillo, Prof. IR @ Yale, p. 42-49)
It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts. The first is as
follows: global climate is warming. This is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we
deal with it only briefly. The two leading compilations of data measured with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of


Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                  9
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although
they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control
procedures, they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8°C since the late nineteenth                                                                                                                                                                                   century. Temperatures over the past
ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available. The year 1998 sticks out well above the longterm trend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that year (the last El Nino so far and one of the strongest on record). These events are examples of the largest natural climate
variations on multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean, generally cause positive anomalies in global mean temperature. It is remarkable that the year 2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred that year. (A bizarre curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that several
prominent "climate skeptics" recently used the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words, "Indeed, the absence of any record breakers during the past seven years is statistical evidence that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In addition to the surface
measurements, the more recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is not straightforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), including the

                                                                                                             satellite data show
stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous' due to the short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of day, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these

trends that are fully consistent with surface measurements and model simulations." If no reliable temperature measurements
existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as glaciologist Lonnie
Thompson puts it) ~are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal
moraines heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world during the past century.
There are precious few exceptions, and they                                                                         are associated with a strong increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As glaciers respond
sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Cores drilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is unprecedented at least throughout the Holocene-the past
10,000 years. Another powerful sign of warming, visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent since satellite observations began in 1979. While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth century, much discussion particularly in the popular media
has focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is in a longer-term context. While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the question of causation. Scientifically, how unusual recent warming is-say, compared to the past millennium-in itself contains little information about
its cause. Even a highly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional increase in solar activity). And even a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a predo minantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the question of causation shortly, after briefly visiting the evidence
for past natural climate variations. Records from the time before systematic temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local temperatures in some way, but they may be influenced by other
parameters as well (for example, precipitation), they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree rings), and high-quality long records are difficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still substantial uncertainty in the evolution of past global or
hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for our purposes,' as regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many regional causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The first quantitative reconstruction for
the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an error estimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one of the major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The analysis suggests that, despite the large
error bars, twentieth-century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unprecedented during the past millennium. This result, presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some extent in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick-shaped
curve became a symbol for the IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the credibility of the IPCC. Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, eve n if the scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into question
the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years." This
conclusion has since been supported further by every single one of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6). Second, by far the most serious scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mista ke. 40 The prominent paper of von Storch and
others, which claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes systematically underestimated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure."41 With correct implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one used by
Mann, Bradley, and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third, whether their reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis underestimated past natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a lesser concern
about the consequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger climate sensitivity. While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to the climate sensitivity estimates discussed herein or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of
Mann, Hughes, and Bradley or any other proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protoco l" had been called into question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in 1997, before the reconstruc tion in question even existed. The overheated public debate
on this topic has, at least, helped to attract more researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its methodology has advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been presented in recent years. While the science has moved forward, the first seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes,
and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main features reproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require su bstantial amounts of new proxy data, rather than further refinement of the statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley. Developing these data sets will
require time and substantial effort. It is time to address the final statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic. A large number of studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally called the "attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact
share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 percent.” The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic
forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed here, the rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed 0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6°C of warming since preindustrial times for medium climate sensitivity (3"C).
With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming is O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is still very' uncertain-but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt
that the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming than has been observed (leaving room for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The

                   r: there is no viable alternative explanation. In the scientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has
second important piece of evidence is clea

been proposed to explain the observed global warming. Other possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic
rays, or orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since                                                                                                                                                                                                   1978, solar
irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and shows the well-known eleven-year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers, solar cycle length, the geomagnetic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate
that solar activity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous centuries, different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last sixty-five years. Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other
factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only, leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling in the second half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is downward. The only way out would be either
some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend that arises by chance from an unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely. No evidence in the observed record, proxy data, or current models suggest that such
internal variability could cause a sustained trend of global warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years, (or even 2,000 years, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of large internal
fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And indeed, it would be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of
energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat around different parts of the climate system-for example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies that the ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms.
For past decades, as discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped
by greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach to attribution is to analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called fingerprint studies, which associate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced climate change differs from

                greenhouse gases. For example, a characteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that,
the pattern of a change caused by

unlike solar variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night. Such studies have used different data sets
and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different statistical methods. They consistently conclude
that the observed spatial pattern of warming can only be explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be considered,
highly likely' that the observed warming is indeed predominantly due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases. '
This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on
climate, finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a
CO2 effect on climate of 3C ± 1.59C global-warming                                                                                   for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range
can now be narrowed somewhat to 3°C ± 1.0C) This is based on consistent results from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence-of any computer models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from climate history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence, the
chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it follows logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to various
emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computations: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other
greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here, although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that
ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in the
more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far as
the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time. The last major global warming trend occurred
                                                                                                                                                                            sea
when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 °C per century. 52 The expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise (Pliocene

level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets), extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer
climate), and ecosystem loss. The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed what is known about its causes. This part
               warming is already a measured and well-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidence
showed that global
consistently show that most of the observed warming of the past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this
warming is exactly what would be expected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative
explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together., the very strong evidence
accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually every climatologist around
the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a reality with
which we need to deal.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           10
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                            DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1

                                                                              Contention 4 is Aerospace
Uncertain Space Policy is damaging the Aerospace Industry- Government action is key
Maser 11
[Jim, Chair of the Corporate Membership Committee – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and President – Pratt &
Whitney Rocketdyne, “A Review of NASA’s Exploration Program in Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry”, U.S. House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee Hearing, 3-30,
http://www.prattwhitney.com/media_center/executive_speeches/jim_maser_03-30-2011.asp]
      Access to space plays a significant part in the Department of Defense’s ability to secure our nation. The lack of a unified national strategy
      brings uncertainty in volume, meaning that fixed costs will go up in the short term across all customers until actual
      demand levels are understood. Furthermore, the lack of space policy will have ripple effects in the defense budget
      and elsewhere, raising costs when it is in everyone’s interests to contain costs.Now, it is of course true that there are
      uncertainties about the best way to move forward. This was true in the early days of space exploration and in the Apollo and Shuttle
      eras.Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of waiting until we have all the answers. We must not “let the best be the enemy of
      the good.” In other words, selecting a configuration that we are absolutely certain is the optimum configuration is not as
      important as expeditiously selecting one of the many workable configurations, so that we can move forward.This
      industry has smart people with excellent judgment, and we will figure the details out, but not if we don’t get moving soon. NASA must initiate SLS
      and MPCV efforts without gapping the program efforts already in place intended to support Constellation.The time for industry and
      government to work together to define future space policy is now. We must establish an overarching policy that recognizes the synergy among all government space
      launch customers to determine the right sustainable industry size, and plan on funding it accordingly.The need to move with clear velocity is imperative if we are to sustain our endangered U.S. space industrial base, to protect our
      national security, and to retain our position as the world leader in human spaceflight and space exploration. I believe that if we work together we can achieve these goals.We are ready to help in any way that we can. But the clock is
      ticking.



Infrastructure advances of SPS ensures the US remains the aerospace leader.
NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed
Defense Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture
Feasibility Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
                                                                                                                                                                  our
      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

      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

                                                                                                                provide
      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

      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.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    11
Document1                                                                                                                                           DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                1
Aerospace is integral to the American competitiveness and economy—direct market and
spinoff tech
AIA 09 [Aerospace Industries Association of America. “Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to Lift
America”. 2009. http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/wp_strength_aug09.pdf.]
As the U.S. economy moves through uncertain times, America’s aerospace industry remains a powerful, reliable
engine of employment, innovation, and export income. Aerospace contributed $95.1billion in
export sales to America’s economy last year. Conservatively, U.S. aerospace sales alone account for 3-5
percent of our country’s gross domestic product, and every aerospace dollar yields an extra $1.50
to $3 in further economic activity. Aerospace products and services are pillars of our nation’s
security and competitiveness. In these challenging times, the aerospace industry is solidly and reliably
contributing strongly to the national economy and the lives of millions of Americans. We strongly believe that keeping this
economic workhorse on track is in America’s best interest, To accomplish this, our government must develop policies that strengthen the positions of all
workers in all industries, especially economic producers like aerospace and defense. This paper explains what’s at stake, and ways to ensure that a proven
                                                                       The aerospace and defense industry
economic success continues to endure and thrive. A High-Skilled People Business
directly employs 844,000 Americans, located in every state of the union – and supports more than
two million jobs in related fields. 3 Our people bring a diverse set of skills and capabilities to their jobs: engineers on the cutting edge of
advanced materials, structures and information technology; machinists fabricating complex shapes and structures; and technicians from almost every degree
field, testing, applying and integrating the latest technologies. Most of these positions are high-skill, quality jobs, paying above average wages. Production
workers average $29.93 an hour; 4 entry-level engineers average more than $74,000 a year, with more senior engineers well into six figures. 5 And that
employment has grown steadily for years. Many        of these jobs are unique, and require skills that take time to
develop. It takes ten years for a degreed aerospace engineer to master the intricacies of aerospace vehicle designs. Technicians skilled in applying stealth
coatings, programmers fluent in satellite-control algorithms, metallurgists expert in high-temperature jet engine design -- these skills and many more are very
hard to replace. Because many of our programs involve national security, America’s aerospace and defense industry relies on home-grown talent. Of the more
than 32,000 jobs open in the industry last April, 53 percent required U.S. citizenship. 6 These jobs can’t be sent overseas. That’s why we are increasingly
working with educators at federal, state, and local levels in many ways ─ adopting schools, sponsoring competitions, providing internships and scholarships
and other measures. We are also advocating national education and R&D policies that will advance American innovation and technological leadership in all
sectors of the economy. A Good Trade Government policies that advance free and fair trade in global markets are vital to our industry and our country .
Aerospace brings in the biggest foreign trade surplus of any manufacturing sector. 7 The
industry’s $57 billion surplus in 2008 came from exporting nearly 40 percent of all aerospace
production and, during some economic quarters, nearly 70 percent of civil aircraft and
components. 8 That’s American economic growth being paid for by other countries’ money. And it can
only happen when government policies allow the things American workers build to compete fairly in international markets. Securing the Nation America’s
battle against terrorism is a fundamentally new kind of conflict, in timely information and rapid, coordinated threat responses are critical to success.
Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, along with the tools necessary to integrate and disseminate critical information, are key to anticipating and
preventing terrorist attacks. America’s aerospace and defense companies provide the advanced systems that make this new kind of threat response possible.
When specific targets are identified, more traditional means can be used to neutralize a threat. But America’s military hardware urgently needs
modernization. The 1980s defense build-up is now 25 years old, and systems acquired then are in need of replacement. The decade of 2010-19 is the crucial
time to reset, recapitalize and modernize our military forces. Not only are many of our systems reaching the end of their designed lives, but America’s military
forces are using their equipment at many times the programmed rates in the harsh conditions of combat, wearing out equipment prematurely. Delaying
modernization will make it even harder to address and effectively address global threats in the future. Defense modernization is not optional. To defend
America’s global interests in 2018 and beyond, our military must be able to project its power globally, around the clock, in any weather. We must be able, for
example, to ensure energy supplies can pass through the Straits of Hormuz unimpeded. Our free trade must not be blocked on the open seas, and our economy
not be must not be impeded by foreign aggression. When a natural disaster strikes a friendly nation, we must be able to respond quickly. America’s armed
forces must be able to meet any and all challenges to our security, safety, freedom and prosperity, as they always have in the past. America has deferred
defense and aerospace modernization to the point that modernization and recapitalization are increasingly lengthy and expensive. The bill is now due. If we
want to be able to influence events and protect our interests overseas, we must revitalize the “arsenal of democracy” through consistent defense investment.
At the same time, America must adapt its defenses to new kinds of threats. A large-scale attack on information networks could pose a serious economic threat,
impeding or preventing commerce conducted electronically. This would affect not only ATM transactions, but commercial and governmental fund transfers
and the just-in-time orders on which the manufacturing sector depends. It could even pose threats to Americans’ lives, interrupting the transfer of medical
data, disrupting power grids, even disabling emergency communications links. In partnership with the government, our industry is on the forefront of
securing these networks and combating cyber attack. The American people also demand better security for the U.S. homeland, from gaining control of our
borders to more effective law enforcement and disaster response. The aerospace industry provides the tools that help different forces and jurisdictions
communicate with each other; monitor critical facilities and unpatrolled borders; and give advance warning of natural disasters, among other capabilities. In
many cases, government is the only market for these technologies. Therefore, sound government policy is essential not only to maintain current capabilities,
but to ensure that a technology and manufacturing base exists to develop new ones. Civil Aviation: The World Standard Commercial aviation is a vital engine
for the American economy. The U.S. civil aviation industry (which includes aircraft, engines and parts manufacturers, airlines, airports, and general aviation)
directly or indirectly generates over ten million jobs and $1.1 trillion in economic activity. 9 All of that economic activity is funneled through the nation’s air
traffic system. As long as the system can accommodate the demand for air travel and just-in-time express delivery, the growth of jobs and economic activity



Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                            12
Document1                                                                                                                                           DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                1
associated with civil aviation will continue. That system is safe, but antiquated and highly inefficient. ATC modernization is essential to helping airlines return
to profitability. It is essential to reducing fuel consumption and airplane emissions. If, however, the national airspace is not modernized to handle demand, the
stimulating effect of America’s commercial aviation industry is at risk. The key to sustainable growth in the aviation sector is the timely implementation of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, the 21 st century, satellite-based air traffic management system designed to replace the current
1960s era infrastructure. The Federal 9 Federal Aviation Administration, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, 2007. 2009 Aerospace
Industries Association of America, Inc. Aviation Administration reports that without the funding necessary to research, develop and build NextGen, gridlock at
our airports and in our skies will cost the United States $22 billion in lost economic activity in the near term and over $40 billion annually by 2033. 10
Already, the Air Transport Association estimates flight delays in 2007 cost the traveling public more than $4 billion in lost productivity and wages. 11 All
forecasts point to robust growth in commercial air traffic in the coming years. As it develops, the nation’s air traffic system must be ready to handle twice the
traffic it handles today. The aerospace industry knows it has an obligation to grow responsibly, and it understands that environmentally sustainable growth is
not only good for the planet, but also good for the economic health of the industry and the nation as a whole. As Rep. Jerry Costello, Chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee, wrote, “Airlines, airports, manufacturers and the Air Force are at the forefront of developing better
planes, technology and operating procedures to conserve fuel and reduce emissions. They are a perfect example of how innovation is driven by necessity, as
fuel costs are the largest single expenditure for the airlines. Moreover, the industry is leading the way in research on alternative fuels. Besides the positive
impact on the bottom line, there are obvious positive environmental impacts from these efforts, with lessons for the rest of the country.” 12 A 10-year, $20
billion investment in NextGen, in time to meet future demand, will mean millions of new high-paying jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic
activity. Moreover, this growth will come from an industry with a proven track record in improving fuel efficiency and overall environmental stewardship.
These are two of the nation’s top priorities: economic growth and recovery, and a cleaner environment. Very few government investments have the potential
to positively influence two policy objectives at the same time. This is an investment we cannot afford to postpone. Space Technology is an Investment in Our
Economy What       do farmers, banks, and the fire department all have in common? They all rely on a
space infrastructure in orbit above the Earth. Everyday activities, taken for granted by many
Americans, are supported or even driven by space systems. These systems are hidden to us, and rarely noticed unless the
services they provide are interrupted. However, the lack of visibility of space systems doesn’t diminish their importance – both our nation’s
economy and national security are tied directly to this critical infrastructure. Communications
drives today’s commerce, and space systems are a chief global conduit of our nation’s commercial
and national security communications. The Internet, email, cell phones, and PDAs have all become
the standard for businesses and recreation. Direct-to-home television and satellite radio have
become standard in many American homes and automobiles. These all depend on our satellite
communications systems. Similarly, the Global Positioning System, originally designed for
military use, is now relied on for banking transactions, ATMs, improved agriculture, air traffic and ground transportation
systems and by emergency responders. All of these applications add up to substantial economic activity. Of
$202.6 billion in aerospace industry sales in 2007, direct space system industry sales topped $39
billion. 13 Total direct and indirect global space activity for 2007 was $251 billion. 14 Even harder to quantify – but no less valuable – is the
impact that technology spin-offs from space activities bring to our economy. In 2007 alone, NASA
reported 143 opportunities for technology transfer to commercial applications, ranging from
applications such as high-temperature composites, water vapor sensing systems, fire-resistant
steel reinforcement, and flexible solar cells. 15 Space is certainly becoming more crowded and contested. Using systems developed
by America’s aerospace industry, the Defense Department currently tracks over 18,000 man-made objects in the Earth’s orbit – many of which could threaten
civil, commercial, and national security space systems. In such an environment, investments in sensors, tracking, threat assessment, and other space
protection and situational awareness capabilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of an unexpected catastrophic space system failure. The cost and
difficulty involved in developing and deploying space systems alone necessitates this infrastructure be adequately protected. America’s space systems also
need to be replaced and updated routinely. We take the ability to refuel our automobiles and lawnmowers for granted, but for space systems, it is highly
problematic – if not infeasible – to perform maintenance or even refuel them. Space systems have limited life spans and, at today’s pace of technology, quickly
become obsolete. The average age of the 15 GPS IIA satellites in orbit is nearly 14 years, despite an original design life span of 7 ½ years. 16 Other critical
space systems are similarly in need of upgrade at a time when other nations are rapidly modernizing their own space infrastructure. Space systems often go
unnoticed in our daily lives, but their impact is very real. It is imperative that we plan and budget for the routine replacement, modernization, and protection
of these systems, and their supporting Earth-based infrastructure, to ensure the services upon which we depend on a daily basis are there when we need
                                    dollar invested in the aerospace industry has a triple effect. It helps
them. The Strength to Lift America Every
keep good jobs in the United States; creates the products that bring enormous revenues from
other countries; and yields the security and economic benefits that flow uniquely from America’s civil aviation, space, and defense leadership. It is a
privilege to contribute to our nation’s success, and we must continue doing what we have shown we do best – keep America strong and working.


The US is key to the global economy.
David McCormick, 2008 (former under secretary for International Affairs in the U. S. Treasury
Department, May 12, 2008, Newsweek. Online. Lexis/Nexis. Accessed, May 4, 2009).



Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                            13
Document1                                                                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                             1
Our friends around the world should gain confidence from the fact that U.S. policymakers and
their international counterparts are taking aggressive, targeted actions to stabilize the financial
markets, to reduce their impact on the economy and the individuals negatively affected by the turmoil and to protect against the same mistakes' being
repeated. There are already some early indicators that these actions are beginning to have the desired effect, as markets appear to be gaining confidence and
the availability of credit has improved modestly. Flexibility and resilience in the face of such unexpected financial-market turmoil and economic hardship are
among America's greatest strengths. Our objective is to help individuals and markets recover as quickly as possible, while avoiding actions that cause new
                                              storm, too, shall pass, and the United States will emerge, as
problems that would hurt our economy in the long run. This
it always has, as a driver of growth and innovation for the global economy.

Economic collapse causes nuclear war- extinction
Broward 9 ((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/)
Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and
four more likely to have them there could be major consequences of another world war. The first thing that will happen
after an economic collapse will be war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and will have no way of securing reserves.
The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totatlly dependent on foreign oil. If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, the
government would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like Russia or
China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon, there would of
course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear
war. The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                         14
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1

                                                                                                     Contention 5 is Solvency
Solar Power Satellites are sustainable, cheap, and technologically feasible
Lior, Noam Lior, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Philadelphia,
PA, April 2011 “Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis”,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931, Date accessed June 24, 2011
       We have analyzed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity production in
       solar space power plants using current technology. While space solar power is still way too expensive for launches
       from the Earth, there are several technological possibilities to reduce this price. For a large scale application of
       orbital power stations both environmental impact and costs can be significantly reduced. The first option is to build and employ reusable space
       vehicles for launching the satellites, instead of rockets, which is the main recommendation by NASA, and the second option is to build the satellites and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon). An old NASA estimate shows that this would
       be economical for as few as 30 orbital satellites with 300 GWe of total power [17]. The costs could be even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and then uses its produced energy to lift itself into a
       higher GEO orbit or even to the Moon [35]. If the satellites and rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that:- The environmental impact of the orbital solar power plants would become significantly lower

       than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. Measured by CO2 emissions, it would be about 0.5 kg per W of useful power, and
       this number would even decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The production cost of the orbital
       solar power plants could also become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps
       nuclear fusion. It                          is estimated as about US $1 per W of useful power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The social impact of cheap and clean energy from space is more difficult to estimate, because space power

       satellites seem to be connected to a significant loss of jobs. It is however difficult to estimate the benefits of a large
       amount of cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost jobs, and we
       estimate that about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1 MW of installed useful power. One could therefore
       expect a net positive effect of solar power satellites on sustainability. These effects seem to be the most positive, if
       thermal power satellites are used, which are built in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit. The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages
       over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of energy, however even in the best case

       scenario it can’t become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power concept can become operational in less than
       a decade and produce large amounts of energy in two decades. It is also important that the price as well as
       environmental impact of solar orbital power are expected to decrease with scale. In addition to expected increase in
       employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative to other sustainable energy sources.
       Earth orbit, and it would take many thousands of years before the SPS's orbit could possibly decay to cause atmospheric entry. Notably, large scale space development using asteroid-derived fuel propellants will insure that dead satellites in low orbit do not crash to Earth, even old satellites




Funding isn’t enough - government R&D is key to successful SPS
George Friedman, is an American political scientist and author. He is the founder, chief intelligence officer, financial
overseer, and CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor, 2011 “The Next Decade: Where We’ve Been and Where
We’re
Going”,http://books.google.com/books?id=y5plTzPTw8YC&pg=PA235&dq=Space+based+solar+power&hl=en&ei=99cDTq3b
HIfEgAfTypSODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Space%20based%20sol
ar%20power&f=false, Date accessed June 23, 2011
     At the same time we must prepare for long-term increases in energy generation from nonhydrocarbon sources-
     sources that are cheaper and located in areas that the United States will not need to control by send-ing in armies. In
     my view, this is space-based solar power. Therefore, what should be under way and what is under way is private-sector development of inexpensive booster rockets. Mitsubishi has invested
       inspace-based solar power to the tune of about $21 billion. Eutope's EAB is also investing, and California`s Pacific Gas and Electric has signed a con-tract to purchase solar energy from space by 2016, although I think ful-fillment of that
       contract on that schedule is unlikely. However, whether the source is space-based solar power or some other technology, the president must make certain that development along several axes is under way and that the potential for

                                                                                              , is the U.S. Department of Defense. Thus the
       building them is realistic. Enormous amounts of increased energy are needed, and the likely source of the technology, based on history

       government will absorb the cost of early develop-ment and private investment will reap the rewards. The We are in
       a period in which the state is more powerful than the mar-ket, and in which the state has more resources. Markets
       are superb at exploiting existing science and early technology, but they are not nearly as good in basic
       research. From aircraft to nuclear power to moon Hightsto the Internet to global positioning satellites, the state is
       much better at investing in long-term innovation. Government is inefficient, but that inefficiency and the ability to absorb the cost of inefficiency are at the heart of basic research. When
       we look at the projects we need to undertake in the coming decade, the organization most likely to execute them successfully is the Department of Defense. There is nothing particularly new in this intertwining of technology,
       geopolitics, and economic well-being. The Philistines dominated the Levantine coast because they were great at making armor. To connect and control their empire, the Roman army built roads and bridges that are still in use. During a
       war aimed at global domination, the German military created the foundation of modern rocketry; in countering, the British came up with radar. Lending powers and those contending for power constantly find themselves under
       military and economic pressure. They respond to it by inventing extraordinary new technologies. The United States is obviously that sort of power. It is currently under economic pressure but declining military pressure. Such a time is

                                           . The government is heavily Funding one area we have discussed, finding cures
       not usually when the United States undertakes dramatic new ventures

       for degenerative diseases. The Department of Defense is funding a great deal of research into robotics. But the
       fundamental problem, energy, has not had its due. For this decade, the choices are pedestrian. The danger is that the
       president will fritter away his authority on proj-ects such as conservation, wind power, and terrestrial solar power,
       which can’t yield the magnitude of results required. The problem with natural gas in particular is that it is



Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                15
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1
     pedestrian. But like so much of what will take place in this decade, accepting the ordinary and obvious is called for
     Hrs t-followed by great dreams quietly expressed.


The USfg is key to aerospace competition - export controls and mergers have weakened
the private sector
ICAF, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, a senior service school providing graduate level educationto sernior
members of the US armed forces, Spring 2007, “The Final Report: The Space Industry” Industrial College of the Armed Forces,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475093&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
     The U.S. government has long understood that access to space and space capabilities are essential to U.S. economic
     prosperity and national security. U.S.                                                       space policy from 1962 to 2006 served to ensure national leadership in space and governance of space activities, including science, exploration, and international cooperation. The current
     Administration has issued five space-specific policies to provide goals and objectives for the U.S. Space Program. In addition to the National Space Policy, these policies are Space Exploration; Commercial Remote Sensing; Space Transportation; and Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and

                                                            exploit space for national security and economic prosperity. 9
     Timing. Each policy endeavors to maintain U.S. space supremacy, reserving the right to defend assets in space, and to continue to

     America’s success in space is dependent on government involvement, motivation, and inspiration. It is
     significant that the Bush Administration has taken the time and effort to update all of the U.S. space policies. The
     consolidation of the major space industry players and a general down-turn in the commercial space market demand,
     coupled with export restrictions, has left the U.S. space industry reliant on the government for revenue and
     technology development.


Federal development is key to spur the private sector
MORRING 07, Frank: Senior Space Technology Editor, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report
         [“NSSO backs space solar power,” http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.xml]

     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, 4 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.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        16
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1


                                                  A/T Obama Will Not Pass/Support
Obama will push alt energy inevitably
Geman 11
[Ben Geman, Writer for “The Hill”, 7/6/11, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/169941-obama-congress-lacks-
urgency-on-energy-bill, Caplan]
    President Obama on Wednesday knocked Capitol Hill inaction on legislation to curb oil use and called on lawmakers
    to send him a “robust” plan. House Republicans – with limited Democratic backing – have passed several bills to
    speed up and expand offshore drilling, and Senate GOP lawmakers have called for similar measures. But Obama
    criticized what he called a lack of focus on weaning the nation off oil. “Unfortunately we have not seen a sense of
    urgency coming out of Congress over the last several months on this issue. Most of the rhetoric has been about, ‘let’s
    produce more,’” Obama said during the White House’s “Twitter Town Hall” event. “Well, we can produce more, and I
    am committed to that, but the fact is we only have 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, we use 25 percent of the
    world’s oil. We can’t drill our way out of this problem,” Obama said at the White House social media event. Obama
    touted increased fuel economy standards and other steps the administration has                                                                                                                                taken using its existing authorities. But the White House is also seeking Capitol Hill
     action on several measures, even though a major energy bill faces tough odds in a divided Congress. Administration energy goals include $7,500 rebates for purchasing electric vehicles. More broadly, a top White House energy adviser recently suggested that legislation aimed at spurring
     deployment of electric cars could form the basis for a bipartisan energy compromise. “I’d like to see robust legislation in Congress that actually took some steps to reduce oil dependency,” Obama said, although he did not provide specifics. He said oil will remain a major energy source for
     some time even with a “full throttle” push for clean energy, but added that reducing reliance will have major benefits. “If we had a goal, or we are just reducing our dependence on oil each year in a staggered set of steps, it would save consumer s in their pocketbook, it would make our

                                  market, it would make us less vulnerable to the kinds of disruptions that have occurred
     businesses more efficient and less subject to the whims of the spot oil

     because of what happened in the Middle East this spring, and it would drastically cut down on our carbon
     resources,” Obama said. The White House is also pushing for expanded green energy R&D funding, and a “clean
     energy standard” that would mandate a major increase in low-carbon power supplies from utilities (a measure that
     faces especially steep hurdles).




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           17
Document1                                                                                                                                                                                                                           DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1


                                                                                          A/T Space Mil
No perception of military threat –it’s an undesirable weapon
NSSO, Report to the National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm//ZY
     When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a space- based solar power
     (SBSP) satellite, people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful weapon?” Depending on their bias that
     could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating
     weapons to space. But the NSSO is not interested in space- based solar power as a weapon. The DoD is not looking to
     SBSP for new armaments capabilities. Its motivation for study- ing SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a
     reasonable cost any- where in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of infrastructure needed to
     support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become increas- ingly
     costly. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less- expensive options.
     For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy
     large enemy targets. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam
     that reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sun- light; a worker could safely walk in the center of the
     beam. The physics of microwave trans- mission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre-determined maximum inten- sity level.
     Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted. SBSP would not be a

     precision weapon. Today’s militaries are looking for more precise and lower collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers
     across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot indi- vidual targets—even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing technical expertise in its
     military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over energy scarcity, lessens the need to inter- vene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the world climb

                                                                     . Solving the long-term energy scar- city problem is too
     from poverty to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change

     vital to the world’s future to have it derailed by a miscon- ception that space solar power might somehow be used as
     a weapon. That is why it is so important to educate people about this technol- ogy and to continue to conduct the
     research in an open environment.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    18
Document1                                                                                                                                            DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                            1


                                         A/T Private Development
Private Development unsustainable – Solyndra proves
Reuters, Energy loans official leaves in wake of Solyndra, 10/6/11, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/energy-loans-official-leaves-wake-
solyndra-010504758.html
     The Obama administration said on Thursday its top energy loans official was stepping down, following a widening
     probe into the embarrassing collapse of a solar panel company that got $535 million in federal support. Jonathan Silver,
     a venture capitalist who had also worked for the Clinton administration, was leaving because the loan program had allocated all its funding, Energy
     Secretary Steven Chu said. Silver's resignation comes, however, as Republicans in Congress probe the White House's role
     in backing government loans given to Solyndra, a California solar panel maker, in 2009. Solyndra filed for
     bankruptcy in August, and is under investigation by the FBI. President Barack Obama, who spoke at a news conference before Silver's
     resignation was announced, defended the Energy Department's handling of the loans program and said the government should not back down from its
     support for clean energy. Silver joined the Energy Department after the Solyndra guarantee was awarded, but he was in
     charge in February when the government agreed to restructure the debt as the company ran out of cash. In that
     restructuring, some $75 million in private investment was ranked ahead of the government in the event of
     bankruptcy. That private fund was backed by a prominent Obama fundraiser. Silver, under grilling by House of
     Representatives Republicans last month in a hearing, told them the decision was carefully weighed by lawyers and analysts. "So you're saying no one
     should be fired?" asked Cliff Stearns, the lawmaker leading the probe. "I'm saying that we are doing the best job we know how to do," Silver said.
     Silver's resignation "does not solve the problem," Stearns and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred
     Upton said in a statement, vowing to continue their investigation. Silver did not return a phone call to his home on Thursday evening.




Last printed 7/20/2012 6:48:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                           19

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:7/21/2012
language:English
pages:19