; SDI Military CTL Aff
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

SDI Military CTL Aff


  • pg 1
									SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                               military coal aff

                                 Military Coal to Liquid Affirmative
Military Coal to Liquid Affirmative ................................ 0                     Airlines Industry Add-On – AT Resilient ...................... 39
**Contention 1 – Hegemony** ..................................... 1                        2AC Sequestration Add-On 1/2 ................................. 40
**Plan**.............................................................................. 9   2AC Sequestration Add-On 2/2 ................................. 41
**Contention 2 – Solvency** ....................................... 10                     Sequestration Add-On – Regulation Link ................. 42
Inherency – No Incentives ........................................... 13                   Sequestration Add-On – Food Prices Mod 1/2 ....... 43
Inherency – No Infrastructure ..................................... 14                     Sequestration Add-On – Food Prices Mod 2/2 ....... 44
Readiness Advantage – Fuel Consumption UQ ..... 15                                         Sequestration Add-On – AT Sequestration Fails ...... 45
Readiness Advantage – Oil Dependence Link....... 16                                        Solvency – Long-Term Contracts ............................... 46
Readiness Advantage – New Weapons Link .......... 17                                       Solvency – Long-Term Contracts ............................... 47
Readiness Advantage – Air Power Key .................... 18                                Solvency – USFG Key .................................................... 48
Readiness Advantage – Air Power Key .................... 19                                Solvency – DoD Say Yes .............................................. 49
Readiness Advantage – Iraq Mod 1/2 ..................... 20                                Solvency – Transition Fast ............................................ 50
Readiness Advantage – Iraq Mod 2/2 ..................... 21                                Solvency – Incentives Key ........................................... 51
Readiness Advantage – Taiwan Mod....................... 22                                 Solvency – Infrastructure ............................................. 52
Readiness Advantage – AT No Intervention............ 23                                    Solvency – Dependence ............................................ 53
Readiness Advantage – Heg Laundry List ............... 24                                  2AC AT Topicality – Alternative Energy .................... 54
Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Terror .............. 25                                  1AR AT Topicality – Alternative Energy Ext. .............. 55
Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Prolif ................ 26                                2AC AT CMR DA – No Link ........................................... 56
Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Econ Growth 27                                            2AC AT Railroads DA – No Crisis ................................. 57
Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Genocide ..... 28                                         2AC AT Railroads DA – Link Turn ................................. 58
Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Indo/Pak ........ 29                                      2AC AT Railroads DA – Railroads Resilient ................ 59
Readiness Advantage – AT Decline Inevitable ...... 30                                      2AC AT Economy DAs – Peak Oil Turn ...................... 60
Readiness Advantage – AT Counterbalancing ...... 31                                        2AC AT Warming DA – Link Turn ................................. 61
Readiness Advantage – AT Military Costs ................ 32                                2AC AT Warming DA – No Link ................................... 62
Readiness Advantage – AT Imperial Wars ............... 33                                  2AC AT Oil Shale CP – AT Solvency ........................... 63
2AC Airlines Industry Add-On 1/2............................... 34                         2AC AT Oil Shale CP – Warming Turn ........................ 64
2AC Airlines Industry Add-On 2/2............................... 35                         2AC AT Oil Shale CP – Water Turn 1/2 ....................... 65
Airlines Industry Add-On – DoD Modeled ................ 36                                 2AC AT Oil Shale CP – Water Turn 2/2 ....................... 66
Airlines Industry Add-On – Fuel Prices Key ................ 37                             2AC AT Free Market CP – No Solvency .................... 67
Airlines Industry Add-On – Economy Mod................ 38

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                             **Contention 1 – Hegemony**
Sandalow and Goldwyn 7
David. Energy and environment scholar @ Brookings. David. President of Goldwyn International Strategies. 6/21/7.

                                                    The Sasol plant in South Africa is the single largest point
It is an extremely high producer of heat-trapping gases.
source of carbon dioxide in the world. And if you move from oil to liquid coal without
advanced sequestration technologies, you're almost doubling the amount of global
warming gases you put in the atmosphere. So, from that regard, it is an extremely unattractive solution. It's also quite
expensive. And as I understand the commercial dynamics right now in this country, the vendors who are, including Sasol,
who are looking for opportunities here are looking for 20-year contracts from the Department
of Defense in order to assure the success of their investment. GOLDWYN: But countries are going
to use it. And as the statistical review just showed, carbon concentrations are increasing,
demand for coal is increasing. Half the carbon is from China, all of that's from new coal
plants. You know, so countries are going to do it whether we like it or not, and so are we. So I
think the answer is that we've got to in the interim make serious investments in carbon sequestration. And we've got to get the Congress to
some extent out of the business of picking which state the project is going to be in. And there's a study, this MIT study that John Deutch and
Ernie Moniz did, who said, you know, you've got to have big investments, big three different technologies and try and commercialize it
                                                                                      Countries are
because otherwise you're not going to be able to tell countries not to use coal. You've got to focus on -- SANDALOW:
going to use coal for all electricity generation for sure. I think it's much less sure that they'll
be moved towards coal to liquids to -- for our fleets.

Blackwell 7
Kristine. National defense fellow @ Foreign Affairs. 6/15/7. CRS Report. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34062.pdf.

Compounding the difficulties posed by the high cost of constructing a F-T plant are
restrictions on DOD‘s ability to enter into long-term contracts for fuel. Currently the
department may only enter into contracts for fuel up to five years–not long enough, in the
opinion of some, to provide potential suppliers with the economic assurance necessary to justify
the up-front costs of building a plant. The five-year limitation is based on language in 10
U.S.C. 2306b, which outlines the circumstances under which the department may sign a ―multiyear contract.‖ The statute defines a
multiyear contract as ―a contract for the purchase of property for more than one, but not more than five, program years.‖

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                               military coal aff

Kreisher 8
Otto. 4/16/8. Congress Daily. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041608cdam2.htm.

              operations and maintenance costs will have doubled over the 25-year period
The report noted that
ending in 2013, while modernization spending has declined, in constant dollar value, since a peak in 1985,
during then-President Ronald Reagan's defense build-up. Many of the military's key weapons systems, particularly combat aircraft, were
bought during that period. The subsequent "procurement holiday" has resulted in the oldest fleet of military aircraft in history. Not surprisingly,
                                   "enduring national asset" of air power "is now in serious danger
AIA focused on that fact, warning that the
... All of our military services are in need of modernization and recapitalization ... But the
need is particularly acute for the air arms of our military services," the report stated.

Bender 7
Bryan. 5/1/7. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/.

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

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                military coal aff

Wicke 6
Tech Sgt Russell. 9/8/6. http://www.afpa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123051308a.

The growing cost of crude oil combined with increasing fuel demands of the war on terrorism
are forcing Air Combat Command officials to brace for a budget crisis while looking for
future fuel alternatives. The Air Force paid approximately $4.2 billion for petroleum in fiscal 2005 -- almost $1.4 billion more than
fiscal 2004, according to the 28th edition of the Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book. The price of fuel has gone up even more since
2005. BP was the Defense Department's No. 1 fuel provider that year based upon the lowest price, said Robert Wine, a BP spokesman. Mr.
Wine attributed the rising cost of fuel to worldwide supply and demand, uncertainty in the petroleum market, and political tension. Only 12
months ago the Air Force was paying approximately $1.74 per gallon for JP-8 (aviation fuel), said Sheila Flemings, ACC flying-hour cost
                                                    The budget crisis of fiscal 2005
program analyst. Today's price reflects a 31 percent increase to $2.53 per gallon.
unfolded when the Air Force was paying the cheaper $1.74 per gallon. ACC faced a shortfall then of
$825 million in must-pay funds. That very year, Ms. Flemings said ACC consumed more than 501 million gallons of fuel alone. That comes out
                             Now, with a 31-percent increase in fuel cost since that time and
to more than $747 million spent on JP-8.
a budget that continues to shrink, the Air Force and ACC are required to make significant
changes just to operate. "The shrinking budget has caused the Air Force to reduce the
funding available for flying hours used to train ACC aircrews," said John Cilento, ACC flying-hour program
analyst. "ACC programs are based on the minimum requirements to train our aircrews, so any reduction is a loss of an already maxed-out
training capability." Furthermore, Mr. Cilento said the    Air Force Flying Hour Program budget will be reduced
by 10 percent each year from fiscal 2008 to 2013. This equates to an annual reduction of
$280-million worth in flying for ACC. "The biggest drain on our (funding) support is the (war on terrorism) is either not fully
funded, or funded very late in the fiscal year," Ms. Flemings said. The continual flying-hour cuts not only hurt
training, but also lower the combat readiness of the aircrews.

Donnelly 00
Thomas. Research fellow @ the American Enterprise Institute. Project for the New American Century. September 2000.

The reconstitution of the stateside Air Force as a large-scale, warfighting force will complicate the service‘s plans to reconfigure itself for the
purposes of expeditionary operations. But the proliferation of overseas bases should reduce many, if not all, of the burdens of rotational
                              of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first
contingency operations. Because
U.S. military force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain
its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any
conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of
America‘s ability to apply decisive military power when its pleases. To dissipate this ability to
deliver a rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component of American military

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                military coal aff

Lengyel 7
Gregory J. Colonel USAF. August 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf.

The Department of Defense can lead the way in transforming the way in which the United
States consumes and produces energy. In the 1985 movie, Back to the Future, scientist Dr. Emmett Brown returns from
the year 2015 with a 1980‘s vintage vehicle modified with a ―Mr. Fusion‖ device creating huge amounts of energy from organic material
found in common household garbage. The year 2015 is only 8 years away and there is no evidence Mr. Fusion, or any other major scientific
breakthrough making oil obsolete, is going to happen inside the next 30 years. Mr. Fusion represents the unlikely event of a game winning
                                  reality there are few home runs to reduce the United States‘
home run with bases loaded and a full count. In
addiction to foreign oil. Improving energy security must be done using a steady, incremental
approach not tied to individual personalities, specific military leaders or partisan political
administrations. Securing the energy future of the Department of Defense is a prerequisite to
ensuring the United States remains the world’s preeminent global power.

Khalilzad 95
Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an
                                       United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
end in itself, but because a world in which the
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
                                                                                                leadership would
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to
avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership
would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Kagan 7
Robert. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund.
August/September 2007. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html.

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 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. Conflict 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 never have felt secure enough
                                                        even today Europe‘s stability depends on the
to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but
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

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                            military coal aff

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. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the
                                            regional conflicts involving the large powers may
world ‘s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity,
erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and
Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its
European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict
between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or
other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the
United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States
pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its
positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree
that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly
the view of most of China ‘s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the
region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.        In Europe,
too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world‘s most powerful nation —
could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially
forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of
the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent
                                                                                                          If the
American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism.
United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of ―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 American military presence in the region, both on the seas
             The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but
and on the ground.
would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and
outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn‘t change this. It only adds a new and
more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an
immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change.     The alternative to American predominance in the
region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively
weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect
deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the
more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would
voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn‘t
changed that much.    An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to ―normal‖ or to a new kind of stability in the

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                     military coal aff

         will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The
region. It
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.

Thayer 6
Bradley. In Defense of Primacy, associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University,

A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of
the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil
flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is

reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no
surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to

achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States . Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than
the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot

call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or
rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus
abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a
declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true
of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the

United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted,        a strategy based on primacy focuses on
engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to
wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by
offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and
outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection
for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. (2) This is not an advantage that

should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that

want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing
so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own
protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and
other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War

when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.

primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in
international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and
international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize
Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be
stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to
realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically
toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and

            countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United
Venezuela. Of course,

States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to
consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most
important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the
United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other
mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                     military coal aff
China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as
we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S.
regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations.

THROUGHOUT HISTORY,      peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a
dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of
international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free

trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing
democratization is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that
the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In
that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant
lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed
Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the
liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You
don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies   ,
American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for
Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced
friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a

number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and
Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow
Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does

reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American
power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its
ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in
the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. (3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S.

            once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is
primacy. In addition,

significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests.
Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely
to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are
good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East,
labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one
gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the
short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought
democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The
first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments
in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress

                                                                                   Third, along
has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive.

with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth
of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an
economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce,
respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic
stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States
created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes

                                                                 Economic spin-offs foster
efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable.

the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament
to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the

                                                        the only way to bring relief to
socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that

desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market
economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy. (4) As a
witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally,

the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                   military coal aff

its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of
positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature.
Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster,
earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and
tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of

                                                                                             About 20,000 U.S. soldiers,
aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster.

sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease
treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those
killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force
possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In
fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.
American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than
almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable
opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake
struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby
Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the
munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the
United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake
of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive
impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent

        THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide
of a blitzkrieg.

these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with
conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial.
Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a
decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up
these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's
face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of
solving the world's ills.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                            military coal aff



SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                      military coal aff

                                            **Contention 2 – Solvency**
Dreazen 8
Yochi. 5/21/8. WSJ. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2008/Military-Synthetic-Fuel21may08.htm.

Alternative fuels are part of a broader and not so long ago unlikely conversion by the military to
"green" initiatives. Producing synthetic fuel itself can cause more pollution than conventional fuel if the emissions aren't captured. But Army engineers also are pushing
contractors to build armored vehicles with hybrid engines. The Air Force is experimenting with making engine parts out of lighter metals such as titanium to boost fuel efficiency. In
December, Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas opened one of the largest solar arrays in the U.S., a 140-acre field of 72,000 motorized panels that powers the base and sells energy to
nearby communities. The Pentagon is soliciting bids for three similar arrays on other bases. The military even has begun looking into the possibility of building small nuclear-power plants on

                                         The Pentagon is hoping its push for alternative energy
unused portions of its more remote bases, though it has no firm plans yet.

will feed civilian applications as well. For synthetic fuel, the Air Force is working with aircraft
manufacturers such as Boeing Corp. and the Pratt & Whitney engine unit of United Technologies Corp. North American
synthetic-fuel processors including Rentech Inc., Baard Energy and Syntroleum Corp. all operate or hope to build synthetic-fuel refineries to
feed the military's growing thirst. "Our goal is to drive the development of a market here in the U.S.," says
Mr. Anderson. Military use of synthetic fuel faces significant obstacles. The energy bill signed into law by President Bush last year included a
clause preventing the government from buying the fuel if it emits more pollution than petroleum.                Manufacturers have
promised to meet that target by recapturing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses
produced in refining. Without those efforts, synthetic fuel can emit up to twice as much pollution in refining as conventional petroleum. Prices' Impact Synthetic-fuel
prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale

refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December. He estimated that

scale synthetic-fuel refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a
barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil. But many in the field say
they're unwilling to invest the necessary billions until they can sign long-term contracts with
the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It has
asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek congressional approval
for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson says.
"These plants are not likely to get built without government help" such as guaranteed long-
term contracts, says Mr. Berg, who recently retired. "And they may not get built even then."

National Resource Defense Council. June 2007. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf.

Although no liquid coal fuel is sold in the United States today, the Department of Defense (DOD) is
actively developing liquid coal fuels for military use. The DOD has plans to use liquid coal to
supply 70 percent of its aviation fuel by 2025.126 To do so, liquid coal proponents have
teamed up with the DOD in lobbying Congress to authorize 25-year long-term, fixed-price
contracts that would guarantee a market for liquid coal fuels. At the same time, a number of coal states, including
Pennsylvania, Montana, and West Virginia, are surging forward with proposals to build new plants to supply liquid coal fuels for commercial use. To finance these costly plants, an industry
coalition is pushing Congress to provide a suite of taxpayer subsidies, including price floors, tax credits and research funds, to build some, if not all, of the nine liquid coal plants currently

               Building just a few publicly financed plants, however, would give way to a
proposed in the United States.

much larger liquid industry in the United States.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                               military coal aff

Bond 7
Christopher. Senator (MO). 6/19/7. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070619-15.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal will improve the performance of our military.
Coal to liquid fuel provides significant performance advantages for military jets and aircraft.
The Air Force is most interested in signing long-term supply contracts that will enable them to
provide a market for the clean coal to liquid fuel which is envisioned in this amendment. CTL fuel burns at
a lower temperature, burns cleaner, and performs better at both lower and higher
temperatures. That is good for our war fighters who need every advantage they can get.

Southern States Energy Board. Executive Summary of The American Energy Security Study,

                          (CTL) technologies have existed for decades. Sasol, a South African
Commercial coal-to-liquid fuels
company, currently provides almost 30 percent of that country‘s liquid fuel needs through
coal gasification and follow-up Fischer-Tropsch conversion of the syngas into premium, ultra-
clean liquid fuels. It does so, profitably, in the open market. Sasol was created with support from
government to decrease dependence on foreign oil. The company quickly outgrew its need
for government assistance and is highly profitable today. The U.S. can and should follow the
Sasol model, which clearly demonstrates that it is not only possible but also highly profitable
to rapidly ramp-up production of ultra-clean liquid fuels from domestic coal.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                 military coal aff

Wicke 6
Tech Sgt Russell. 9/8/6. http://www.afpa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123051308a.

Another potential solution being explored is the coal-to-jet-fuel initiative. The Air Force is
already involved in a series of tests of the synthetic fuel. A B-52 Stratofortress from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot
Air Force Base, N.D., is scheduled for a test flight this month at Edwards AFB, Calif. During the test flight, two of the eight engines will run on a
mixture of this synthetic fuel. Though experts disagree on whether the cost of this synthetic fuel will be competitive with fossil fuel,   the
"coal-made" synthetic fuel burns cleaner, according to Michael Aimone, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for
logistics, installations and mission support. He said it emits no sulfur dioxide and pollutes much less than fossil
fuel. Additionally, the United States has a coal reserve of about 500 billion tons, according to the
National Mining Association, enough to "support a growing coal demand for over 200 years." But again,
the cost is high up front to create facilities and plants to produce this synthetic fuel in large amounts. It takes years to build large plants for
                                                        a long-term solution would benefit the
this purpose, according to the NMA Web site at www.nma.org. Nonetheless,
Air Force more than any other organization. The Air Force Times reported the Defense Department is
among the world's largest oil consumers. And within DOD, "the Air Force is the largest
consumer of petroleum among the services."

Lengyel 7
Gregory J. Colonel USAF. August 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf.

Since the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world, synthetic fuel, or synfuel, made
from coal is particularly appealing. Synfuel represents a domestically controlled resource
with prices theoretically tied to the coal market instead of the world oil market. South Africa
has been producing synthetic fuel for decades and many consider it to be a mature
technology ready for commercialization. Why then, has the synfuel market not boomed and produced billions of
gallons of fuel for US energy needs? Until recently, the answer has been financial risk.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                                  Inherency – No Incentives
Lengyel 7
Gregory J. Colonel USAF. August 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf.

There is little current incentive for DOD personnel to reduce energy consumption. In fact,
there are disincentives in place. Most military leaders quickly learn that a ‗can do without‘ attitude is a sure way to lose
money or personnel. The Air Force Flying Hour Program serves as an example. A flying squadron commander
who allocated 8,000 flying hours to conduct his mission and keep his aircrews properly trained and manages to complete his task in 7,600
hours can expect a cut in his allocation the next year. Instead of being rewarded for saving taxpayers dollars, units perceive the cuts as a
         The commonly accepted solution is to find a way to fly the hours at the end of the
fiscal year rather than falling short of the allocation. This is a ―use it or lose it‖ culture.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                          military coal aff

                              Inherency – No Infrastructure
Blackwell 7
Kristine. National defense fellow @ Foreign Affairs. 6/15/7. CRS Report. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34062.pdf.

DOD has publically expressed its intention to devote resources to this issue; Air Force
leadership has stated a goal of using domestically produced synthetic fuel for half of its
domestic aviation fuel by 2016. At the present time, however, DOD does not seem to have a
comprehensive long-term energy strategy or centralized leadership focused on energy issues
for the department. This may affect the department‘s ability to achieve its long-term energy goals. This report will not be

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                     military coal aff

      Readiness Advantage – Fuel Consumption UQ
Bender 7
Bryan. 5/1/7. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/.

Higher fuel consumption is a consequence of the US military's changing posture in recent
years. During the Cold War, US forces were deployed at numerous bases across the world; since then, the United States has downsized
its force and closed many of its former bases in Asia and Europe. The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a
premium on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from bases in the United
States. The National Defense Strategy, which lays out the Pentagon's anticipated missions, calls for an
increased US military presence around the globe to be able to combat international terrorist
groups and respond to humanitarian and security crises. But aviation fuel consumption for
example, has increased 6 percent over the last decade. And the report predicts that trend
will continue. "The US military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more
regions of the world, employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics
system," according to the report. "Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the
supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption."

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                      military coal aff

       Readiness Advantage – Oil Dependence Link
Patel-Predd 7
Prachi. August 2007. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5492.

Carbon reduction is not the U.S. military‘s real goal. Instead the defense department‘s main
motivation in pursuing biofuels is to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. In particular, the
Pentagon wants to make it easier to supply troops in foreign battle zones and distant military
outposts—right now, the military has to ship fuel to Iraq and to its bases in Hawaii. ―One of the
things we‘re looking at is being able to make smaller scale production facilities that might be
able to travel with some of the troops,‖ says Douglas Kirkpatrick, biofuels program manager at the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                             military coal aff

          Readiness Advantage – New Weapons Link
Bender 7
Bryan. 5/1/7. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/.

The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the
military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it
says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the
military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems.

Blackwell 7
Kristine. National defense fellow @ Foreign Affairs. 6/15/7. CRS Report. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34062.pdf.

Fuel costs, although less than 3% of the total DOD budget, have a significant impact on the department‘s
operating costs. For every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, DOD‘s operating costs
increase by approximately $1.3 billion.6 DOD budgets for fuel a year or more in advance of
its purchase, therefore and sudden large increases in fuel costs must be paid for with
emergency funds or by shifting funds from other programs.7 The Air Force, which operates most of DOD‘s
fixed-wing aircraft, spends the largest share of DOD‘s fuel budget. Every $10 increase in a barrel of oil increases the Air Forces‘ already
sizable annual fuel costs8 by $600 million.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                  military coal aff

                       Readiness Advantage – Air Power Key
Posen 3
Barry. Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of its Security Studies Program. International
Security 28.1 (2003) 5-46. Muse.

The capability for precision attack at great range gives the United States an ability to do
significant damage to the infrastructure and the forces of an adversary, while that adversary
can do little to harm U.S. forces. 42 Air power alone may not be able to determine the outcome of all wars, but it is a
very significant asset. Moreover, U.S. air power has proven particularly devastating to
mechanized ground forces operating offensively, as was discovered in the only Iraqi mechanized offensive in
Desert Storm, the battle of al-Khafji, in which coalition air forces pummeled three advancing Iraqi divisions. 43 The United States
can provide unparalleled assistance to any state that fears a conventional invasion, making
it a very valuable ally.

Pinkerton 1
James Pinkerton-James P. Pinkerton worked in the White House under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Since leaving
government in 1993, he has been a columnist for Newsday, a contributor to the Fox News Channel, and a regular on Fox‘s Newswatch
show. New America Foundation. ―Will X-33 Decision Boost U.S. From Air Superiority To Space Hegemony?‖. April 22, 2001.

TheUS military is properly developing contingency plans for any number of threats, but the
greatest contingency plan of all is strategic superiority so enormous that no potential foe
even thinks about striking at America. And that's where air and space power comes in. The 19th
century equivalent of such power, of course, was sea power. In those days, Britain was the leading maritime nation,
measured in terms of commercial shipping as well as military might. Indeed, the two sectors, civilian and military, reinforced each other. As an example, in 1858, the visionary engineer
Isambard Kingdom Brunel launched The Great Eastern, the most spectacular ship of its day. It was a passenger ship, made of iron, almost 700 feet long and weighing 20,000 tons,
boasting both a paddlewheel and a screw propeller. Sparing no expense, Brunel gave his ship a double hull and honeycombed it with 50 watertight compartments. Thus when The Great
Eastern struck a rock in Long Island Sound, tearing an 83-foot-long, 9-foot-wide gash in its outer hull, the inner hull held, and the ship steamed safely into New York Harbor. The military
advantages of such sturdy shipbuilding were obvious. Inspired by Brunel, the French launched La Gloire in 1859, a wooden-hulled warship with armor plate. The French effort was a distant
early warning to the British Admiralty that other nations could and would compete for sea power. So in 1860 the British christened the first all-iron, all-compartmented battleship, the HMS
Warrior. As Michael Vlahos, a defense guru at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, puts it, "The British were on top in the mid-19th century, but they didn't stop there. They used
their wealth to experiment with all sorts of radical ship designs. Some worked, most didn't. But out of that robust civilian-military mix came naval superiority for the rest of the century."

The 20th century analogy, of course, is air power. US air supremacy is so unchallenged that its
reality goes mostly unnoticed; the last US casualties from enemy aircraft occurred during the
Korean War.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                            military coal aff

                  Readiness Advantage – Air Power Key
Knickerbocker 4
Brad Knickerbocker-Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor. ―US: a bigger stick - and no longer speaking softly‖. January 15, 2004.

Imperial powers have always been backed by superior military force. Armies of the Roman Empire
dominated the land masses of Europe and North Africa, and parts of the Middle East. Navies of the Spanish and British empires ruled the
                 century warfare and power projection hinge on control of the air. Today, no
seas. Twenty-first
other country comes close to US air power. It was not lost on Pentagon strategists (or the rest
of the world) that US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers were able to take off from their base in
Missouri, cruise to targets in Afghanistan and Iraq, deliver their deadly payloads, and fly back
home without ever stopping. The US dominates the skies to a far greater degree than Roman
legions controlled the ground or the British fleet ruled the seas.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                     Readiness Advantage – Iraq Mod 1/2
Dreazen 8
Yochi. 5/21/8. WSJ. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2008/Military-Synthetic-Fuel21may08.htm.

               the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a
Just as important,
strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from
neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn
that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the
world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William

Michelini 4
Alex. 12/10/4. http://www.greatpossibilities.com/articles/publish/fuel_alternative_plant.shtml.

They've dusted off the crushing equipment, swept out the engineering and administrative offices and brushed a fresh coat of brown paint
                                                                    The spiffing-up at the shuttered Grant Gold Mill
on the interior tanks, and yellow and green paint on the railings.

on the gentle slopes of Ester Dome in central Alaska, 10 miles northwest of here, is part of the effort to convert the mill
into a demonstration plant producing liquid fuel from low-grade Alaska coal that could
provide a significant answer to the world's oil crisis.
 "We're all cleaned up and ready to
convert. We have everybody on standby," said Garry Anselmo, CEO of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd., whose subsidiary,
Silverado Green Fuel Inc., ("green" as in environmentally-friendly) is inching closer to obtaining the government and private funding to get
the project rolling.
   The ―green fuel‖ process involves crushing the subbituminous coal, found in
enormous quantities in Alaska's Beluga coalfields, into very fine particles that are then pressure-heated to release some of the water. The
resulting combustible mixture of particles suspended in water is earmarked for use in
industrial boilers and big diesel engines.
 And maybe some day in jetliners and automobiles.
 "It's very safe,
very clean and a low-cost replacement for industrial burning of oil," said Anselmo from his Vancouver-
based Silverado offices. 
 Anselmo said "green fuel" can be made from Alaska coal for $14 an equivalent barrel of oil -- even less, $9 a
barrel, from coal in the Wyoming-Montana coal region.
 With oil prices surging and calls for alternative fuel reaching a clamor, the
conversion of Grant Gold Mill into a demonstration plant has taken on new urgency.
 "All these developments have given new life to our
                                                                                    executives will
project," said Anselmo. "Raw oil burning is expensive and too dirty."
 Over the next couple of months, Silverado
meet with key members of the Alaska congressional delegation, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to discuss funding for
the project and the potential of the liquid fuel for use in the war on terror -- specifically, in

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                   Readiness Advantage – Iraq Mod 2/2
Corsi 7
Jerome, http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=53669, Jan 8.

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel
military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will
only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The
Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to
launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons . With Russia
ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait
too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai
Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a
wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may
have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily
lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began. Odds are that we will not enter 2008 with all
three of these leaders – Bush, Olmert, and Ahmadinejad – as heads of state. If President Bush does go the military route in the Middle East,
he will bet his presidency on that decision.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                  military coal aff

                            Readiness Advantage – Taiwan Mod
Ross 2
Robert. Prof of PolSci @ Boston College. International Security 27.2 (2002) 48-85. Muse.

Chinese leaders acknowledge that U.S. capabilities would be particularly effective against Chinese forces operating in the Taiwan theater. A senior Chinese military officer has lectured
his troops that China's likely adversary in a local war would possess high-technology equipment that could neutralize China's ability to rely on manpower to defeat the enemy. A civilian
analyst has noted that, in a war in China's coastal region, it would be difficult for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to take advantage of its superior numbers—as it did during the Korean
War—and that the adversary could "make full use of its superiority in air and naval long-range, large-scale, high-accuracy weaponry." 53 A military analyst was more direct, explaining
that not only would such superior capabilities seriously restrict China's ability to seize and maintain sea control around a "large island," but they would also pose a major [End Page 66]

                                    Experts at China's Air Force Command College have
threat to China's coastal political, economic, and military targets. 54

concluded that an "air-attack revolution" has occurred and that a "generation gap" exists
between the high- technology air-attack capabilities of the United States and the "stagnant"
airdefense capabilities of less advanced countries, causing a "crisis" in air defense. 55 Thus
China assumes that if the United States intervened in a mainland- Taiwan war, the PLA could
not protect its war-fighting capabilities, nor could it prevent U.S. penetration of Chinese
airspace. It must also assume that the prospect of victory would be close to nil and that the
costs of war and defeat would be massive. Once war began, the United States could target China's large but backward navy. Even China's
advanced Russian destroyers equipped with highly capable missiles would not contribute to its war-fighting capability, because they lack sufficient stand-off range to challenge U.S.

             U.S. capabilities would be even more effective in targeting Chinese surface
offensive forces. Indeed

assets at sea than they have been in targeting enemy assets in deserts, as in the Gulf War
and the war in Afghanistan. 56 Moreover, China's air force would likely remain grounded,
because neither its pilots nor its aircraft could challenge U.S. air superiority.

Straits Times 00
Ching Cheong, ―No One Gains in War Over Taiwan‖, June 25, Lexis Nexis, AJJ)

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war
between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then
a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and
near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers
any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the

Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate,    east Asia will be set on fire.                  And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic
powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East

                    In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its
may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq.

own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war?
According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear
weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on
future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US
had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using
nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A
Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the
military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that

                                              military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons
principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said

mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come
to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect
of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above
everything else.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                               military coal aff

           Readiness Advantage – AT No Intervention
Ross 2
Robert. Prof of PolSci @ Boston College. International Security 27.2 (2002) 48-85. Muse.

Chinese civilian and military analysts understand that U.S. domestic politics increases the
likelihood of U.S. intervention in defense of Taiwan. Domestic political opposition toward
China and political support for Taiwan in the United States are at their highest levels since the
late 1960s. U.S. domestic politics has encouraged the growth in U.S. arms sales to Taiwan since the early 1990s, and it will constrain the
administration's options during a mainland-Taiwan conflict. Chinese military and civilian analysts also grasp the extent of Washington's
strategic commitment to Taiwan. They acknowledge that the March 1996 deployment of two U.S. carriers was a "strong military signal" of
U.S. readiness to intervene in a possible war over Taiwan. 58 Moreover, the carrier deployment firmly coupled the U.S. commitment to
defend Taiwan with [End Page 68] the credibility of its security commitments to its allies in East Asia. Since then, Chinese leaders have
assumed that a war with Taiwan means a war with the United States. As one observer has noted, "What many, many people realize is that
the effectiveness of [U.S.] deterrence . . . must markedly exceed that of 1996, so that the likelihood of U.S. military intervention is even more
notable, with a likely corresponding escalation in the deterrence dynamics." 59 Another analyst has warned that the possibility of U.S.
intervention means that any Chinese action could encounter "unexpectedly serious consequences."

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                               military coal aff

              Readiness Advantage – Heg Laundry List
Ferguson 4
Niall. Prof of history @ Harvard. Hoover Digest. July/August 4. http://www.hooverdigest.org/044/ferguson.html

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age
               world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age
experiences that a
would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous—
roughly 20 times more—meaning that friction between the world‘s disparate ―tribes‖ is bound to be more frequent. Technology has
transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on fresh water and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are
known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too; it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two
decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital—has raised living standards throughout the
                                                                                                The reversal of
world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war.
globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even
depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would
inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe‘s Muslim
enclaves grew, Islamist extremists‘ infiltration of the E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to
the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that
undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the
risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers.       The
wealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of
plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft
carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear
wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending
catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical
Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their
deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to
leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a
                                                    the United States retreats from global hegemony—
great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If
                                                            critics at home and abroad must not
its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its
pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony or even a return to the good old
balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would
be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a
not-so-new world disorder.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                         military coal aff

             Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Terror
Schmitt 6
Gary. Scholar @ AEI. Pax Americana: Is There Any Alternative to U.S. Primacy?. 2/26/6. http://www.eng.gees.org/articulo/6/.

The core argument itself is not new:The United States and the West face a new threat--weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of terrorists--and, whether we like it or not, no power other than the United
States has the capacity, or can provide the decisive leadership, required to handle this and
other critical global security issues. Certainly not the United Nations or, anytime soon, the
European Union. In the absence of American primacy, the international order would quickly
return to disorder. Indeed, whatever legitimate concerns people may have about the fact of America's primacy, the downsides of
not asserting that primacy are, according to The American Era, potentially far more serious. The critics "tend to dwell
disproportionately on problems in the exercise of [American] power rather than on the dire
consequences of retreat from an activist foreign policy," Lieber writes. They forget "what can
happen in the absence of such power."

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                              military coal aff

              Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Prolif
Rosen 3
Stephen. Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University. An Empire, If you Can Keep It. The National Interest. Spring

                                                              the United States could give up the imperial
Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems,
mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the
Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to
their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and
be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel
less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all
states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and
perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological
weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely
throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to
guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect,
but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                             military coal aff

   Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Econ Growth
Walt 2
Stephen Walt- Professor of International Affairs at Harvard‘s Kennedy School of Government, ―American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls‖
Naval War College Review, Spring.

By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy, American
primacy also fosters global prosperity. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace, but it is
more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence—by making it easier for states to
accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse.10 Investors are more
willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote, and states worry less about being
dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed. When states are relatively secure, they will
also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. In particular, they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation
will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time.11

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                          military coal aff

       Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Genocide
Orlet 5
Christopher, 10/11, pg. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8863

                                 is a debate in the nation's think tanks over when the U.S. should
Far from the concerns of the street, there
intervene in the affairs of foreign nations. The realists, like the Cato Institute's (and sometime TAS contributor)
Christopher Preble, reject values-based foreign interventions (sometimes disparagingly called international social work), and maintain that
the U.S. should intervene only to defend its vital national security interests. I find this complete negation of values to be morally
reprehensible. Onehas only to recall how the victims of Auschwitz, Srebrenica, Rwanda, and
Kurdistan waited expectantly and in vain for the world's lone superpower, and the world's
"moral and political leader" (George Frost Kennan's phrase), to come to their rescue. To do something.
Anything. This time, to the eternal gratitude of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and Iraqi Shiites, America kept its promise. We have Saddam
in the dock. And he will pay with his miserable life.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                             military coal aff

        Readiness Advantage – Heg Solves Indo/Pak
Chok 4
Goh Chok, Senior Minister of Singapore, International Institute for Strategic Studies, June 4, http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the-shangri-la-

In Asia, as in Europe, unease with America‘s overwhelming global dominance is high. But Asia       is more keenly aware than Europe of
the vital role that the US plays in maintaining global stability. No matter what their misgivings, only a few Asian
countries, and certainly no major US ally, opposed the US on Iraq. There is a clearer appreciation in Asia than in Europe that the
                                                                           Asia still faces many serious security
fundamental issue in Iraq now is the credibility and resolve of the US. This is because
challenges. Kashmir, North Korea and cross-strait relations between Beijing and Taipei are potential flashpoints. If
things go terribly wrong, the conflicts could even turn nuclear. The US is central to the
management of all three potential flashpoints. All three conflicts also have a direct impact on the global struggle against
terrorism. Let me conclude therefore with a few words on each.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                               military coal aff

       Readiness Advantage – AT Decline Inevitable
Wohlforth 7
William. Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, where he is also the Chair of the Department of Government. Spring 2007. Harvard
International Review. Proquest.

US military forces are stretched thin, its budget and trade deficits are high, and the country
continues to finance its profligate ways by borrowing from abroad-notably from the Chinese
government. These developments have prompted many analysts to warn that the United
States suffers from "imperial overstretch." And if US power is overstretched now, the argument goes, unipolarity can
hardly be sustainable for long. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between
actual and latent power. One must be careful to take into account both the level of
resources that can be mobilized and the degree to which a government actually tries to
mobilize them. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of the severity of the challenges that it faces.
Indeed, one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it has been seriously challenged. Yale historian Paul Kennedy coined
the term "imperial overstretch" to describe the situation in which a state's actual and latent capabilities cannot possibly match its foreign
policy commitments. This situation should be contrasted with what might be termed "self-inflicted overstretch"-a situation in which a state
lacks the sufficient resources to meet its current foreign policy commitments in the short term, but has untapped latent power and readily
                                                                                                                  the US
available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. This is arguably the situation that the United States is in today. But
government has not attempted to extract more resources from its population to meet its
foreign policy commitments. Instead, it has moved strongly in the opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax
rates. Although it is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global
"war" on terrorism, the United States is not acting like a country under intense international
pressure. Aside from the volunteer servicemen and women and their families, US citizens have not been asked to
make sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. The country could clearly
devote a greater proportion of its economy to military spending: today it spends only about
4 percent of its GDP on the military, as compared to 7 to 14 percent during the peak years of the Cold War. It could also
spend its military budget more efficiently, shifting resources from expensive weapons systems to boots on the ground. Even more radically,
it could reinstitute military conscription, shifting resources from pay and benefits to training
and equipping more soldiers. On the economic front, it could raise taxes in a number of ways, notably on fossil
fuels, to put its fiscal house back in order. No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drastic measures, but
there is nothing in economics, political science, or history to suggest that such policies would be any less likely to succeed than China is to
continue to grow rapidly for decades.Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihood and
potential success of such  power-generating policies depends on public support, which is a function of the
public's perception of a threat. And as unnerving as terrorism is, there is nothing like the threat of
another hostile power rising up in opposition to the United States for mobilizing public

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                               military coal aff

       Readiness Advantage – AT Counterbalancing
Dueck 4
Colin. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado. New Perspectives on American Grand Strategy. International
Security 28.4 (2004) 197-216. Muse.

In at least one respect, these five books, together, represent an interesting and important conceptual development in the literature on
American grand strategy. All five—whether realist or liberal in inspiration—agree that great       power counterbalancing
against the United States is not inevitable. This in itself sets all five authors apart from more pessimistic, structural realists
such as Waltz and Mearsheimer. But the causal mechanism that prevents such counterbalances from
occurring is somewhat different in each of these books. For Art, that mechanism is the
prudent pursuit by American officials of a strategy of selective engagement. For Nau, it is the
convergence of national identities between the United States and other leading
democracies. For Kupchan, it is the creation of a great power concert informed by liberal norms.
For Nye, it is the [End Page 210] use of soft power. And for Ikenberry, it is the self-restrained and
institutionalized nature of American grand strategy.

Lieber and Alexander 5
Keir (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame) and Gerard (Associate Professor of Politics at the University of
Virginia). Waiting for Balancing. International Security 30.1 (2005) 109-139. Muse.

William Wohlforth  argues that the United States enjoys such a large margin of superiority over
every other state in all the important dimensions of power (military, economic, technological, geopolitical,
etc.) that an extensive counterbalancing coalition is infeasible, both because of the sheer size
of the U.S. military effort and the huge coordination issues involved in putting together such a
counterbalancing coalition.19 This widely cited argument is invoked by theorists of soft balancing to explain, and explain away, the
absence of traditional balancing, at least for now.20 Wohlforth's main conclusion on this matter is unconvincing empirically. As a result, the
claim that the absence of hard balancing does not reveal intentions is unconvincing analytically. There is certainly a steep disparity in
worldwide [End Page 115] levels of defense spending. Those levels fell almost everywhere after the end of the Cold War, but they fell more
                                                                                                                 Even Europe's
steeply and more durably in other parts of the world, which resulted in a widening U.S. lead in military capabilities.
sophisticated militaries lack truly independent command, intelligence, surveillance, and
logistical capabilities. China, Russia, and others are even less able to match the United States
militarily. In 2005, for example, the United States may well represent 50 percent of defense spending in the entire world.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                         military coal aff

              Readiness Advantage – AT Military Costs
Brooks and Wohlforth 2
Stephen (asst prof) and William (assoc prof @ Dartmouth). American Primacy In Perspective. Foreign Affairs. July/August 2002. Online.

America‘s economic dominance, meanwhile—relative to either the next several richest powers or the rest of the world
combined—surpasses that of any great power in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after
1945 (when World War II had temporarily laid waste every other major economy). The U.S. economy is currently twice as large as its closest
rival, Japan. California‘s economy alone has risen to become the fifth largest in the world (using market exchange-rate estimates), ahead
                                                                                          it would take an
of France and just behind the United Kingdom. It is true that the long expansion of the 1990s has ebbed, but
experience like Japan‘s in that decade—that is, an extraordinarily deep and prolonged domestic
recession juxtaposed with robust growth elsewhere—for the United States just to fall back to
the economic position it occupied in 1991. The odds against such relative decline are long,
however, in part because the United States is the country in the best position to take advantage
of globalization. Its status as the preferred destination for scientifically trained foreign workers
solidified during the 1990s, and it is the most popular destination for foreign firms. In 1999 it attracted more than
one-third of world inflows of foreign direct investment.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                         military coal aff

              Readiness Advantage – AT Imperial Wars
Brooks and Wohlforth 2
Stephen (asst prof) and William (assoc prof @ Dartmouth). American Primacy In Perspective. Foreign Affairs. July/August 2002. Online.

Two of the prime causes of past great-power conflicts—hegemonic rivalry and
misperception—are thus not currently operative in world politics. At the dawn of the twentieth century, a
militarily powerful Germany challenged the United Kingdom‘s claim to leadership. The result was World War I. In the middle of the twentieth
century, American leadership seemed under challenge by a militarily and ideologically strong Soviet Union. The result was the Cold War.
U.S. dominance today militates against a comparable challenge, however, and hence against
a comparable global conflict. Because the United States is too powerful to balance, moreover,
there is far less danger of war emerging from the misperceptions, miscalculations, arms
races, and so forth that have traditionally plagued balancing attempts. Pundits often lament the
absence of a post–Cold War Bismarck. Luckily, as long as unipolarity lasts, there is no need for one.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                        military coal aff

                        2AC Airlines Industry Add-On 1/2
Bender 7
Bryan. 5/1/7. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/.

The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy
needs could influence broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report
adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on
fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security. "The Pentagon's efforts in this area would
have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said. The Department of Defense is the
largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support
flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind.

Ryan 8
Timothy. geographer, statistician, and research coordinator at Infotech Information and Research Consultants. 6/25/8.

Such an achievement would have tremendous positive impact on national security, energy security, and the economy as a whole.   In
addition to its use by the military, CTL based jet fuels could provide an important price break
to the struggling commercial airline industry. If the Air Force and the airline industry – two
extremely large energy consumers - converted to CTL, there would likely be significant
downward pressure on fuel prices across the entire industry, including the prices we pay at
the pump. It would provide a significant boost to the coal industry, to the states where the conversion
plants would be built (where new jobs constructing the plants and running them after they are built would be created), and to the
airline and tourism industries.

Creighton 2
John. CEO of United Airlines. 3/6/2. http://www.united.com/speech/detail/0,6862,7004,00.html.

First, modernizing and expanding O'Hare is a national economic issue and should be considered to be a national economic priority.
fact that was reinforced in the aftermath of September 11 is that commercial aviation is an
economic engine. When our national air transportation system is vibrant and efficient, the
United States' economy benefits. When it is not, our economy suffers.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                   military coal aff

                       2AC Airlines Industry Add-On 2/2
Cook 7
Richard. Frequent contributor to Global Research. 6/14/7. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964.

Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war
rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the
1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were
then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let
China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don‘t want our dollars or our debt any
more, how about a few nukes?

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                          military coal aff

              Airlines Industry Add-On – DoD Modeled
Blackwell 7
Kristine. National defense fellow @ Foreign Affairs. 6/15/7. CRS Report. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34062.pdf.

The Department of Defense (DOD) is a factor in the nation‘s discussion about national energy
security. As the largest single consumer of fuel in the United States, DOD has the potential to
make important contributions to the national effort to reduce the use of and reliance on
fossil fuel. Aviation fuel makes up the largest portion of fossil fuel consumed by DOD and
therefore represents the area of greatest potential energy savings. This report examines DOD‘s use of
aviation fuel and possibilities to reduce that use by examining related issues and presenting options Congress may choose to consider.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                               military coal aff

              Airlines Industry Add-On – Fuel Prices Key
Guardian 8
6/2/8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/02/theairlineindustry.britishairwaysbusiness1.

The airline industry will lose $6.1bn (£3.1bn) this year if the oil price stays at record levels as
carriers face a worse crisis than the aftermath of September 11, the global airline body has warned.
Airlines will swing from a profit of $5.6bn last year to a loss of $6.1bn in 2008 if oil continues to
trade at around $135 per barrel, according to new forecasts from the International Air Transport Association. Speaking to
hundreds of airline executives at the Iata annual general meeting in Istanbul this morning, the association's chief executive, Giovanni
              the industry was "struggling for survival" with 24 airlines folding since January. "The
Bisignani, said
situation is desperate and potentially more destructive than our recent battles with all the
horsemen of the apocalypse combined," he said. Iata said the industry's fuel bill will rise by $40bn –
wiping out last year's profit seven times over – to $176bn, based on an average oil price of $107 per barrel.
Fuel costs have pushed the industry underwater after a struggle back to profitability post-
September 11. British Airways, one of only 14 airlines with a profit margin of more than 10%, has admitted it could swing from a profit
of £883m to a loss over the next two years, despite its robust cost base and balance sheet. The rest of the industry is less
resilient and operates on an average profit margin of just over 1%, underlining the threat posed by a sudden
spike in fuel costs. On an oil price estimate of $107 per barrel, the industry will lose $2.3bn this year, but the current level of around
$135 per barrel would push that deficit to $6.1bn, Iata warned.

Air Transit Association. 4/11/6. http://www.airlines.org/news/releases/2006/news_4-11-06.htm.

                                                                                                 continued rising jet
The Air Transport Association (ATA), the industry organization representing leading U.S. airlines, today said that
fuel prices are impeding the remarkable overall progress being made by the U.S. airline
industry to return to profitability. ―Record crude oil prices, which are expected to average nearly $70 per barrel
this summer, will hamper the industry‘s widespread efforts to reverse the losses that have plagued
the airlines in recent years,‖ said ATA Vice President and Chief Economist John Heimlich. Data from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration shows that the price of benchmark crude oil averaged $63.27 in the first quarter of 2006, up 27 percent from the
same period in 2005. Accordingly, the average price of jet fuel rose approximately 40 cents per gallon, from $1.45 to $1.85.
high fuel prices highlight the need for airspace modernization to mitigate fuel expenses. A
modernized system could save hundreds of millions of gallons of jet fuel per year, not to
mention the environmental benefits that such improved operational efficiency would
produce,‖ said Heimlich.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                     military coal aff

                  Airlines Industry Add-On – Economy Mod
MIT Global Airline Industry Program. Accessed 7/9/8. http://web.mit.edu/airlines/www/the-airline-industry/the-airline-industry.htm.

The international airline industry provides service to virtually every corner of the globe, and
has been an integral part of the creation of a global economy. The airline industry itself is a
major economic force, both in terms of its own operations and its impacts on related
industries such as aircraft manufacturing and tourism, to name but two. Few other industries generate the amount and intensity of attention given to airlines, not only among its
participants but from government policy makers, the media, and almost anyone who has an anecdote about a particular air travel experience. During much of its development, the
global airline industry dealt with major technological innovations such as the introduction of jet airplanes for commercial use in the 1950s, followed by the development of wide-body
―jumbo jets‖ in the 1970s. At the same time, airlines were heavily regulated throughout the world, creating an environment in which technological advances and government policy took
precedence over profitability and competition. It has only been in the period since the economic deregulation of airlines in the United States in 1978 that questions of cost efficiency,
operating profitability and competitive behavior have become the dominant issues facing airline management. With the US leading the way, airline deregulation or at least
―liberalization‖ has now spread to much of the industrialized world, affecting both domestic air travel within each country and, perhaps more importantly, the continuing evolution of a
highly competitive international airline industry. Today, the global airline industry consists of over 2000 airlines operating more than 23,000 aircraft, providing service to over 3700 airports.
In 2006, the world‘s airlines flew almost 28 million scheduled flight departures and carried over 2 billion passengers [1]. The growth of world air travel has averaged approximately 5% per
year over the past 30 years, with substantial yearly variations due both to changing economic conditions and differences in economic growth in different regions of the world.
Historically, the annual growth in air travel has been about twice the annual growth in GDP. Even with relatively conservative expectations of economic growth over the next 10-15 years,

a continued 4-5% annual growth in global air travel will lead to a doubling of total air travel during this period.   In the US airline industry,
approximately 100 certificated passenger airlines operate over 11 million flight departures per year, and carry
over one-third of the world‘s total air traffic – US airlines enplaned 745 million passengers in 2006. US airlines
reported over $160 billion in total revenues, with approximately 545,000 employees and over 8,000 aircraft operating
31,000 flights per day [2]. The economic impacts of the airline industry range from its direct effects on
airline employment, company profitability and net worth to the less direct but very important
effects on the aircraft manufacturing industry, airports, and tourism industries, not to mention
the economic impact on virtually every other industry that the ability to travel by air
generates. Commercial aviation contributes 8 percent of the US Gross Domestic Product,
according to recent estimates [3]. The economic importance of the airline industry and, in turn, its
repercussions for aircraft manufacturers, makes the volatility of airline profits and their
dependence on good economic conditions a serious concern for both industries. This concern has
grown dramatically since airline deregulation, as stable profits and/or government assistance were the rule rather than the exception for most international airlines prior to the 1980s. As
shown in Figure 1, the total net profits of world airlines have shown tremendous volatility over the past 15 years. After the world airline industry posted 4 consecutive years of losses totaling
over $22 billion from 1990 to 1993, as a result of the Gulf War and subsequent economic recession, it returned to record profitability in the late 1990s, with total net profits in excess of $25
billion being reported by world airlines from 1995 to 1999. Even more dramatic was the industry‘s plunge into record operating losses and a financial crisis between 2000 and 2005, with
cumulative net losses of $40 billion.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                   Airlines Industry Add-On – AT Resilient
International Herald Tribune. 7/13/8. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/business/RAIROVER.php.

"Previous crises like SARS or Sept. 11 were shocks," Giovanni Bisignani, the director general of the International Air
Transport Association, said in an interview, referring to the impact of the epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Asia in 2003 and
                                  "Something happened, and the industry had to recover. The
the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001.
fuel crisis, however, has brought lasting change of unprecedented dimensions." "If oil stays at
current levels through 2008, we would have a fuel bill of $190 billion - 34 percent of airline
costs and an increase of $53 billion in just one year," Bisignani said. "In 2002, the total fuel bill was $40 billion, only
13 percent of costs."

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                        military coal aff

                           2AC Sequestration Add-On 1/2
AP 8
3/22/8. http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164531,00.html.

"Is it a viable technology? Certainly it is. The challenge seems to be getting the first couple
(of plants) done," said industry analyst Gordon Howald with Calyon Securities. "For a company to commit to this
and then five years later oil is back at $60 - this becomes the worst idea that ever
happened." Only two coal-to-liquids plants are now operating worldwide, all in South Africa. A third is
scheduled to come online in China this year, said Corey Henry with the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition. The Air Force is adamant it
can advance the technology used in those plants to turn dirty coal into a "green fuel," by
capturing the carbon dioxide and other, more toxic emissions produced during

Lengyel 7
Gregory J. Colonel USAF. August 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf.

An even bigger environmental issue is the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by refining coal can be 50-100% higher than refining
petroleum.43 Advocates    for synfuel point out the CO2 can be captured and used for ―enhanced oil recovery‖ by
                                                                            sequestered in underground saline
pumping the captured CO2 into oil wells to retrieve otherwise unobtainable oil, or
aquifers or other ―storage‖ locations to prevent addition of CO2 to ever-increasing GHG
problem. Skeptics are quick to point out that carbon capture and sequestration has never been proven on any large scale, and if
attempted, would surely add to the cost of synfuel production. Global warming due to GHG emissions has become the political 500 pound
gorilla that cannot be ignored. Secretary Wynne acknowledged this in his address to the USAF Energy Forum: The big issue is the
                                                                  The DOE National Energy
sequestration of large amounts of carbon dioxide before it‘s released into the atmosphere.
Technology Laboratory and several others are now working on the development of carbon
capture technology that approaches 90%. Our team at Wright-Patterson also is working on a study with DOE to find
the right mix of biomass and coal to reduce CO2 emissions starting with the feedstock. We aim to be good stewards of the environment
and yet push for the production and purchase of domestically produced synfuel from plants that use coal, natural gas or other derivation
                                                                           DOD could not only be
that incorporate greenhouse gas reduction processes to provide the right fuel in the right manner. The
the catalyst for the synthetic fuel industry in the United States, but could also promote US
carbon capture and sequestration on an unprecedented scale. The DOD should not support any synfuel
initiatives that do not responsibly handle CO2 emissions.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                        military coal aff

                          2AC Sequestration Add-On 2/2
Henderson 5
Hill. 3/16/5. http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson160305.htm.

But these   immediate effects of global warming pale before the possibility of runaway global
warming where warming due to our greenhouse gas emissions causes greatly increased
greenhouse gas production from normal terrestrial sources – the release of CO2 stored in tundra, for example -
creating positive feedback loops which overwhelm regular biosphere regulation and lead to
temperatures possibly hundreds of degrees warmer then present. Runaway global warming
that could lead to an atmosphere like Venus. In September 2000, world-renowned physicist
Stephen Hawking was widely quoted in the press as being very worried about runaway global
warming: "I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with boiling sulfuric acid," said Hawking. "I
am worried about the greenhouse effect." If we go over this cliff no more humanity; the extinction of almost
every existing species except some bacteria; the end of life on Earth as we know it.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                         military coal aff

               Sequestration Add-On – Regulation Link
Kriz 7
Margaret. Advocates say that liquefied coal could break America's addiction to foreign oil; critics warn that it could create twice as much
greenhouse gas as petroleum. THE NATIONAL JOURNAL January 6, 2007

Bollinger said the    military recognizes that coal-to-liquids plants would have to sequester the
greenhouse-gas emissions created during the fuel's production. "While there are no carbon dioxide
regulations at this time, it's in our interest to see that any new facilities built domestically include
carbon capture and sequestration," he said. "We wouldn't want an industry to start without
appropriate carbon capture and sequestration, and then have new [global-warming]
regulations come into play in three or four years and stifle the ability of these plants to

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                            military coal aff

        Sequestration Add-On – Food Prices Mod 1/2
Luxmore 1
Robert J. October 25. SSSA President. https://www.soils.org/pdf/pos_paper_carb_seq.pdf.
                                   of carbon in soils, plants and plant products will benefit
Increased long term (20-50 year) sequestration
the environment and agriculture. Crop, grazing, and forestlands can be managed for both
economic productivity and carbon sequestration. In many settings this dual management approach can be
achieved by applying currently recognized best management practices such as conservation tillage, efficient nutrient management,
erosion control, use of cover crops and restoration of degraded soils. In addition, conversion of marginal arable land to forest or grassland
can rapidly increase soil carbon sequestration. Research is needed that better quantifies carbon sequestration obtained by
these practices; this research should culminate in a scientifically defensible soil carbon sequestration accounting system that also would be
suitable to the business sector, should soil carbon become a marketable commodity. Implementation of these practices
integrate a wide range of disciplines in the basic, agricultural, silvicultural, and environmental
sciences as well as in the social, economic and political sciences. SSSA advocates a global
increase in soil organic matter as a timely benefit to global well being by reducing the rate
of increase in atmospheric CO2 and increasing the productivity of soil, particularly in many
areas with degraded soils.

The Observer 8
3/2/8. ‗The Future of Food.‘ Lexis.

There is little doubt over the massive implications the rise in basic food prices can have for
international security. Last week three cities in the West African nation of Burkina Faso were hit
by serious rioting after grain prices went up. Mobs burnt government buildings and looted
stores. That incident followed on similar riots earlier this year in Senegal and Mauritania.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                          military coal aff

        Sequestration Add-On – Food Prices Mod 2/2
Deutsch 2
The Rabid Tiger Newsletter, Vol. II, No. 9 November 18, 2002 Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch Founder, Rabid Tiger Project, BA in Government from Cornell
University, in Ithaca, NY, and an MA and PhD in Economics from George Mason University, in Fairfax, VA.

The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the
Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic
instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and
other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew.
We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the
button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and
overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to
any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already
has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in
Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of
the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help,"
thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a
proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a
much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in
the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering,
etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing .

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                             military coal aff

       Sequestration Add-On – AT Sequestration Fails
Dayton 8
Leigh Dayton. A Science writer. July 10, 2008. First trials prove a success in capturing carbon dioxide. 7/11/2008 L/N

AUSTRALIA has conducted its first successful trials of the leading technology for capturing
climate-warming carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant. Using the technology -- known
as post-combustion capture (PCC) -- a team of industry technicians and CSIRO researchers successfully removed
more than 80 per cent of the CO2 from the exhaust-gas flues of a pilot power plant in Victoria's
Latrobe Valley.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                            military coal aff

                          Solvency – Long-Term Contracts
Bunning 7
Jim. Senator (KY). 3/8/7. http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=cf65561f-

My bill would extend existing contract authority for up to 25 years. It does not make sense to
prevent the military from engaging in long-term contracts. I believe the Department of Defense should
engage in the same kind of contracts as private companies. While I believe congressional intent is clear on this issue, I would like to expand
                                                     provision to allow the Department of Defense to
my thoughts on long-term contracts in three areas. First, my
engage in long-term contracts or to assist in the development of coal-to-liquid facilities is not
an industrial policy. The military right now is engaged in a comprehensive effort to adopt
biofuels, which have included significant cost increases compared to conventional fuel and
supports domestic industry. Yet this policy has been praised by some of the same people who express concerns about coal-
to-liquid fuel. The military is the largest single fuel purchaser in the country and of course its
support will help develop a domestic synthetic fuel industry. But long-term contract authority
is a national security issue that addresses the military‘s fuel needs. Second, there are concerns with how
the budget would account for a long-term contract. It is unreasonable to ask that the entire value of the contract be appropriated in the
first year. Any long-term contract should be amortized over the life of the contract. Third, there is the market price issue. I believe the
                                                          Long-term contracts will provide
D.O.D. should be authorized to pay a premium for a high-quality, clean, domestic fuel.
price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above
and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I
believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                            military coal aff

                          Solvency – Long-Term Contracts
Lengyel 7
Gregory J. Colonel USAF. August 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf.

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

Bismarck Tribune 6
3/21/6. http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/03/21/news/opinion/editorials/111978.txt.

                                                                                               would have to
Cost is definitely a consideration. A plant such as the one envisioned may cost upwards of $5 billion. Investors
be convinced that the investment would be sound. But with the military as a prospective
prime customer and the likely size of the contracts to purchase the fuel, investors may figure
that the market may be more sound in the long run than, for example, being in the politically and economically
volatile petroleum business. If President Bush is serious in his assessment that the U.S. is addicted to oil and
sees the good of taking action to break that addiction, the military and its consumption of oil
is something the president can influence. If a very clean-burning liquid fuel derived from North Dakota
lignite can play even a single-digit percentage part in breaking our society's petroleum
cravings, it strongly should be considered.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                       military coal aff

                                        Solvency – USFG Key
Tulsa World 7
10/16/7. http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=071016_5_E4_spanc48573.

The Air Force wants to power half its in-country flights with a synthetic fuel made from
domestic coal by 2016. But it has yet to figure out how to get the fuel. No commercial plants
exist in this country to make it, and industry officials say the government has not offered
enough incentives to build a plant. The idea also faces environmental questions. "The bottom line is if the
government doesn't choose to support the creation of this industry financially, then the
government won't have enough domestically produced fuel in the time frame they've set,"
said John Ward, a vice president with Headwaters Energy Services, a division of Headwaters Inc., of South Jordan, Utah, which has been
considering a North Dakota plant to convert coal to jet fuel.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                   military coal aff

                                   Solvency – DoD Say Yes
Southern States Energy Board. Executive Summary of The American Energy Security Study,

Oil consumption by U.S. military forces totals approximately 300,000 bpd. Through the development of
BUFF specifications, a substantial portion of this can be met with domestically produced alternative
liquid fuels. DoD desires to enter into long term contracts for the purchase of alternative fuels
made from domestic U.S. resources as part of DoD's Total Energy Development (TED) Program.
We encourage Congressional support for the TED program, including extending its long-term
contracting capabilities from five years to as long as 25 years. See S. 3325, Section 11.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                            military coal aff

                                    Solvency – Transition Fast
International Herald Tribune. 7/8/8. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/08/business/greencol09.php.

                 given the fast pace of current research, "it is likely that within five years you'll
Charles predicted that
have commercial jets flying on algae - it will be as quick and dramatic as the shift to
digital TV." A number of airlines and aircraft makers are furiously exploring alternative fuels.
Virgin led the pack, flying a jumbo jet from London to Amsterdam this year with one of its four tanks using biofuel, in this case made of a
blend of coconut oil and nuts. Other airlines have followed.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                         military coal aff

                                Solvency – Incentives Key
Malloy 8
Daniel. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 6/23/8. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08175/891993-28.stm.

                  a government-initiated spark could be the key to reinventing fuel in
Yet coal proponents say
America, and Wall Street capital will flood in as soon as a plant is demonstrated to be
effective here. "You provide government funding to get that first plant started, to get a
demonstration," said Dr. Bajura. "Once you remove the aspect of uncertainty of design and show
the plant can work and be economical, you overcome fear about the plant being
profitable. That would make it possible to deploy more plants."

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                       military coal aff

                                   Solvency – Infrastructure
Chandler 7
Jerome Greer. May 2007. http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1926.

Scully Capital determined that crude would have to average $56 per barrel over the long term for the proposition to become attractive.
The biggest fear the financial community has is underwriting such a venture "only to find that
it's worthless because crude oil prices have dropped below $56." The solution, contends Oakley, is
to mitigate the risk of commodity fluctuations, to do a hedge in which an airline contracts to
purchase x amount of FT fuel over several years. "That provides a hedge for the lender so
they know they can sell the product at a price that will support return to shareholders and
lenders," he says. "It also provides a hedge for the airline." That's one key to getting FT plants off
the ground. Another is government support. Several bills are winding their way though
Congress seeking to spur alternative fuels in some fashion. One of them is the Coal-To-Liquid
Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 sponsored by Sens. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) and Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Aimed at creating the
infrastructure needed for large-scale production of coal-to-liquid fuel, it expands tax
incentives, creates planning assistance and develops DOD support for the domestic CTL

Johnson 7
Charles. 9/7/7. http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/09/07/montana_top/a010907_01.txt.

                           Coal to Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. That bill, if enacted, would
He was an original cosponsor of the
provide a loan guarantee program to spur plant construction and authorize the secretary of
defense to sign contracts for up to 25 years to the long-term procurement of coal-to-liquid
fuels. These long-term contracts are needed for private energy companies to build the
plants to supply the Air with fuel, Rehberg said.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                  military coal aff

                                        Solvency – Dependence
Lengyel 7
Gregory J. Colonel USAF. August 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf.

Decreasing US dependence on foreign oil in a meaningful way can only be done by looking
at the wide array of ways the DOD can consume less petroleum based fuel through
efficiencies, smarter processes, and diversification of fuel sources to include alternatives
other than petroleum. Domestically controlled production of alternative fuels will also help
assure access to critical energy requirements. Additionally, the DOD must ensure resiliency of installation electricity
supply through increased on-site renewable energy production, reduced dependence on the commercial electric grid, and the capability
to operate at 100% capacity in the event of a commercial grid blackout.

Tulsa World 7
10/16/7. http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=071016_5_E4_spanc48573.

                                                When the price of a gallon of jet fuel increases $1, it
The Air Force said it spent $5.8 billion on fuel in fiscal 2006.
costs the Air Force $60 million, Billings said. More than half the crude used to make military jet
fuel comes from foreign sources, such as the Middle East and Venezuela, Billings said. "It comes
from a lot of places in the world where people don't necessarily like us that well and that
creates a set of vulnerabilities for the Air Force," Billings said. Tulsa, Okla.-based Syntroleum Corp. produced the
synthetic fuel used in the Air Force's B-52 trials over the past year. The Air Force said it spent $5 million on the tests, including some $2 million
on the fuel, which worked out to about $20 a gallon. Syntroleum spokesman Gary Gamino said the company has "mothballed" its
demonstration plant in Oklahoma that produced the fuel. "Basically, we could not afford to keep it running," Gamino said. The company
now is focused on manufacturing synthetic jet fuel made from animal fats, greases, and vegetable oils, he said. The company is supplying
500 gallons of the fuel to the Department of Defense for testing. Billings said the coal-based synthetic fuel to be tested in the C-17 and B-1
over the next year was purchased in Malaysia, from Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The Air Force said it paid $1.3 million for 290,000 gallons of the
fuel, 9,000 gallons of which will go to NASA for emissions testing. Ward, of Headwaters, said his company's proposal for a North Dakota
plant to convert coal into diesel and jet fuel has been changed to produce only gasoline. Headwaters, along with Great River Energy, of
Elk River, Minn., and Dallas-based North American Coal Corp. have formed American Lignite Energy LLC to oversee the $4 billion project in
                 coal-to-fuel plants are planned in some 20 states, and the majority of them
North Dakota. Ward said
hope the Pentagon will become a major customer. But without price guarantees and long-
term contracts by Congress, financing for the projects will be difficult, if not impossible, he said.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                   2AC AT Topicality – Alternative Energy
Dimotakis, Grober and Lewis 6
Paul, Robert, Nate. September 2006. JASON. ―Reducting DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence.‖ Online.

Another tool to reducing the DoD dependence on fossil fuels is to substitute some portion of crude-oil-derived fuels with fuels derived from
                     an alternative fuel is defined to be any fuel that is not directly derived
other sources. In this context,
from crude oil. Hence, liquid hydrocarbon fuels derived from coal or natural gas would be
classified as alternative fuels, even though they are in fact derived from fossil sources.

International Herald Tribune. 5/28/7. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/28/business/coal.php.

                                                                       a powerful roster of
Even as U.S. congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming,
Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of "alternative fuels."
Coal companies and their many supporters in Congress contend that coal-based liquid fuels
can both reduce dependence on foreign oil and be greener and cleaner as well.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia 8

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


SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

            1AR AT Topicality – Alternative Energy Ext.
Everett 8

The liberal leadership of Congress remains defiant in its stance that energy conservation and alternative
fuels - technologies which are years from effective implementation and not enough to address all our needs
- are the only answer. Meanwhile, liberals in Congress support more taxes on oil companies which will just be passed down to the
consumer, and even a national "carbon tax" of 50 cents a gallon! Apparently, failed energy policies of the 1970's are the best they can
offer. In contrast, House Republicans have introduced seven different bills that would increase access
to America's vast oil and gas reserves, encourage construction of new domestic oil refineries to further increase gasoline supplies at home,
     the development of safe and proven alternative energy including coal-to-liquid
technology, and increase the use of nuclear power. The liberal House leadership is opposed to this legislation

Seattle Times 8
3/30/8. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004315533_coalpower30.html.

                            seldom has been seriously considered as an alternative energy
Despite its availability, however, coal
source because converting it to liquid is so expensive. But liquid coal is getting a fresh look as
crude-oil prices soar past $100 a barrel.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                         military coal aff

                                 2AC AT CMR DA – No Link
Dreazen 8
Yochi. 5/21/8. WSJ. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2008/Military-Synthetic-Fuel21may08.htm.

The Air Force launched its artificial-fuel initiative in the spring of 2006. Testifying before the Senate that
March, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told lawmakers that "we realize our reliance on
petroleum-based fuels must be curtailed." The Air Force gave a small team at its Wright-Patterson
base near Dayton, Ohio, the mission of finding a synthetic fuel capable of powering all of the
service's fighters, bombers and other planes.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                              military coal aff

                           2AC AT Railroads DA – No Crisis
Richmond Times Dispatch 8
―Rail congestion spreads; As trains clog the tracks, shipping costs are rising‖ Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia) 5/30. Lexis.

Some say the railroads are being alarmist. Kenneth Kremar, an analyst for the research firm
Global Insight, said talk of a looming crisis serves industry interests as rail companies jockey for
more money from Congress. He said investment in larger, high-tech train cars and computer
systems that better pace trains should help avert logjams. "It's illogical to assume nothing will
be done," he said. "Railroads have an inherent interest in doing something. The market will
respond." The railroads, in the 1960s and 1970s, took out second and third tracks on many
routes, saying the excess capacity was damaging their bottom line. Now the Chamber says expanding
capacity on the more than 150-year-old U.S. rail system would cost $148 billion over 30 years. Proposals include building overpasses to keep
trains moving at junctions. Elsewhere, single-line tracks could be expanded or restored to double or triple track.

BNSF Railway Company 7
AAR: Railroad Capacity Focus of Record Investment 4/16/7. http://www.bnsf.com/employees/communications/bnsf_today/2007/04/2007-

In order to meet increased demand and better serve their customers, the nation's freight railroads will invest more money this year to
maintain and improve track and equipment than ever before in history, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) was told Wednesday, April
11, during the STB's Hearing on Rail Capacity and Infrastructure Requirements. Matt Rose, chairman, president and CEO, told the STB,
"Railroads  play an essential role in the commerce of our nation, and will have to play an
even larger role in the future, if we are to successfully handle growth in transportation
demand while addressing other issues such as highway congestion and passenger mobility.
Through our regulatory structure and policies, we need to support the addition of capacity
to our national rail network." Edward R. Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads
(AAR), stated that the nation's major freight railroads invested billions of dollars last year. "Railroads invested a record
$8.6 billion in 2006 and will break that record in 2007 with a $9.4 billion investment," Hamberger said
in a prepared statement that was submitted to the STB. Capital spending has risen almost 60 percent over just the last four years, he noted.
Rose also stated that BNSF has been able to invest in the capacity required to meet the
growth in demand from our customers and our nation's economy and that BNSF wants to be
able to continue that investment and to expand it even further. Hamberger cited dozens of
investments railroads are making this year to increase capacity and improve service for rail
customers. "The massive investments railroads must make in their systems are a reflection of the extreme capital intensity of railroads,"
he added. Railroads also have embraced new technology to increase capacity. "Freight railroads have always been at the forefront in the
use of computers and information technology," Hamberger said. "Today railroads are rapidly expanding their use of these technologies to
                                                                "It is in our nation's best interest to
improve overall efficiency and the fluidity of their operations, thereby adding capacity.
ensure that optimal freight railroad capacity enhancements are made," said Hamberger. "Two
ways that policy makers can make this happen are by taking greater advantage of public-
private partnerships for freight-rail infrastructure projects and by introducing tax incentives for
rail infrastructure projects that enhance capacity."

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

                            2AC AT Railroads DA – Link Turn
Platts Coal Outlook 7

                                  Railway and Union Pacific are seeing an uptick in demand for coal
As winter is fast approaching, BNSF
shipments out of the Powder River Basin, but executives from both railroads told investors that volumes for the year are likely to be flat
compared with 2006 because of reduced demand from utilities in prior months. "We think the demand for coal is
positive, but [the demand] has been sluggish this year to be quite frank, and that's due to
the weather, not the economy," said Tom Hund, BNSF executive vice president and CFO, told investors at Citi's
transportation conference in New York last week. "We started off having a slightly warmer-than-usual winter and didn't have the prolonged
                                             on average coal volumes should be going up three,
hot summer like we had in many other years. I would say
four, five percent." Hund said the railroad is seeing "continued interest in PRB coal" and added
that the railroad is also looking at more opportunities to raise prices on traffic as contracts with utilities
are coming up for renewal. "Long-term outlook for coal is positive and we do have pricing
opportunities because a lot of our contracts have yet to roll over," Hund said.

Dobbs and Haynes 1
Michael T. and Charles D., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ―The Effect of Railroad Tariffs on the Coal Mining Industry In
Alabama‖ December 5, 2001, http://utca.eng.ua.edu/projects/final_reports/00113-rpt.pdf

The negative changes in coal markets over the past few years have made the coal industry much more competitive. Every effort has been
made to reduce production cost, increase efficiency and lower total cost of the coal delivered to the consumer. A major factor in
                     Depending on the mode of transportation and the distance traveled,
delivered cost is transportation.
transportation cost can differ greatly from one location to the next. Railroads account for
over 60% percent of the total coal hauled to electric utilities in the U.S. Conversely, coal
accounts for roughly 30% of the total tonnage hauled by the railroads. Obviously, the survival
and success of these two industries are intertwined.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                           military coal aff

               2AC AT Railroads DA – Railroads Resilient
Platts Coal Outlook 6
Platts Coal Outlook, September 11 ‗06

                        US railroads reported coal car loadings up 8.5% over the similar week
For the week ending September 2,
in 2006, while cumulative shipments for the year to date were up 4.5% over the previous year.
In continuing its weekly report, the Association of American Railroads said coal loads rose to 145,953 for the week, compared to the
relatively light week of 134,482 in 2005. That 2005 light week could reflect the impact of Hurricane Katrina and possibly volatility from the
Labor Day holiday, said Edward M. Wolfe, analyst for Bear, Stearns. But peak shipping season is now under way. As for investment potential,
        "Our sense is that rail service remains similar to what we have seen over the past
Wolfe wrote,
year and yields are holding up exceptionally well. We believe railroad fundamentals remain firmly in place, with
materially lower valuations than four months ago." Cumulatively, railroads have shipped 4.9 million cars of coal this year, compared to 4.7
             Coal is by far the largest volume commodity shipped via rail, but coal is about
million loads in 2005.
57% of the carloads of intermodal shipments. The coke category, which includes both coke for steel making and
petroleum coke, continued its slide, down 20.3% for the week-over-week comparison. In the 2006 period, railroads shipped 4,726 carloads
compared to 5,930 in 2005's week. Cumulatively, shipments are down 6.6%, to 193,423 carloads from 207,187 loads in 2005.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                          military coal aff

                  2AC AT Economy DAs – Peak Oil Turn
Southern States Energy Board. Executive Summary of The American Energy Security Study,

A growing number of oil industry experts predict that world crude oil production will ―peak‖
by 2020, or sooner. As the ―peak‖ approaches, world supplies will begin failing to meet world
demand, and the shortfall will grow with time. This study forecasts that at oil peaking, oil prices would
immediately increase by about 150 percent, and continue to rise as the gap between
supply and demand widens. Many oil market specialists contend that if a peak occurs, oil prices could increase much more
than 150 percent. Clearly, if oil peaks and the U.S. is unprepared, the economic impact will be
catastrophic. Even without peaking, continuing tight markets represent risk.

Southern States Energy Board. Executive Summary of The American Energy Security Study,

                                 immediate implementation of ―crash‖ programs to ramp up
The American Energy Security Study shows that
production of domestic alternative liquid transportation fuels is the only way to insure against
peak oil. The potential economic costs and consequences of doing nothing in preparation
far exceed the costs of implementing crash programs. Our economic analysis demonstrates that even if
world oil production does not peak between now and 2030, implementing crash programs
will have a very positive impact on the economy by increasing economic activity, reducing
the trade deficit, and lowering prices for transportation fuels.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                         military coal aff

                           2AC AT Warming DA – Link Turn
Stein 8
Steve. Financial advisor. April/May 2008. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/17086446.html.

         security types still see coal as an important transportation fuel since electricity is the power for battery-operated cars
But energy
                                                                                 out that c02 emissions per mile
and electrified trolley and rail systems. And, with a nod to environmentalists, they point
are much lower from coal-generated electricity than from the conventional car ‘s gasoline-
generated horsepower. Climate greens concede that point, but quickly add that it would be better if the
electricity were generated from more environmentally friendly sources. And so it would, but near-term solutions are anything but obvious.
Natural gas is no real answer, either from the climate or the security aspect. The country has no abundant long-term supply, and would
increasingly have to import liquid natural gas, over fierce environmental and safety objections.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                    military coal aff

                            2AC AT Warming DA – No Link
Ward 7
John. VP of Headwaters Inc. 9/5/7. ―Liquid Fuel From Coal.‖ Congressional Testimony. Lexis.

Coal-to-liquids is not dirty. In fact, fuels produced by coal- to-liquids processes are exceptionally
clean when compared to today's petroleum-derived transportation fuels. Coal-to-liquids
fuels contain substantially no sulfur and also exhibit lower particulate and carbon monoxide
emissions. These fuels also contribute less to the formation of nitrogen oxides than petroleum
derived fuels and they are readily biodegradable. As for greenhouse gas emissions, coal-to-
liquids refineries generate carbon dioxide in highly concentrated form allowing carbon
capture and storage. Coal-to-liquids refineries with carbon dioxide capture and storage can
produce fuels with life-cycle greenhouse gas emission profiles that are as good as or better
than that of the petroleum-derived products they replace.

Southern States Energy Board. Executive Summary of The American Energy Security Study,

Increases in coal and oil shale mining will be accomplished responsibly. Contrary to common
belief, existing mining laws are very tough, strictly prohibiting pollution. In addition, remining of
previously abandoned mined areas and mine reforestation programs are having very
positive environmental results. The study encourages mining regulatory authorities and mining companies to advance
remining and reforestation programs. Experimental reforestation projects have demonstrated that tree
growth rates can be dramatically increased from normal rates experienced in nature by
preparing mined ground properly before planting. Young, fast growing trees capture greater volumes of CO2. The
new soil preparation techniques provide greater moisture collection for the trees, and reduce water runoff from mine sites. Expanding
programs that incorporate accelerated-tree growth into mine reclamation plans show great
promise for reestablishing forests, increasing property values of mined land, providing a dynamic new source of arbor fuel
crops and wood products resources, and capturing CO2. Reforestation is a natural form of CO2 capture and

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                military coal aff

                       2AC AT Oil Shale CP – AT Solvency
Udall and Andrews 5
Randy and Steve. ASPO-USA. 12/13/5. http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/12-13/oil-shale-article.htm.

                                shale is a very poor fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the
The primary explanation is that oil
Industrial Revolution or the oil that currently sustains Western Civilization, oil shale is a pathetic pretender—the dregs of the energy
cask. When it comes to energy, quality is everything. Quality can be measured in various
ways—cost, convenience, and cleanliness all matter—but energy density trumps them all. Coal seams a few feet thick
are worth mining—sometimes at depths exceeding 1,000 feet—because coal contains lots of energy. Dense forms of
energy like coal and crude oil invented prosperity; they are industrial oxygen. If coal is good, oil is better.
Petroleum contains 50% more energy than the best coal, twice that of the hardest oak. There's a lot of "grunt" in a gallon of gasoline—
                                                                                   per pound, oil shale
enough to propel a 3,000 pound car thirty miles. If crude oil is king, oil shale is a pauper. Pound
contains just one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal, and one-fourth that of
recycled phone books. Shale outcrops are common in Colorado, but in prehistoric times the Utes did not use oil shale for heat.
Why bother when you could gather pine or juniper instead? In poor countries, millions of people heat their homes with dried manure. Dung
cakes have four times more energy than does oil shale. Oil shale is a fossil fuel—but just barely. Oil shale is said to be "rich" when one ton of it
contains 30 gallons of petroleum—less than one barrel. Searching for appropriate low-calorie analogues, we must turn to foodstuffs, the
                                                                         The "vast," "immense,"
realm of Weight Watchers. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy than oil shale.
"unrivaled" deposits of oil shale buried in Utah and Colorado have the energy density of a
baked potato. If someone told you there were a trillion tons of tater tots buried 1,000 feet-
deep, would you rush to dig them up? Take a memo, Senator—oil shale has one-third the energy
density of Cap'n Crunch. But no one is counting on Kellogg to become a major energy
producer soon. No one is proposing drilling in the cereal aisle.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                             military coal aff

                     2AC AT Oil Shale CP – Warming Turn
National Resource Defense Council. June 2007. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf.

Producing oil from shale takes an enormous amount of energy and causes the emission of
higher amounts of global warming pollution than conventional oil development. The RAND
Corporation in 2005 found that the production of just 100,000 barrels of shale oil a day using Shell‘s proposed in-situ process would require
1,200 megawatts of power.108 Development              of this scale would call for construction of a power plant
as large as any in Colorado history, large enough to serve a city of 500,000 people. Such a plant would consume 5 million
tons of coal each year, requiring construction of new coal mines that would devastate wildlife habitat and create huge scars on the
                                  The power plant required for producing 100,000 barrels of shale
landscape (see chapter 4 for more details).
oil a day—a very small industry—would also emit 10 million tons of global warming
pollution.109 Oil shale boosters like to talk about producing 1 million barrels of shale oil a day,
which would require construction of 10 new power plants that could generate up to 121
million tons of CO2 per year. This would represent a 90 percent increase in the CO2 emitted
by all existing electric utility generating units in 2005 in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah
combined.110 Added to this horrific amount of global warming pollution is the CO2 that
would result from actually burning the produced shale oil.

American Chronicle 6
8/15/6. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/12494.

                             would be a greenhouse disaster! Greenhouse emissions from the
So, why shouldn't we use it? Simple—it
production of shale oil would be nearly four times higher than from normal oil. Scientists, such as
the CSIRO, have found that global greenhouse emissions need to be reduced by at least 70% if
we are going to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, such as coral bleaching on the
Great Barrier Reef.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                      military coal aff

                  2AC AT Oil Shale CP – Water Turn 1/2
National Resource Defense Council. June 2007. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf.

Water resources of the western United States are already stressed as never before, likely in part
due to increased demand from widespread population growth in western cities and reduced availability due to global warming. The
scarcity of water in the American West makes it a valuable resource, and oil shale
development threatens to cut into water availability even more. Each barrel of shale oil
produced using the mine-and-retort process will likely use from 2.1 to 5.2 barrels of water.111 In
1996, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) found that oil shale development would result in up to an 8.2
percent reduction in the annual flow of Colorado‘s White River where it meets the Green
River in northeastern Utah.

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                                                                                   military coal aff

                           2AC AT Oil Shale CP – Water Turn 2/2
The Economist 3
July 19, 2003 Irrigate and die

                                                                                  the story of water
PRIVATISATION and dams may arouse great passion, but mispricing of water has far more serious effects. In truth,
almost everywhere involves abuse, waste and even tragedy. Nor are things getting better:
indeed, much of the worst damage has been wrought in the past 100 years. Water resources
have been exploited with no heed either to sustainability or to the environmental
consequences. And water policy has suffered from a near-total disregard for the discipline
and tools of economics, especially pricing, trading and cost-benefit analysis. These failings
are best illustrated by looking at irrigation for farming, which has always consumed the lion's
share of available water. 
 Irrigation catastrophes have befallen civilisations since the dawn
of time. Archaeological evidence suggests that much of the Sahara was once a green and pleasant
land, until depletion of groundwater turned it into desert. The Maya civilisation in Mexico is
thought to have ended because of a sudden drought. In what is now Arizona, Hohokam
Indians developed a remarkably sophisticated irrigation system. But too much irrigation
waterlogs the ground, and when the water evaporates it leaves salts behind. Just such a
lethal salinisation seems to have overtaken the Hohokam, who died out suddenly in the early
15th century. Sandra Postel, author of "Pillar of Sand", a book about irrigation, maintains that,
with the single exception of Egypt, no civilisation based on irrigation has survived for long,
either because the water has run out, or because of silt, or because of salinisation.
 Yet it is modern
engineering that has made possible irrigation disasters on a massive scale. The saddest is the tale of the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth-biggest inland sea. In the 1950s Soviet planners,
following Stalin's 1929 dictum that "water which is allowed to enter the sea is wasted", diverted large parts of the two rivers that feed the Aral, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, to irrigate
cotton crops in the near-desert terrain of central Asia.
 The Aral soon started to dry up. Since 1960, it has shrunk by three-quarters in volume (see map, next page). Almost all the fish have
died out; a once-thriving fishing fleet that had supported several villages has disappeared. Moreover, rapidly rising salinity has killed many crops, and salt in the air has damaged local
people's health, increasing the incidence of cancers and respiratory diseases. All this for a few million tonnes of heavily subsidised cotton, produced at the insistence of a regime that
collapsed more than a decade ago. The Aral Sea may never recover, though its shrinkage seems to have slowed recently.
 Soviet central planners are not the only culprits. In Iraq,
Saddam Hussein notoriously drained the marshes of the lower Tigris and Euphrates, home of the Marsh Arabs and possibly the site of the original garden of Eden. But big water projects for
agriculture have had unforeseen malign consequences in rich countries too. The history of the American west, for example, is one of overexploitation of limited water resources, mainly for
the benefit of farmers, at huge cost to federal and state taxpayers and with severe environmental side-effects. Cowboys and Indians
 The classic account of water in the American west
is Marc Reisner's book "Cadillac Desert". When the west was settled in the late 19th century, much of it was desert or semi-desert. But instead of encouraging settlers to adapt to this
climate by, for instance, dry farming, the government decided to bring water to them. This involved building a series of gigantic dams, as well as putting in hand huge water-diversion
projects, fed by dams, or by siphoning water from the Colorado and other rivers, or by tapping groundwater. The Colorado's annual flow was "allocated" among the upstream and
downstream states in a 1922 compact. Not only did this account for all the water in the river, in line with the prevailing principle of not "wasting" water; because the numbers were based
on several unusually wet years, it allocated more water than is normally available.
 The biggest water projects of the 20th century were all in California. The most gigantic of them all is the
Central Valley Project, a vast system of dams, pipes and channels that supplies irrigation water to the farmers of the central valley at a tiny fraction of its cost. Together with the State
Water Project that ran alongside it, this made California's agriculture into one of the most productive in the world, the backbone of the state's economy. But it also entrenched lavish
subsidies and polluted the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta. The worst example is the leaching of selenium into Kesterson reservoir, where it has caused grotesque deformations in
 Next in scale was the diversion of Colorado river water to the Imperial valley irrigation district in southern California. The Imperial valley now uses a fifth of the Colorado's water
(some two-thirds of what California is entitled to take from the river), mainly to grow such thirsty crops as alfalfa, rice and cotton. Indeed, half of California's water is now used for crops

                                  Another staple of the American west is groundwater
that are better suited to a wet environment than to a semi-desert.

depletion. The dustbowl years of the 1930s drove many mid-western farmers off the land, but
the discovery of the Ogallala, a huge underground aquifer stretching from South Dakota to
west Texas, transformed agriculture's fortunes. Now, thanks to intensive pumping, the
Ogallala aquifer is being depleted at a rate eight times faster than it is being replenished. It
could run out before the end of this century. What will the mid-west do for water then?

SDI 2k8
burk/stone/walters lab                                                                     military coal aff

                2AC AT Free Market CP – No Solvency
Southern States Energy Board. Executive Summary of The American Energy Security Study,

Some argue that the free markets will provide solutions to our liquid fuels crisis. Unfortunately,
the oil markets are anything but free. They are controlled by a cartel of oil producing nations
(many unfriendly to the U.S.) and by the multinational oil companies. Both groups are making record profits under
current market conditions. Both have tremendous market and political influence, and are expected
to use this influence to prevent competitive alternative oil and liquid fuels production from
developing significant market share.


To top