SPS-neg

document.doc DDW 2011

1

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 1


1

***Global Warming 1NC Warming

1. Not enough energy is received from satellites to solve Paul Evans, staff writer, February 22, 2009. “Solar power beamed from space within a decade?” http://www.gizmag.com/solar-power-space-satellite/11064

February 23, 2009

The concept of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) has been doing the rounds for decades with fantastic claims of 24 hour a day solar power beamed from space via microwave to any point on earth. A start up company called Space Energy, Inc says it plans to develop SBSP satellites to generate and transmit electricity to receivers on the Earth's surface. To do this, the company plans to create and launch a prototype satellite into low earth orbit (LEO). The hitch: this concept is based on as yet unproven technology. SBSP was theorized over 40 years ago by renowned scientist Dr. Peter Glaser. Since then, in response to periodic energy crises, the idea has been re-evaluated from time to time by the U.S. Department of Energy, NASA, major aerospace companies and countries such as Japan and India. Solar power satellites are large arrays of photovoltaic panels assembled in orbit, which use microwave radio waves to transmit solar power to large receiving antennas on Earth. The resulting power can either supplement, or be a substitute for, conventional electricity sources. The advantage of placing solar collectors in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), about 36,000 kilometres (22,500 miles) above Earth, is that it uses the constant and unobstructed output of the Sun, unaffected by the Earth's day/night cycle.By contrast, ground-based solar power provides a vital and valuable addition to the Earth's energy needs, but is limited by these factors: Weather,Variable seasons, Atmospheric blocking of sunlight, Poor direct sunlight at higher and lower latitudes, Because none of these factors applies in outer-space, an orbiting SBSP station can supposedly provide an estimated 6-8 times more power than a comparable solar cell on the Earth's surface. Here’s where the entire concept falls flat. Space Energy, Inc claims that a successful long-range wireless power transmission test was conducted in mid-2008, that supposedly transmitted a microwave beam (similar to the kind that would be used to transmit energy from space to Earth) between two Hawaiian Islands across 148 kilometres - more than the distance from the surface of the Earth to the boundary of space. They claim this test demonstrated the technical feasibility of transmitting SBSP to Earth.Less than 1/1000th of 1% received Unfortunately for Space Energy, Inc and the entire concept of space based solar power, the actual test results conducted for a Discovery channel documentary proved a total failure. The former NASA executive and physicist who organized the experiment, John Mankins, admitted in a press conference that the $1 Million budget spent of the experiment resulted in less than 1/1000th of 1% of the power transmitted being received on the other island.

2. Shift to nuclear power solvesWilliam Tucker, journalist and author of four books about the environment, 3/3/08. The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979706/posts

The U.S. currently gets 50 percent of its electricity from coal and 20 percent from nuclear reactors. Reversing these percentages should become a goal of both global warming advocates and anyone who wants to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil (the latter since a clean, expanded electrical grid could anchor a fleet of hydrogen or electric cars). Contrary to what some critics charge, this would not require massive subsidies or direct intervention by the government. Indeed, the nuclear industry has gone through an astounding revival over the past decade. The entire fleet of 103 reactors is up and running 90 percent of the time. Reactors are making money hand-over-fist—so much so that the attorney general of Connecticut recently proposed a windfall profits tax on them! The industry is poised for new construction, with proposals for four new reactors submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and almost 30 waiting in the wings. The rest of the world is rapidly moving toward nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going ahead with their own nuclear programs, but selling their technology in the developing world. America, which once dominated this technology, is being left behind. The main culprit is public fear. Nuclear technology is regarded as an illegitimate child of the atomic bomb, a Faustian bargain, a blasphemous tinkering with nature. It is none of these. It is simply a natural outgrowth of our evolving understanding of the universe. The sun has been our prime source of energy throughout human history, but energy is also generated in the earth itself. It is time to avail ourselves of this clean, safe terrestrial energy.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 2


1

1NC Warming 2/43. Can’t solve—would take a thousand years and too many satellites Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, October 6. Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755

The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the atmosphere would clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual production rate of around 30 Gtonnes a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To remove a tonne of the gas over a year and split the carbon from the oxygen would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a removal and processing plant would remove 5 million tonnes a year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current production rate. Taking a scenario of the expanded reference system with around 200 SPS in place providing most of the world's energy needs without any carbon dioxide being produced there would still be a need to remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and dedicated to CO2 removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the current production rate. Such a system (doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be operational for a thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy dependence on energy from fossil fuels.

4. Plan can’t solve warming—too much CO2 has been releasedJonathan Gitlin, The Scripps Research Institute Society of Fellows Vice President, 1/27/09. “Study: too late to turn back the clock on climate change,” http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/01/study-too-late-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-climate-change.ars

This week's PNAS brings with it some bad news on the climate front: even if policy makers and the general public get on board with drastic CO2 emission cuts, it's already too late to prevent serious changes to the planet's climate, and those changed will be remarkably persistent. Those are the findings of a group of researchers from the US, Switzerland, and France. In their paper, they look at the effect of increasing CO2 over millennial time frames, and it's worrisome stuff. Currently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are around 385 ppm, a 35 percent increase over pre-industrial levels. The most optimistic scenarios arrive at a figure of 450 ppm as the best we might be able to achieve in the coming decades, but even at that level, changes in precipitation patterns, temperature increases, and a rise in sea level appear to be locked in for at least the next thousand years. The dynamics of the oceans are to blame. According to Susan Soloman, Senior Scientist at NOAA and lead author, "In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases." One of the most profound effects looks to be a severe decrease in rainfall that will affect the southeastern US, the Mediterranean, southern Asia, and swathes of subtropical Africa and South America. Sea levels are going to rise too. Without even accounting for melting ice sheets, the sheer thermal expansion of the Earth's oceans will be between 0.4-1m, and as with the temperature rise and the changes to rainfall, these effects look set to persist for at least until the year 3000.

5. Can’t solve—doesn’t spillover internationally Thomas Gale Moore, CATO Institute senior fellow, 3/25/98. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Warming http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Climate_of_Fear.pdf

Moreover, if steps are taken to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, whether justified or not, they should be taken worldwide. A pound of CO2 produced by backyard barbecues in Iowa has the same effect as a pound of CO2 emitted from cooking stoves in India. The greenhouse gas problem is an example par excellence of a global commons issue. If China exploits its mammoth coal reserves to provide needed electricity for its billion people over the next century, the actions of the United States can have only a small effect on any future warming. Even if society believes that warming will, on net, be harmful, restraining the emission of greenhouse gases by any one country or small group of countries makes sense only if most other nations follow suit. Should the United States impose taxes to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the benefit of doing so would be greater, the larger the number of other major nations joining in the restrictions. Free rider problems—that is, the temptation to leave the burden to others— may make international agreement to abate emissions difficult if not impossible. Unfortunately, the expectation that climate change would have a differential effect on various nations exacerbates the free rider problem. The Russians, for example, have indicated that they would probably do well in a warmer world. On the other hand, island nations and countries with extensive low-lying land, such as Bangladesh, fear that global warming would be devastating. Certain poor nations, such as China, for example, consider economic development more important than warding off possible climate change.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 3


1

1NC Warming 3/46. Warming benefits outweigh costs and policies to address warming kill the economyThomas Gale Moore, CATO Institute senior fellow, 3/25/ 98. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Warming http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Climate_of_Fear.pdf

As the reader will note, the subject of global climate change is far from simple. Not only must policymakers decide whether steps should be taken now to cut CO2 emissions; but, should the political powers deem that necessary, they must reach an accord on the mechanisms and policies required. Agreement will be neither straightforward nor easy to implement. Such policies would be extraordinarily expensive and would be likely to cause large-scale dislocations, unemployment, and economic stagnation. Fortunately, adopting such a program is unnecessary. For most people in the United States, Western Europe, Russia, and Japan, any climate change would probably be beneficial. A few poor countries that might suffer from rising sea levels or be unable to adjust their agriculture might suffer. If emissions controls are intended to protect those countries, it might be better to forgo the controls and target aid to promoting their economic development. However calculated, the cost of slowing warming exceeds by a substantial margin the benefits projected by even the most environmentally minded economists. Consequently the best strategy is to maintain the status quo, continue research on climate, and help poor countries improve their economies.

7. Warming tipping points inevitable – too lateNPR 9 (1/26, Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says, All Things Considered, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903)

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists."We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming."People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says.This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat — and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for many hundreds of years.Solomon is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her new study looked at the consequences of this long-term effect in terms of sea level rise and drought.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 4


1

1NC Warming 4/48. No warming and no impactTaylor 09 (James, Senior Fellow Env. Policy @ Heartland Institute, Naples Daily News, “Guest Commentary: Global warming”, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/jan/03/guest-commentary-global-warming/)

In a pair of recent columns claiming humans are causing a global-warming crisis, Ben Bova disparages mere “assertions” while saying people need to rely on “observable, measurable facts.” While Bova’s concern about Earth’s climate is admirable, he should follow his own advice regarding assertions versus facts. Bova asserts Earth has a “rising fever.” Yet the fact is that

global temperatures are unusually cool. For most of the past 10,000 years temperatures have been 1.0 to 3.0 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. The 0.6 degree rise in temperatures during the 20th century occurred from the baseline of the little ice age, which

saw the coldest global temperatures during the past 10,000 years. Earth has a “rising fever” only if we pretend the little ice age was “normal” and ignore Earth’s

long-term temperature facts. Bova asserts “the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is threatening the survival of polar bears.” Yet the fact is that polar bear numbers have doubled since the 1980s.

Moreover, Antarctic sea ice is growing and has been setting records for much of the past year. If “global” warming is causing receding polar ice, then why is Antarctic sea ice setting growth records? Bova asserts “measurements ... show that the rise in global temperatures matches quite closely the increase in carbon dioxide.” Yet the fact is that

solar scientists at Harvard and other leading universities have published research in the world’s leading scientific journals showing that temperatures match solar output much more closely than carbon dioxide, even in the 20th century. Bova asserts that as a result of global warming “much of our crop land turns to desert.” Yet, the fact is that

global precipitation and global soil moisture have increased during the 20th century, and the Sahara Desert and other deserts around the world are in retreat. Bova asserts we run the risk of a breaching a “tipping point” or a “greenhouse cliff where the global climate shifts too rapidly for us to protect ourselves from its drastic effects.” Yet, the fact is

that in a recent survey of more than 500 climate scientists from around the world, less than half agreed that “assuming climate change will occur, it will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation could result in devastation of some areas of the world.” Bova asserts that in California’s Yosemite National Park warmer temperatures are allowing mice and pine trees to live at higher altitudes than a century ago. Yet, the fact is that fossilized trees exist at altitudes above the current California tree line, showing that temperatures were significantly warmer 1,000 years ago than today. Plant and animal species are migrating to higher elevations only in comparison to the abnormally cold temperatures of the little ice age that ended just over a century ago. For most of the past 10,000 years, warmer temperatures enabled mice and trees to live at altitudes significantly higher than is possible today. Global-warming activism is long on unsubstantiated assertions and short on objective facts. Only by comparing today’s temperatures to the abnormal cold of the little ice are — and by completely ignoring the warmer temperatures that predominated during most of the past 10,000 years — can global-warming activists paint a

picture of a planet suffering a global warming crisis. Moreover, sound science has thrown cold water on each and every one of the alleged global-warming crises, such as endangered polar bears, melting ice caps, etc., alleged to result from global warming.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 5


1

Warming Good

Warming good for the economy—aff exaggerates harmsThomas Gale Moore, CATO Institute senior fellow, 3/25/98. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Warming http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Climate_of_Fear.pdf

As an economist, I will not attempt to judge the argument over the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate. The contention that more of those gases will lead to warming seems plausible, but the magnitude of the change appears uncertain. Every few years the major forecasts of warming over the next century have been revised downward. This book assumes that warming may occur over the next hundred years and will focus, consequently, on evaluating the effects of possible changes in climate and the costs of various strategies to slow any shifts in weather patterns. Although some Cassandras have projected rising greenhouse gas emissions for the next two or three hundred years to depict the dire consequences of scorching temperatures, this book will ignore such very, very long run potential apocalypses. We have no idea what the world will be like in a hundred years, much less two or three hundred. There is no sensible way to plan for such periods. Furthermore, history and research support the proposition that a warmer climate is beneficial. Past warm periods have seen dramatic improvements in civilization and human well-being. Fortunately, President Clinton is wrong: our modern industrial economy is less affected by weather than are societies heavily dependent on nature. Higher average temperatures can bring many benefits, including longer growing seasons, a healthier and longer-lived population, and reduced transportation and communication costs. Although not everyone will find a warmer climate in his or her interest, the evidence shows that most individuals, especially those living in higher latitudes, will experience a gain. Climate change will probably be small in tropical areas, so the population of equatorial regions will be largely unaffected.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 6


1

Warming not real

Aff authors are wrong—rely on biased and politicized studiesMike Hulme, University of East Anglia professor, November, 9. “UEA Climate Scientist: ‘possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course,” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/

The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find. This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. But in the Internet worlds of deliberation and in the ‘mood’ of public debate about the trustworthiness of climate science, the reverberations of this episode will live on long beyond COP15. Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public – and maybe that is no bad thing. But this episode might signify something more in the unfolding story of climate change. This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

Aff warming conspiracy—no credible reason warming is badChristopher Booker, ’09 founder of Private Eye, columnist for the Sunday Telegraph, and acclaimed author of The Real Global Warming Disaster (Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, 28 November 2009, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html)

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU. The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 7


1

Warming not anthropogenic

Global warming is not caused by humans, major scientists agree.James A. Peden, 1/17/09,(Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania) “The Great Global Warming Hoax?”, (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)

But then something unusual happened. On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists. So what's really causing the endless cycles of warming and cooling, if it isn't a constantly changing "Greenhouse Effect" - with man to blame? Man wasn't producing much CO2 in the past million years, so he hasn't simply been turning the greenhouse up and down at will. Just look up - one of the most likely culprits is our old friend, the Sun. Our satellites are pretty good at measuring overall ocean temperatures from afar, and CO2

measurements are being taken daily around the globe. The best results we have been able to turn up so far is that measurable CO2 increases appear about 9 months after an upswing in ocean temperatures. The data is messed up a bit every time a volcano decides to blow its top, because that's the mother of CO2 producers, bar none. And a buffalo emits about the same amount of methane (CH4) as driving your automobile about 8,000 miles - which can combine with O2 in a highly exothermic reaction ( gives off heat ) to produce CO2 and H2O as end products.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 8


1

***Leadership

1NC leadership

1. Other things prevent us being a leader – like launcher shortagesRobert J. Stevens, 2007, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 04/10/2007 (Lockheed Martin, 23rd National Space Symposium, The Next 50 Years of U.S. Space Leadership, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/speeches/Next50YearsOfUSSpaceLeadership.html)NASA Administrator Michael Griffin warned last month that if the next generation of human spacecraft is further delayed, and the four-year lag between the Space Shuttle and Orion grows, “we will be seen by many as ceding our national leadership in human spaceflight at a time when Russia and China have such capabilities and India is developing them.” As a businessman, I can’t imagine investing to develop a significant, sustainable, defining core competency and differentiating strategic advantage only to abandon the position. As a minimum, this could lead to a situation where other countries with space aspirations start looking for new partners.

2. AND – lack of talentRobert J. Stevens, 2007, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 04/10/2007 (Lockheed Martin, 23rd National Space Symposium, The Next 50 Years of U.S. Space Leadership, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/speeches/Next50YearsOfUSSpaceLeadership.html)Third, we need a sustained commitment to inspire and recruit our brightest minds. The space race inspired my generation to pursue careers in science and engineering. Yet, today, U.S. colleges and universities are only producing about 78,000 engineering undergraduates a year – and that figure hasn’t grown in a decade. This has created a serious challenge for companies like Lockheed Martin, where one in three of our current employees is over the age of 50 – and 47% of our workforce has earned the professional distinction of scientist or engineer. Even as the U.S. aerospace sector struggles to replenish our workforce, there is no doubt that China is racing ahead to build the technical wave of the future, with 50 percent of Chinese undergraduates getting degrees in natural science or engineering. Of equal concern, this is taking place at a time of intense competition for skilled technical employees. Today, the most innovative, ambitious young minds are being recruited by firms like Google – a firm that didn’t exist a decade ago, which FORTUNE magazine lists as the Best Company to Work For in America.

3. US hegemony is strong and isn’t going downBrian Carney, 3-5, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe and the co-author of "Freedom, Inc.”, March 5, 2011,(Wall Street Journal, Why America will stay on top, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576175881248268272.html)In his best-selling history of the 20th century, "Modern Times," British historian Paul Johnson describes "a significant turning-point in American history: the first time the Great Republic, the richest nation on earth, came up against the limits of its financial resources." Until the 1960s, he writes in a chapter titled "America's Suicide Attempt," "public finance was run in all essentials on conventional lines"—that is to say, with budgets more or less in balance outside of exceptional circumstances. "The big change in principle came under Kennedy," Mr. Johnson writes. "In the autumn of 1962 the Administration committed itself to a new and radical principle of creating budgetary deficits even when there was no economic emergency." Removing this constraint on government spending allowed Kennedy to introduce "a new concept of 'big government': the 'problem-eliminator.' Every area of human misery could be classified as a 'problem'; then the Federal government could be armed to 'eliminate' it." Twenty-eight years after "Modern Times" first appeared, Mr. Johnson is perhaps the most eminent living British historian, and big government as problem-eliminator is back with a vengeance—along with trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. I visited the 82-year-old Mr. Johnson in his West London home this week to ask him whether America has once again set off down the path to self-destruction. Is he worried about America's future? "Of course I worry about America," he says. "The whole world depends on America ultimately, particularly Britain. And also, I love America—a marvelous country. But in a sense I don't worry about America because I thi nk America has such huge strengths—particularly its freedom of thought and expression—that it's going to survive as a top nation for the foreseeable future. And therefore take care of the world." Pessimists, he points out, have been predicting America's decline "since the 18th century." But whenever things are looking bad, America "suddenly produces these wonderful things—like the tea party movement. That's cheered me up no end. Because it's done more for women in politics than anything else—all the feminists? Nuts! It's brought a lot of very clever and quite young women into mainstream politics and got them elected. A very good little movement, that. I like it." Then he deepens his voice for effect and adds: "And I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of her jib." The former governor of Alaska, he says, "is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against." Plus: "She's got courage. That's very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven't got guts, if you haven't got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage—and [Ronald] Reagan, come to think of it. Your last president had courage too—if you haven't got courage, all the other virtues are no good at all. It's the central virtue."

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 9


1

1NC Leadership 2/24. US leadership doesn’t solve war.Conry ’97 (Barbara, Foreign Policy Analyst – Cato, Policy Analysis No. 267, 2-5, “U.S. ‘Global Leadership’: A Euphemism for World Policeman,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-267.html)

Other proponents of U.S. political and military leadership do not point to particular benefits; instead, they warn of near-certain disaster if the United States relinquishes its leadership role. Christopher paints a bleak picture: Just consider what the world would be like without American leadership in the last two years alone. We would have four nuclear states in the former Soviet Union, instead of one, with Russian missiles still targeted at our homes. We would have a full-throttled nuclear program in North Korea; no GATT agreement and no NAFTA; brutal dictators still terrorizing Haiti; very likely, Iraqi troops back in Kuwait; and an unresolved Mexican economic crisis, which would threaten stability at our border. [55] Gingrich has pronounced a future without American leadership "a big mess." [56]And former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher has warned, What we are possibly looking at in 2095 [absent U.S. leadership] is an unstable world in which there are more than half a dozen "great powers," each with its own clients, all vulnerable if they stand alone, all capable of increasing their power and influence if they form the right kind of alliance, and all engaged willy-nilly in perpetual diplomatic maneuvers to ensure that their relative positions improve rather than deteriorate. In other words, 2095 might look like 1914 played on a somewhat larger stage. [57] In other words, if America abdicates its role as world leader, we are condemned to repeat the biggest mistakes of the 20th century--or perhaps do something even worse. Such thinking is seriously flawed, however. First, to assert that U.S. leadership can stave off otherwise inevitable global chaos vastly overestimates the power of any single country to influence world events. The United States is powerful, but it still can claim only 5 percent of the world's population and 20 percent of world economic output. Moreover, regardless of the resources Americans might be willing to devote to leading the world, today's problems often do not lend themselves well to external solutions. As Maynes has pointed out, Today, the greatest fear of most states is not external aggression but internal disorder. The United States can do little about the latter, whereas it

used to be able to do a great deal about the former. In other words, the coinage of U.S. power in the world has been devalued by the change in the international agenda. [58] Indeed, many of the foreign policy problems that have confounded Washington since the demise of the Soviet Union are the kinds of

problems that are likely to trouble the world well into the next century. "Failed states," such as Somalia, may not be uncommon. But, as the ill-fated U.S. and UN operations in that country showed, there is very little that outside powers can do about such problems. External powers usually lack the means to prevent or end civil wars, such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, unless they are willing to make a

tremendous effort to do so. Yet those types of internecine conflicts are likely to be one of the primary sources of international disorder for the foreseeable future. Despite the doomsayers who prophesy global chaos in the absence of U.S. leadership, however, Washington's limited ability to dampen such conflicts is not cause for panic. Instability is a normal feature of an international system of sovereign states, which the United States can tolerate and has

tolerated for more than two centuries. If vital American interests are not at stake, instability itself becomes a serious problem only if the United States blunders into it, as it did in Somalia and Bosnia. [59]

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 10


1

Space leadership not key

US Fed fails and getting SPS first doesn’t mean anythingJerry Taylor, Diraector of National Resource studies at the Cato Institute, 5/16/95, “Restructuring the Department of Energy”, Cato Instutute, http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct4-16-5.html

First, many of the imperfections noted by DOE in the private sector apply as much if not more so to federal R&D. Long term government projects are difficult to sustain politically given the short time horizons of legislators forced to face constant elections and thus quick results. Government finds that doing even simple thinks like growing crops and delivering mail a constant challenge. It's record at accomplishing complex tasks is even more spotty, as the record of NASA, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and various large-scale projects like the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and the Superconducting Supercollider can attest. Federal employees and contractors are scarcely the indentured servants DOE implies are necessary to make a market run efficiently. Governmental undertakings are also plagued by duplication, fragmentation, contradictory efforts, and lack of coordination to say the least. And finally, the technological "breakthroughs" achieved in any single nation are quickly spread throughout the globe just as those breakthroughs can quickly be spread from one corporate competitor to another. "Beating" the Japanese to new solar technology applications, for example, would mean little when Japanese industry has demonstrated time and again its ability to be first in bringing to market technological breakthroughs achieved elsewhere.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 11


1

Aerospace Strong Now

U.S. aerospace industry strong nowInternational Trade Administration, U.S. competitive industry advocate group, 6/21/11, “Aerospace Industry is Critical Contributor to U.S. Economy According to Obama Trade Official at Paris Air Show” http://trade.gov/press/press-releases/2011/aerospace-industry-critical-contributor-to-us-economy-062111.asp

“The U.S. aerospace industry is a strategic contributor to the economy, national security, and technological innovation of the United States,” Sánchez said. “The industry is key to achieving the President’s goals of doubling exports by the end of 2014 and contributed $78 billion in export sales to the U.S. economy in 2010.” During the U.S. Pavilion opening remarks, Sánchez noted that the aerospace sector in the United States supports more jobs through exports than any other industry. Sánchez witnessed a signing ceremony between Boeing and Aeroflot, Russia’s state-owned airline. Aeroflot has ordered eight 777s valued at $2.1 billion, and the sales will support approximately 14,000 jobs. “The 218 American companies represented in the U.S. International Pavilion demonstrate the innovation and hard work that make us leaders in this sector,” said Sánchez. “I am particularly pleased to see the incredible accomplishments of U.S. companies participating in the Alternative Aviation Fuels Showcase, which demonstrates our leadership in this important sector and shows that we are on the right path to achieving the clean energy future envisioned by President Obama.” The 2011 Paris Air Show is the world’s largest aerospace trade exhibition, and features 2,000 exhibitors, 340,000 visitors, and 200 international delegations. The U.S. aerospace industry ranks among the most competitive in the world, boasting a positive trade balance of $44.1 billion – the largest trade surplus of any U.S. manufacturing industry. It directly sustains about 430,000 jobs, and indirectly supports more than 700,000 additional jobs. Ninety-one percent of U.S. exporters of aerospace products are small and medium-sized firms.

US aerospace is the strongest industry in American and is growingSelect USA, a Federal Program designed to support US industry, 2011 “The U.S. Aerospace Industry” http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/aerospace-industry-united-states

The U.S. aerospace industry is the largest in the world and the industry continued to show reasonable strength in 2010 despite the lingering effects of the global economic downturn. In 2010 the U.S. aerospace industry contributed $85 billion in export sales to the U.S. economy. The industry’s positive trade balance of $44.1 billion is the largest trade surplus of any manufacturing industry and came from exporting 42 percent of all aerospace production and 72 percent of civil aircraft and component production. Foreign firms are attracted to the U.S. aerospace market because it is the largest in the world and has a skilled and hospitable workforce, extensive distribution systems, diverse offerings, and strong support at the local and national level for policy and promotion. According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce, aerospace supports more jobs through exports than any other industry. The U.S. aerospace industry directly employs about 500,000 workers in scientific and technical jobs across the nation and supports more than 700,000 jobs in related fields. Investment in the U.S. aerospace industry is facilitated by a large pool of well trained machinists, aerospace engineers, and other highly-skilled workers with experience in the aerospace industry. Industry estimates indicate that the annual increase in the number of large commercial airplanes over the next 20 years will be 3.2 percent per year for a total of 30,900 valued at $3.6 trillion. Applying a 3.3% annual growth rate over the next five years with 2010 exports as a base ($85B), 2015 aerospace exports are estimated at $99.98B, a 17.6 percent increase over 2010 exports.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 12


1

***Econ Frontline

1. Aviation is responsible for a number of emissions that add to the growth of climate change David Lee , Dalton Research Institute at Manchester Metropolitan University, NOAA Earth Systems Laboratory, 4/8/09, “Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century”, http://www.tiaca.org/images/tiaca/PDF/IndustryAffairs/2009%20IPCC%20authors%20update.pdf /Ghosh]

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, research was initiated into the effects of nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx 1⁄4 NO þ NO2) on the formation of tropospheric O3 (a greenhouse gas) and to a lesser extent, contrails, from the current subsonic fleet. The EU AERONOX and the US SASS projects (Schumann, 1997; Friedl et al., 1997) and a variety of other research programmes identified a number of emissions and effects from aviation, other than those from CO2, which might influence climate, including the emission of particles and the effects of contrails and other aviation-induced cloudiness (AIC, hereafter). In assessing the potential of anthropogenic activities to affect climate, aviation stands out as a unique sector since the largest fraction of its emissions are injected at aircraft cruise altitudes of 8–12 km. At these altitudes, the emissions have increased effectiveness to cause chemical and aerosol effects relevant to climate forcing (e.g., cloud formation and O3 production).

2. Aerospace growing & follows the overall economy – not the other way aroundAMD, Aerospace Manufacturing & Design Magazine, FEBRUARY 2011, “Positive predictions for 2011”, http://www.onlineamd.com/amd-0211-positive-predictions-2011.aspx

What is ahead for the aerospace industry in 2011 and beyond? How can small and medium sized firms plan in today’s narrow field of new weapon systems, a global economy in transition, and an ever changing challenge of new and advanced science and technology? The best way to plan is to trust your instruments, or the aerospace indicators. Based on today’s data, the gauges and instruments are clear that 2011 will be a year of growth.According to the “Aerospace Economic Report and Outlook 2010,” recently published by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Barr et. al.), major OEMs and primes like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, EADS, and others forecast the near and long term future of aerospace manufacturing on the growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The underlying principal is that the economy changes first, either up or

down, and then the industry simply follows suit. Tracking the GDP, one clearly sees the trend of the economy.

3. Economic collapse does not cause war—their historical arguments are wrongFERGUSON 2006 (Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 13


1

Alt Cause

ITAR blocks U.S. space competitiveness and SSP developmentNSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found in order to successfully address major world problems in energy, environmental and national security, the U.S. needs to identify and then reduce or eliminate all unnecessary barriers to effective international cooperation on, and private industry investment in, the development of SBSP. Regardless of the form of international cooperation, Space ‐ Based Solar Power will require modification or special treatment under International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). • Partnerships between U.S. and foreign corporations are often much easier to create and implement than government to government level partnerships, and more effective when the purpose is fostering economically affordable goods and services. • Application of the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) may constitute a major barrier to effective partnerships in SBSP and negatively impact national security. Right now ITAR greatly restricts and complicates all space ‐ related business, as it treats all launch and satellite technologies as arms. This has had the effect of causing America’s competitors to develop ITAR ‐ free products, and had a negative impact on our domestic space industries, which can no longer compete on level ground. Many participants in the feasibility study were very vocal that including satellite and launch technology in ITAR has had a counterproductive and detrimental effect on the U.S.’s national security and competitiveness—losing control and market share, and closing our eyes and ears to the innovations of the competition while selling ourselves on a national illusion of unassailable space superiority. Effective collaboration, even with allies on something of this level, could not take place effectively without some special consideration or modification.

U.S. export controls block aerospace competitivenessWalker et al, 2 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November, http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf)

Restrictive Export Controls. One of the primary obstacles to the health and competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry is our own export control regime. Export controls have been and should be an important component of America’s national security. We believe, however, current export controls are increasingly counterproductive to our national security interests in their current form and under current practices of implementation. In our judgment, export control reform is crucial to provide better security in the future and to insure the health and vitality of our aerospace industry. More importantly, U.S. export controls are undermining one of the central goals of military planning during the past 30 years—alliance interoperability. We actively try to get allies to buy American military equipment to improve our ability to fight as an alliance, yet we bog down that process through nettlesome export controls. For example, during the Kosovo air war, allies were petitioning the DoD to intercede with the State Department to expedite license approval of weapon systems needed to arm combat aircraft flying side-by-side with American pilots. Export controls are undermining the collaboration between companies in alliance countries on new system developments. Foreign companies have actually instructed design engineers to avoid American components because of the difficulty of acquiring license approval from the United States government. The current approach to export controls is increasingly isolating the American aerospace industry from the commercial sector in an unproductive cocoon of regulation. The defense industrial base is falling farther and farther behind the commercial market place because it has to cope with excessive regulation.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 14


1

***OIL DEPENDENCE

1NC OIL DEPENDENCE

1. Solar energy will fail- cant meet global demandMcIntyre 09 (Douglas A. McIntyre CEO of Future Source “The Failures of Alternative Energy” August 14th, 2009 http://247wallst.com/2009/08/14/the-failures-of-alternative-energy/)Solar energy is also in the midst of a painful transformation from being the poster child for alternative energy to one in which a number of companies have folded and many others are in deep trouble. Large solar power firm LDK Solar (LDK) posted poor quarterly results and its stock lost almost one-fifth of its value in a day. The recession has cut investment in alternative energy and there is still only limited proof that solar technology can be deployed broadly enough to be a substantial, global new source of energy. One or both of these issues has decreased demand enough so that there is an oversupply of unsold solar panels. Solar energy companies are being squeezed by both falling sales and worsening gross margins.

2. The U.S Military is currently decreasing their dependency on fossil fuelsNY Times 10’ (“U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels” October 4, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html)

With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys that lumber across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels. Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment. The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone,

where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment. Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 15

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html


1

1NC Oil Dependence 2/53. No impact---no chance we would let a hostile rival rise up AND loss of readiness from energy costs can be addressed by latent power Wohlforth, Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, 2007William, Harvard International Review, “The Rules of Power Analysis,” Vol. 29, Spring, http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1611&p=3, accessed 6/27 TR)

Rule No. 4: Consider Latent PowerUS 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 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 the US 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 support.

With latent power in the picture, it becomes clear that unipolarity might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts realize. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might be thwarted by the counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. For example, China’s rise might push India and Japan closer to the United States—indeed, this has already happened to some extent. There is also the strong possibility that a peer rival that comes to be seen as a threat would create strong incentives for the United States to end its self-inflicted overstretch and tap potentially large wellsprings of latent power.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 16


1

1NC Oil Dependence 3/5

4. No internal link—US Military already adopting green tech for military

Zavis, Writer for Los Angeles Times, 2009 (Alexandra Zavis, April 2009, LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/26/local/me-army-green26, June 28, 2011)

Inside a futuristic-looking dome that rises from the sandy wasteland of the high Mojave Desert, soldiers in plywood cubicles work at computers powered by solar panels and a towering wind turbine. Plug-in cars shuttle the troops across the vast expanses here at Ft. Irwin in San Bernardino County. At night, tents lined with insulating foam provide a cool retreat at the end of a 100-degree day. The desert base, which houses the Army's premier training center for troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, has become a testing ground and showcase for green initiatives that officials estimate could save the services millions, trim their heavy environmental "boot-print" and even save lives in the war zones, where fuel convoys are frequent targets. The Department of Defense is the single largest energy consumer in the United States. Last year it bought nearly 4 billion gallons of jet fuel, 220 million gallons of diesel and 73 million gallons of gasoline, said Brian Lally, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment. American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are using more fuel each day than in any other war in U.S. history. When oil prices spiked last summer, the Defense Department's energy tab shot up from about $13 billion per year in 2006 and 2007 to $20 billion in 2008. The Army alone had to make up a half- billion-dollar shortfall in its energy budget, said Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment. "That was, I think, a grand wake-up call that we somehow had to get a handle on what is loosely called energy security," Eastin said. Defense officials now consider reducing consumption and embracing energy alternatives to be national security imperatives. At Ft. Irwin, commanders are experimenting with ways to power the desert training area -- which replicates austere combat conditions -- using wind, solar and organic waste-to-fuel technologies. When Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard took command of Ft. Irwin in 2007, he was stunned by the cost of housing troops in tents powered by generators, as they often are in Iraq and Afghanistan. A brigade of about 4,000 to 5,000 troops was spending about $3 million to rent the tents and keep the air conditioners humming during a month-long rotation, Pittard said. By building tents covered with two to three inches of insulating foam and a solar- reflective coating, they reduced the generator requirements by 45% to 75%, a technique that is now being used at some larger bases in the war zones. Estimates are that a $22-million investment to replace all the rented tents at Ft. Irwin with insulated, semi-permanent ones would pay for itself within nine months and could save the Army $100 million over five years, said Eric Gardner, a logistics management specialist at the base. By reducing generator use, Ft. Irwin also expects to cut carbon emissions by 35 million pounds each year -- equivalent to taking 3,500 vehicles off the road, Gardner said. This year, for the first time, the facility did not need a waiver allowing it to exceed the state of California's emissions standards in the training area, Pittard said. Some kinks still have to be worked out as the base increases its use of alternative energy. Although there is plenty of sunshine in the desert to keep solar systems running through the day, the military needs ways to store that energy for nighttime use. And although there is plenty of wind, the Air Force has expressed concern that turbines could interfere with its radar systems. Even so, Pittard, who left Ft. Irwin in March to become deputy chief of staff of the Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters at Ft. Monroe in Virginia, is convinced that within five years it will be possible to take Ft. Irwin off the electric grid. The nearby Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, also in the Mojave Desert, already is powered completely by geothermal energy generated by hot water below the surface. Producers and advocates of green technology are taking note. The Defense Department derives 9.8% of its power from alternative sources and is looking to expand use of wind, solar, thermal and nuclear energy. Some believe that the military has the potential to become a catalyst, helping to turn more expensive power sources into financially viable alternatives to coal and petroleum. "If the military were to go green, I think that this really could achieve some environmental goals, for a very simple reason: the military is so big," said Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at the UCLA Institute of the Environment. Although that remains to be seen, Kahn noted that it would not be the first time the military has had a transforming effect on technology. Cellphones, the Global Positioning System and the Internet all have roots in the military. Some in the green energy sector hope that as the military adopts alternative power sources, the technology will gain broader acceptance among political conservatives.

5. No peak—empirics Michael Lynch (Asian Energy and Security at the Center for International Studies at MIT former director), 8/24/09. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html

When the large supply disruptions of 1973 and 1979 led to skyrocketing prices, nearly all oil experts said the underlying cause was resource scarcity and that prices would go ever higher in the future. The oil companies diversified their investments — Mobil even started buying up department stores! — and President Jimmy Carter pushed for the development of synthetic fuels like shale oil, arguing that markets were too myopic to realize the imminent need for substitutes. All sorts of policy wonks, energy consultants and Nobel-prize-winning economists jumped on the bandwagon to explain that prices would only go up — even though they had never done so historically. Prices instead proceeded to slide for two decades, rather as the tide ignored King Canute.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 17


1


6. No shift to SPS—not sustainable or permanent Donald Simanek (Lock Haven University professor), 98. “The Hazards of Solar Energy,” 1998, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm

These scientists, and the big corporations that employ them, stand to profit greatly from construction of solar-power stations. No wonder they try to hide the dangers of the technology and suppress any open discussion of them . Proponents of solar energy present facts, figures and graphs to support their claim that energy from the sun will be less expensive, as conventional fuel supplies dwindle and technology of solar energy systems improves. But even if this is so, what will stop the solar energy equipment manufacturers and solar power companies from raising prices when they achieve a monopoly and other fuel sources disappear? Of course every technology has risks. We might be willing to tolerate some small risk—if solar energy really represented a permanent solution to our energy problems. But that is not the case. At best, solar energy is only a temporary band-aid. Recent calculations indicate that the "Sun Will Go Out in a Billion Years As Its Fuel Runs Out" (Source: newspaper headline) As that calculation was made a year ago, we now have only nine-hundred ninety-nine million, nine-hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-nine years left during which we could use solar energy. Wouldn't it be better to put our human resources and scientific brains to work to find a safer and more permanent solution to our energy needs?

7. Human creativity solves scarcity—unknown reserves exist Donald Boudreaux (George Mason University Professor of Economics), 2/24/10. http://www.pittsburghlive. com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_668583.html

Eventually we'll run out -- or so says conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom, however, often is handicapped by a poor grasp of economics. And among the important lessons of economics is that the supply of resources is less a matter of physics than of, well, economics. First, no mineral, no plant, no geographical location, no anything becomes a resource unless and until human creativity and ingenuity figure out how to put that thing to use in a manner that satisfies human wants. Petroleum was no resource to our ancestors who had yet to grasp the fact that it can be refined and burned in ways that improve the quality of life. In fact, I suspect that whenever that gooey, noxious black stuff appeared in freshwater creeks in pre-Columbian Pennsylvania, natives of that region regarded it as a nuisance. So economically, the Earth's supply of nonrenewable energy resources was, back then, much smaller than it is today. Human creativity and effort turned a nuisance into a resource. Human creativity and effort also are at work finding not only substitutes for oil, but also new supplies of oil. Each success on this front increases the supply of oil. The reason is that oil deposits that remain unknown are economically nonexistent. The same is true of oil deposits that are known to exist but are currently too costly to tap. Oil in the Earth's crust that is out of reach with existing technology is no more of a resource today than is oil on Pluto. But if and when human creativity discovers cost-effective techniques for extracting that oil, it then -- and only then -- becomes a resource. In effect, more of the resource "oil" is created.

8. Finite oil theory is wrong—the supply is infiniteLarry Kudlow (Lawrence Kudlow and Co. CEO), 7/11/08. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/164404 /mccain-exactly-wrong-energy/larry-kudlow

When asked about gas prices at the pump, and whether they could go any lower, Sen. McCain said he didn’t think so because “You’ve got a finite supply, basically, and a cartel controlling it.” This is exactly wrong. There is no finite supply, or if there is we are 100 years away from it. I don’t know who has put this thought into the senator’s mind, but it is a bad thought in terms of energy and a bad thought in terms of the politics of this campaign. Look, we have the Bakken fields, the outer continental shelf and all the offshore drilling opportunities, ANWR, and so forth. There’s probably over a trillion barrels worth of reserves out there. And Republicans in the Senate are trying to move a deregulated drilling bill through the process. McCain should be backing this and talking about it.

9. Oil Dependency does not cause warAonorat (former United States Navy Captain), 11. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/energy-dependence-oil-war-conflict-_n_845153.html

Fuel does not cause war and conflict....People Do! especially those whose greed surrounding the energy we use. There have been cars designed to run on a variety of fuels....but those whose financial interests are in the current energy source lobby against alternativ es that would definately reduce the potential for demand that creates tension ...it is that tension that keeps their bank accounts bulging.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 18

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/energy-dependence-oil-war-conflict-_n_845153.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/energy-dependence-oil-war-conflict-_n_845153.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm


1

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 19


1


10. Scarce Resources don’t cause war—cooperation, international treaties, empirically denied David Brooks (Senior Advisor in the International Development Research Centre) and Jamie Linton (water issues freelance writer), July 2K. Globe and Mail “Drinking (Water) With Your Enemy”, http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/18677/1/116118.pdf

As Israelis and Palestinians approach final status talks, water is high on the agenda. As Israelis and Syrians jockey for negotiating room the waters of the Golan and of the Sea of Galilee are points of contention. Yet, tough as these issues are, there is little danger that inter-state conflict will erupt over water. Even in the Middle East, where water is scarcer than anywhere else in the world, water has served as a greater cause for cooperation than for conflict. Cooperation not conflict The notion of cooperation over international water resources will strike most readers as anomalous. Have we not all heard that "the wars of the 21 st century will be about water," as World Bank vice president Ismail Serageldin stated a few years ago. Or that water was the only conceivable reason for Jordan to go to war with Israel, as the late King Hussein is alleged to have said. There is, however, very little evidence that disputes over water have led or are about to lead to international conflict. (Nor has anyone been able to document King Hussein's remarks about going to war with Israel over water.) Though some have asserted that Arab-Israeli warfare has been motivated in part by the desire to assert control over water resources, historical evidence shows that water was not a factor in strategic planning by either side during the hostilities of 1948, 1967, 1978, or 1982. Water problems If water wars are unlikely, does this mean that we need not be concerned about conflict over water? Not at all. Worldwide water use went up more than six fold in the 20th century and it continues to grow twice as fast as the increase in population. Problems associated with water scarcity and control over water resources are all too common. Ho wever, they are much more likely to occur within countries — such as the competition for water between urban dwellers seeking drinking water and farmers seeking water for irrigation — than between countries. The violence that erupted earlier this year in Cochabamba, Bolivia, following tariff increases for municipal water illustrates the kind of water conflict that we can expect to see. (see Globe and Mail, May 9 and 18, 2000) Experience shows that the presence of water on an international border is more likely to provide a catalyst for cooperation than conflict between the countries that depend on it. Researchers at the University of Oregon have compiled a Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. In examining the cases generally considered to be examples of international water conflict, they have arrived at a surprising conclusion: Instead of fighting, countries that share water resources tend to maintain dialogue and negotiation leading to treaties for joint management of water . Jordan River The Jordan River forms much of the boundary between Israel and Jordan and is one of the world's most hotly contested waterways. Even while these two countries were legally at war, they maintained informal contacts on managing the river. As a result, when the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed in 1994, it was possible to include a well-developed annex devoted "to achieving a comprehensive and lasting settlement of all the water problems between [Israel and Jordan]." What has been true for surface water on an international border also seems to be true for aquifers underlying a border. Prior to the signing of their historic agreement in 1993, Israeli and Palestinian academics and officials began holding discussions on joint management of the Mountain Aquifer, an extremely important source of groundwater underlying both Israel and the West Bank. The success of these discussions has helped forge a climate within which the broader peace process can take place. India-Pakistan collaboration Examples of collaboration over water are not restricted to the Middle East. Despite three wars and numerous skirmishes since 1948, India and Pakistan have managed to negotiate and implement a complex treaty on sharing the waters of the Indus River system. During periods of hostility, neither side has targeted the water facilities of the other nor attempted to disrupt the negotiated arrangements for water management. In Africa too, where eleven countries share the basin of the Nile, cooperation over water is more evident than conflict. "Perhaps the weight of history lies too heavy in the silt of the Nile valley," writes historian Robert Collins, "but man will always need water; and in the end this may drive him to drink with his enemies." Closer to home, the International Joint Commission, which manages waters shared by Canada and the United States, is considered such a model of success that it is being emulated by other nations. Minor skirmishes Approximately 40% of the world's population lives in the 264 river basins shared by more than one country. Put another way, almost half the world's land area is found in international water basins. And yet there have been only seven minor skirmishes over international waters in modern history, and even these involved factors in addition to water. Meanwhile, hundreds of international treaties have been negotiated to deal with water management, about 150 in the past century alone. There is no doubt that humanity faces a worldwide water crisis. Growing demand for drinking water and the much higher demand for irrigation water are placing enormous pressures on available fresh water supplies. At the same time, increasing pollution is reducing the usefulness of available water. The threats that these conditions pose for the poor and for the environment can not be overstated. Nevertheless, it is far more useful to consider the role of water in promoting cooperation rather than conflict, particularly in international relations. As the opening quote suggests, those who are inclined to belligerence may look to water as a reason for fighting. But for most of us, water's greatest value may be the way it brings people together.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 20


1

SPS Can’t Meet Demand

No solvency--SPS unable to provide enough energy to meet demand Lifsher, LA Times staff writer, 9(Marc Lifsher, LA Times, 5/17/9, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17/business/fi-space-solar17, 6/22/11)

Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical. California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.

Renewable energy can’t meet present and future demandsTrainer 07 (Ted Trainer organizer of "The Simpler Way: Analyses of global problems and the sustainable alternative society" Senior Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales “Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer society” Springer Google Books)

It is widely assumed that our consumer society can move from using fossil fuels to using renewable energy sources while maintaining the high levels of energy use to which we have become accustomed. This book details the reasons why this almost unquestioned assumption is seriously mistaken.Chapters on wind, photovoltaic and solar thermal sources argue that these are not able to meet present electricity demands, let alone future demands. Even more impossible will be meeting the demand for liquid fuel. The planet's capacity to produce biomass is far below what would be required. Chapter 6 explains why it is not likely that there will ever be a hydrogen economy, in view of the difficulties in generating sufficient hydrogen and especially considering the losses and inefficiencies in distributing it. Chapter 9 explains why nuclear energy is not the answer.The discussion is then extended beyond energy to deal with the ways in which our consumer society is grossly unsustainable and unjust. Its fundamental twin commitments to affluent living standards and economic growth have inevitably generated a range of alarming and accelerating global problems. These can only be solved by a transition to The Simpler Way, a society based more on simpler, self-sufficient and cooperative ways, within a zero-growth economy. The role renewable energy might play in enabling such a society is outlined.

Even in combination, renewable energy sources cannot sustain society’s demands. Trainer 07 (Ted Trainer organizer of "The Simpler Way: Analyses of global problems and the sustainable alternative society" Senior Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales “Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer society” Springer Google Books)

It is commonly assumed that greenhouse gas and energy problems can be solved by switching from fossil fuel sources of energy to renewables. However little attention has been given to exploring the limits to renewable energy. The main problems are to do with the magnitude of the supply tasks that would be set and the difficulties that would be encountered integrating large amounts of intermittent renewable energy into supply systems. [I] argue that wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal and biomass sources, along with nuclear energy and geo-sequestration of carbon could not be combined to provide sufficient energy to sustain affluent societies while keeping greenhouse gas emissions below safe levels. The case is strongest with respect to liquid fuels and transport. [There are also strong] reasons why a “hydrogen economy” is not likely to be achieved.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 21


1

A2: Dependency

No oil collapse and American fears make their impact inevitable-their cards are based on scant evidence

Gholz and Press 7 (Eugene, Associate Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UTexas, Daryl G., PhD PoliSci MIT, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-589.pdf)

Each of those fears about oil supplies is exaggerated, and none should be a focus of U.S. foreign or military policy. “Peak oil” predictions about the impending decline in global rates of oil production are based on scant evidence and dubious models of how the oil market responds to scarcity. In fact, even though oil supplies will increasingly come from unstable regions, investment to reduce the costs of finding and extracting oil is a better response to that political instability than trying to fix the political problems of faraway countries. Furthermore, Chinese efforts to lock up supplies with long-term contracts will at worst be economically neutral for the United States and may even be advantageous. The main danger stemming from China’s energy policy is that current U.S. fears may become a self-fulfilling prophecy of Sino-U.S. conflict. Finally, political instability in the Persian Gulf poses surprisingly few energy security dangers, and U.S. military presence there actually exacerbates problems rather than helps to solve them.

SQ Proves U.S Military not reliant on fossil fuelsCasey 11’ (“U.S. Military Transforms Landfill Gas into Renewable Energy” Feb. 28 2011http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/28/u-s-military-transforms-landfill-gas-into-renewable-energy/) America has found an unlikely leader into a sustainable new future, and that’s the U.S. military. From solar power to wind turbines, high efficiency LED lighting and even geothermal installations, the Department of Defense has been pulling out of fossil fuels and getting into clean energy and conservation. The latest foray is being lead by Fort Benning, Georgia, which is about to install two new power stations that will convert the facility’s landfill gas to electricity

Oil collapse is empirically deniedGholz and Press 7 (Eugene, Associate Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UTexas, Daryl G., PhD PoliSci MIT, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-589.pdf, 6-27-11)

In the five major oil supply shocks caused by political disruptions in the past 30 years, market dynamics quickly mitigated the costs borne by consumers. 68 Figure 1 tracks the decline and recovery of world oil production in the five cases: (1) the Iranian oil industry strikes in 1978, (2) the collapse of the Iranian oil industry in 1979, (3) the start of the IranIraq war, (4) the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and (5) the 2002–03 strikes in the Venezuelan oil fields. 69 The cases reveal four key findings. First, in four of the five cases (the exception is the 1979 Iran disruption), major reductions in any country’s oil production quickly triggered compensating increases elsewhere. 70 In all cases, the disruption triggered intense efforts in the disrupted country to restore its output. 71 For example, in 1978 strikes in the Iranian oil industry deprived global markets of nearly 5 mb/d, which was then more than 4 percent of world production. But the world responded quickly, and global production had fully recovered in six months. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war removed 3.4 mb/d of Iranian and Iraqi oil from global markets (5.8 percent of global production), but total global supply did not fall by that full amount. Other producers increased their output within the same month, so net global supply only dropped by 4.2 percent. As adjustment efforts continued, the losses to the world market were nearly replaced in three months and fully replaced in five.

Oil collapse is gradualGholz and Press 7 (Eugene, Associate Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UTexas, Daryl G., PhD PoliSci MIT, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-589.pdf, 6-27-11)

The United States does not need an activist foreign policy to ensure U.S. access to affordable energy. There is no need to pacify or democratize tumultuous oil-producing regions to ensure that they will sell us their crude. Large oil firms compensate for the risk of supply disruptions through diversification and insurance, which allow them to invest and provide a steady flow of oil despite periodic disruptions to particular sources of oil. The United States also does not need to confront China because of its energy policy; Beijing’s efforts will either merely shift around global consumption or perhaps even expand global supply (which would benefit all consumers). And there is no need for U.S. military forces to maintain peacetime deployments in the Persian Gulf region to protect America’s access to oil. At most, U.S. energy interests require an offshore air and naval presence nearby. Even imperfect markets like the oil market, threatened by political risk and distorted by cartel behavior, adapt to disruptions, and the adjustment process reduces the burden on the imperfect instruments of statecraft such as military intervention and peacetime presence.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 22


1

Energy Sustainable

We'll never run out of resources - the free market creates incentives for substitutes

Geddes 4 (Marc, Writer and Libertarian Analyst, “The Monster Non-Socialist Faq”, February 12, http://solohq.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtml AD 6/28/11) AV

Answer: A significant disruption to supplies of critical resources can cause temporary problems, but in a free market, if resources start to become scarce, prices rise, leading to a search of substitutes and improved conservation efforts. The pool of resources is not fixed, because human ingenuity can find substitutes or new sources of resources. Supplies of most raw materials have been increasing throughout the 20th century, and the cost has been falling (See the entry on Natural resources). For instance, between 1950 and 1970, bauxite (aluminium source) reserves increased by 279 per cent, copper by 179 per cent, chromite (chromium source) by 675 per cent, and tin reserves by 10 per cent. In 1973 experts predicted oil reserves stood at around 700 billion barrels, yet by 1988 total oil reserves had actually increased to 900 billion barrels. Production of certain kinds of resources such as fossil fuels may finally be beginning to peak but there are renewable energy sources in development which can serve as substitutes. Simplistic thermodynamic analysis of energy production is misleading, because it's not the quantities of energy used or produced that determine economic value, but the utility, or usefulness if that energy to humans.

New discoveries will triple reserves – new technology makes it cost effectiveCERA 06 (Cambridge Energy Research Associates ,“Peak Oil Theory – “World Running Out of Oil Soon” – Is Faulty; Could Distort Policy & Energy Debate”, 11/14, http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444 AD 6/28/11)

In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future. “The global resource base of conventional and unconventional oils, including historical production of 1.08 trillion barrels and yet-to-be-produced resources, is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow,” CERA Director of Oil Industry Activity Peter M. Jackson writes in Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down: Myths, Legends, and the Future of Oil Resources. The CERA projection is based on the firm’s analysis of fields currently in production and those yet-to-be produced or discovered. “The ‘peak oil’ theory causes confusion and can lead to inappropriate actions and turn attention away from the real issues,” Jackson observes. “Oil is too critical to the global economy to allow fear to replace careful analysis about the very real challenges with

delivering liquid fuels to meet the needs of growing economies. This is a very important debate, and as such it deserves a rational and measured discourse.” “This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil,” says CERA Chairman Daniel Yergin. “Each time -- whether it was the ‘gasoline famine’ at the end of WWI or the ‘permanent shortage’ of the 1970s -- technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There’s no reason to think that technology is finished this time.”

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 23


1

***NATURAL DISASTERS

1. SPS kills the environment Gauray Bansal (writer for EcoFriend, a news agency about green energy), 5/23/11. “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy,” http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/

1.Potential damage to Atmosphere: Till now microwave and other transmission methods that are adopted for all over the world are for communication and broadcast purposes only. However, for energy transmission, the wavelength has to very high which can be potentially dangerous to our atmosphere and will increase the risk of leukemia and cancer among humans. Suggested concentration and intensity of such microwaves at their center would be of 23 mW/cm2 and at periphery would be 1 mW/cm2 , which compares to the current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves. Similarly very high frequency used for such long distance propagation can be very dangerous and may lead to increase in radioactivity in earth’s environment.

2. Hypercanes require temperatures that only happen during an asteroid impact when we’d be dead anywaysMasters, 07 – Ph.D. in Meteorology (Jeff, 2007, “Global Warming and Hurricanes”, http://smrcinfo.com/smrc/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=18)First off, the reader is hit with a dramatic full-page artist's depiction of the global super-hurricane of the future--a massive 5000-mile diameter Caribbean storm the size of North America. The storm's 200-mile eye is wider than the Florida Peninsula! Whoa, I said when looking at the whopper "SciAmicane". No doubt many readers perusing the magazine, trying to decide whether to buy it, had the same reaction and plunked down their $5 to read about this grim threat. OK, lets talk reality here. The largest tropical cyclone on record, Supertyphoon Tip of 1979, had a diameter of 1380 miles-- less than one third the size of the SciAmicane. A storm like the SciAmicane cannot physically exist on Earth unless the oceans were to super-heat to about 122° F (50° C). Only an asteroid impact or similar calamity could create such a hypercane. Even the most extreme global warming scenarios do not heat the oceans to 122°, so the SciAmicane is there to sell magazines, not to illustrate what global warming might do to hurricanes.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 24

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/


1

***SOLVENCY 1NC Solvency

1. It isn’t technologically possibleUV rays will destroy itTaylor, 7 – Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air Force Space Command; B.A, Berry College; J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill University (Michael W. “Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth’s Orbital Debris Problem,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall, 2007, Gale)

<Without Earth's atmosphere to protect them, satellites are exposed to the full force of solar radiation, including ultraviolet rays, X-rays, positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. n16 Ultraviolet rays and X-rays can damage satellites by degrading solar panels, which many satellites use as a source of energy, thus shortening their useful life. n17 When solar activity increases, the number of damaging rays also increases. The charged particles can cause even [*5] more damage than the rays because the particles penetrate the outer layers of the satellite and directly degrade its electronic systems. Unlike the rays, which are generally evenly distributed around Earth, the particles become trapped in Earth's magnetic field and concentrate in two doughnut-shaped (torus) areas around the equator. n18 These regions are called the Van Allen radiation belts. n19 The Van Allen radiation belts significantly limit the operation of satellites.>

2. It’s all just hype and liesThe Space Review, ’10, Monday, June 7, 2010, (Dwayne A. Day, Blinded by the light, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1641/1)

Fortunately for us, there aren’t too many lasting cultural legacies of the 1970s. The seventies, well, sucked. The music—save for Led Zeppelin and Floyd—was generally lousy. And other cultural artifacts, such as the clothes, made brief reappearances before vanishing into the pit of evil from which they first emerged. However, in the past few years another cultural echo of the 1970s has arisen once again, the concept of space solar power. The idea of building vast solar power satellites and beaming the energy to Earth predates the 1970s, but it developed its following in that decade. There were several factors contributing to this, most of them directly or indirectly linked to each other. They included the environmental movement, the Oil Crisis, and a government study. But at the time, space solar power seemed to answer a cultural, ideological, even spiritual need among a small segment of people. The early 1970s was a period of gloom and doom, with some prominent academics rather stupidly claiming that humanity would soon exhaust most of its energy and mineral resources and virtually destroy itself. Such defeatism annoyed a small group of people who had also been impressed by the Apollo program and who believed that space offered infinite resources and infinite energy. But space solar power also had an appeal to people who saw the exploits of the Apollo astronauts and thought that they would like to do that too. Gerard K. O’Neill provided a justification for ordinary people to live and work in space—they would build and operate solar power satellites. Thousands of people were taken in by this idea. And then over the next decade or so they saw no progress towards making it happen. The Space Shuttle did not provide the cheap access to space that was required, and so the concept of solar power satellites lost what little support it had and became just another unfunded fringe idea. It remains an unfunded fringe idea to this day. But like flare pants and wide ties, it has made a bit of a comeback. The specific reasons are eerily similar to the ones that made it briefly popular in the1970s: a renewed environmental movement thanks in part to Al Gore, high gasoline prices—over $4 a gallon in 2008—and a government-sponsored study. That study, produced by the National Security Space Office in 2007, seems to have been the spark that reignited the fumes of this long-dormant community. But the community failed to

recognize that an unfunded study produced by an office that has zero clout within the national security space field in no way represented Pentagon endorsement of the idea of space solar power. (Proof: DoD isn’t building solar powersats.) The more general reason that space solar power has reemerged is that just like in the 1970s, space solar power fills a cultural, ideological, and yes, spiritual need among a certain type of person. It has nothing to do with the concept suddenly becoming technically or economically feasible, or gaining any credibility within the energy sector. Last month two groups held solar energy conferences separated by one week, 1700 miles, and a million light years. The first wasSOLAR 2010, the annual conference of the American Solar Energy Society held in Phoenix, Arizona. The second was the “First National Space Society Space Solar Power Symposium” held at the International Space Development Conference in Chicago, Illinois. The Space Solar Power Symposium featured approximately three dozen presentations on the subject, including individuals from Japan and India. The presentation topics ranged from the mundane (“Prospects for microwave wireless power transmission”) to the polemic (“Why Space Solar Power is the Answer and the ONLY Answer to Our Long Term Energy Needs”). But if you went to SOLAR 2010 a week earlier, you would have noticed something rather

striking. Despite the attendance of hundreds of people, numerous companies, and the presentation of hundreds of technical papers; despite the presence of the United States’ best experts on energy policy, energy transmission, energy generation, and solar power technology—there were no presentations on space solar power. Think about that for a moment. What does it say about space solar power? What it says is that space solar power is a fringe idea that is not even taken seriously within the niche field of solar power generation. What it also says is that the space solar power community doesn’t play with the big boys. It’s a community that talks to itself, that seeks the comfort of like-minded individuals, and doesn’t even try to sell its message to the audience most likely to give it a fair hearing.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 25


1

SPS bad/ genericSPS will interfere with satellite transmissionsNicholas Boechler, Aerospace Engineering, Caltech Ph.D, and Narayanan Komerath, Professor Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at, 5/6/06, “An Evolutionary Model for Space Solar Power”, Ebsco

Microwave beams pose no direct thermal threat to satellites; however, they may interfere with satellite electronics and with communications. The addition of 36 satellites will not seriously clutter LEO; however, collision with space debris is a serious risk. We have no immediate solution for this, except that the orbits are higher than most LEO 3rd- stage separation junk. The impact of Earth’s magnetic field on transmissions must be considered.

Solar satellites jam military communications, vulnerable for attackWright 2008, Union of Concerned Scientists Author (David, Laura Grego, Lisbeth Gronlund, “Technical Implications and General Conclusions,” June 23, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/technical-implications-of-space-weapons-and-general-conclusions.html, accessed on July 12, 2008)

Interference can range from temporary or reversible effects to permanent disabling or destruction of the satellite. Many methods can be used to interfere with satellites, including electronic interference with communication systems, laser interference with imaging sensors, laser heating of the satellite body, high-power microwave interference with electrical components, collision with another object (kinetic-kill), and nuclear explosions. Because satellites can be tracked and their trajectories can be predicted, they are inherently vulnerable to attack. However, a satellite’s vulnerability to ASAT attack does not guarantee the effects of an attack will be predictable or verifiable, and this may limit the ASAT attack’s usefulness. Jamming satellite ground stations (the downlinks) and the satellite’s receivers (the uplinks) is relatively simple to do on unprotected systems such as commercial communications satellites. Jamming protected systems, such as military communications satellites, is much harder. An adversary need not be technologically advanced to attempt a jamming attack. Ground-based lasers can dazzle the sensors of high-resolution reconnaissance satellites and inhibit observation of regions on the Earth that are kilometers in size. With high enough power, ground- and space-based lasers can partially blind a satellite, damaging relatively small sections of the satellite’s sensor. A high-power laser can physically damage a satellite if its beam can be held on the satellite for long enough to deposit sufficient energy. This can result in overheating the satellite or damaging its structure.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 26


1

SPS failsSPS fails—beams are diverted Keith Cowing (MA in biology specializing in biomedical studies and space, freelance writer, peer reviewed), 9/7/2k. "Congress Gets an Update on Solar Power Satellites", http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=210. 6/30/11.

Another concern in earlier SPS studies has been the efficiency with which power is transmitted from one point to another. Recent laser and microwave research has shown additional improvements in efficiency - this also lends support to the economic and engineering viability of the SPS concept. Mankind added that in addition to the power generating capabilities of SPS systems, large amounts of space-based, beamed power might also be required if large solar sail propulsion technologies are to be used for interstellar probes at the end of this century. The SPS concept was originally envisioned as being a relay system for power generated in space with microwaves used as the means of relaying power. This concept has expanded over the years to include the use of lasers instead of microwaves. One reason being that microwave beams tend to diverge as they traverse large distances whereas coherent sources such as lasers exhibit much less divergence. The more divergence in an energy beam, the larger the antennas need to be at the reception/reflection locations and the greater the potential for lost power during transmission. Use of lasers would tend to minimize this concern. The SPS concept has also expanded to use space based satellites to relay power generated on Earth from one location to another - perhaps from an equatorial desert region to a large city further from the equator. Ralph Nansen, President, Solar Space Industries, Inc. said that Use of SPS as a relay point of power from one region on earth to another may served an interim step in demonstrating the technical and economic viability of beamed power systems. He suggested that primary development of an SPS system should be commercial. But since this would be such large an effort, it should start as government/industry partnership. The government's role would be to set regulatory environment, provide loans and other funding for basic research, and be willing to accept the risk of buying the first SPS satellite. A lead agency should be designated according to Nansen. He felt that DOE is a natural choice with NASA providing support. Nansen said that a ground test program should be funded to demonstrate separate technologies and develop a small prototype of the system on the ground. Efforts should also be made obtain frequency allocation for microwave transmission systems and that support be given to developing a more efficient launch infrastructure including loan guarantees for RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) systems. Jerry Grey, from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) spoke about a study nearing completion by the AIAA. The AIAA has had a continuing interest in the SPS concept since its first description in 1968. The AIAA study looked at SPS work being done outside the US; the prospects for multiple uses of SPS technology; and a technical assessment of SPS work done by NASA. According to Grey, the study does not address economic or environmental considerations since these are being handled by other research groups. While the draft AIAA assessment is still under review, Grey was able to say that the AIAA feels that SPS is a viable concept, and that it is one key area requiring an enhanced focus upon advanced launch system. He also said that the AIAA group has expressed a particular interest in using SPS concepts to augment the existing terrestrial power grid. This would involves relaying energy. Reflection of sunlight; reflection of sunlight and conversion to/from microwaves; and the use of lasers were all examined. It was felt that geostationary satellites are preferred over satellites in lower orbits for control reasons. Sunlight and microwave reflection via geostationary orbit is not feasible because of beam diversion. Lasers, however, have far less beam diversion and are very efficient.

Can’t solve—SPS isn’t ready until 2040William Fan (Phono Solar sales manager, North Caroline A&T State Chancelor, Curator of Search for the Obvious and Senior Associate in Business Development at Acumen Fund), 6/2/11. " SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER", 6/2/11. http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf

In this report, we introduce some of the technological aspects of SBSP. However, we will be focusing on laying down the economic groundwork for SBSP. We obtain linearized trend data for various factors that affect the marginal cost of SBSP (primarily solar panel efficiency, orbital transport costs, and energy demand and cost). We determined that it is actually infeasible to begin work on SBSP, as the marginal costs do not provide an adequate annual return for us to recommend SBSP. Unfortunately, we determined that large capital and R&D costs are required for SBSP to occur, further decreasing the likelihood of SBSP from being large scale feasible. Without dramatic disruptive technology or large, governmental investments, SBSP will not be feasible as a mainstream source of energy until at least 2040.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 27


1

SPS Fails 2/2

SPS fails—launch infrastructureJoseph Rouge (NSSO director), 10/10/07. " Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf.

Space Solar Power Satellites are very large structures and require substantially greater lift and in space transportation than has ever previously been attempted. Consequently, they also require a significantly expanded supporting infrastructure. The International Space Station is currently the largest structure in space with a mass of 232 MT, at an orbit of only 333 km. It has the largest solar arrays in space, with a total power of approximately 112 kW. In contrast, a single Space Solar Power Satellite is expected to be above 3,000 MT, several kilometers across, and most likely be located in GEO, at 42,124km, likely delivering between 1 to 10 GWe From the perspective of today’s launch infrastructure, this may seem unimaginably large and ambitious, but in another sense it is well within the relative scale of other human accomplishments which at their time also seemed astounding creations the Eiffel Tower is 8,045 Tons; the Sear’s Tower 222,500 tons; the Empire State Building 365,000 – 392,000 tons, the largest of our supertankers is 650,000MT, and the Great Pyramid at Giza is 5,900,000 MT. Contemplating a space solar power satellite today is probably analogous to contemplating the building of the large hydro‐electric dams, which even today cause observers to marvel. Today the United States initiates less than 15 launches per year (at 25MT or less). Construction of a single SBSP satellite alone would require in excess of 120 such launches. That may seem like an astounding operations tempo until one considers the volume of other transportation infrastructure. For instance, in 2005, Atlanta International Airport saw 980,197 takeoffs & landings alone, an average of 1,342 takeoffs/day, or about 1 every minute 24 hours a day. In the same year, Singapore’s 41 ship cargo berths served 130,318 vessel arrivals (about 15 per hour), handling about 1.15 billion gross tons (GT), and 23.2 million twenty foot equivalent units (TFUs).

Can’t solve—satellite and launch infrastructure not ready Joseph Rouge (NSSO director), 10/10/07. " Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf.

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the nation’s existing EELV based space logistics infrastructure could not handle the volume or reach the necessary cost efficiencies to support a cost effective SBSP system. America’s existing space manufacturing base is not suitably aligned at present for full scale SBSP deployment. • Some participants argued that at high enough launch rates some of the newer expendable concepts might be able to get close to the target, however in general, most participants felt that while expendables could get an SBSP to a demo, it could not reach the economic efficiencies necessary for SBSP. Some participants also emphasized that expendable launch - 32 -systems will not be able to achieve the desired level of safety needed for routine and frequent passenger transport to space or the operation of terrestrial launch sites in the interior of the country.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 28


1

***DA LINKS

POLITICS LINKS

SPS would require a massive amount of political capitalLeonard David, Secure World Foundation and Senior Space Writer, 5/15/08. “Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space”, CleanTech, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx? ArticleId=69

Space Based Solar Power: Science and Technology Challenges Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex

problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth,

it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

Congress hates the plan—cost, military stigma and lack of NASA backing Dwayne Day, Space Studies Board of the National Research Council Program Officer, 6/9/08. “Knights in Shining Armor”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1

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

Unpopular—2001 proves, fossil fuel industry will block the planMartin Schwab, Homeplanet Defense Institute director, 5. Homeplanet Defense: Strategic Thought for a World in Crisis, via Google Books

Dr. Neville Marzwell, Advanced Concepts Innovation Technology Manager at NASA (as well as a trained economist), concludes that U.S. fossil fuel industries don't want threats to their profits and applied political pressure that caused the NASA SSP program to be scrapped in 2001. However, the ESA and the Japanese Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA) continue to examine the exploitability of SSP. Henry Brandhorst, Director of Space Research at Auburn University, hopes that NASA's new emphasis on [eventually] sending astronauts to Mars will lead to renewed interest in SSP. 145 It is conceivable that an SSP satellite constellation could be built at Mars orbit, to power eventual human outposts.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 29


1

Spending Links

Plan would spend between 11 and 320 billion not including the heavy maintenance requiredQuestPoint Solar Solutions, 6/13/11. “Solar Satellites: The Key To Green Energy,” http://www.solarfeeds.com/questpoint-solar-solutions/17185-solar-satellites-the-key-to-green-energy

Many governments claim there simply isn’t any money in the budget for launching satellites into space, but in 2010 , amid an economic crisis, the United States managed to find $426 million for nuclear fusion research and $18.7 billion for NASA, a five-per-cent increase from 2009. The most recent projections, made in the 1980s, put the cost of launching an SPS at $5 billion, or around 8-10 cents/ kWh. Nuclear power plants cost a minimum of $3 billion to $6 billion, not including cost overruns, which can make a plant cost as much as $15 billion. In the U.S., nuclear power costs about 4.9 cents/kWh, making SPS power supply only slightly more expensive. But these estimates are over two decades old and the numbers likely need to be re-examined. The idea for space-based solar energy has been around since the ’60s; given the technological advancements since then, surely governments would have invested in making an SPS power supply more budget-friendly. That is not the case. Governments and investors are rarely willing to devote funding to something that doesn’t have quick cash returns. The projected cost of launching these satellites once ranged from $11 billion to $320 billion. These figures have been adjusted for inflation, but the original estimates were made back in the 1970s, when solar technology was in its infancy, and may have since become grossly inaccurate. How long an SPS would survive in orbit is anybody’s guess, given the maintenance due to possible damage to solar panels from solar winds and radiation. As for adding to the ever-expanding satellite graveyard in Earth’s orbit, most solutions to satellite pollution remain theoretical.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 30


1

Militarization Links

SPS has dual capabilities—will be perceived as a weapon Kim Ramos, US Air Force Major PhD thesis, April 2K. “Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force,” for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928

United States Space Command developed four operational concepts to guide their vision. One of those operational concepts is global engagement. The USSPACECOM Long Range Plan defines global engagement as an “integrated focused surveillance and missile defense with a potential ability to apply force from space.”27 This application of force from space involves holding at risk earth targets with force from space.28 New World Vistas identifies several force application technologies. One of the technological issues associated with developing these space force application technologies is that they all require large amounts of power generation. A solar power satellite can supply the required power. Two technologies in particular would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, directed energy weapons, such as lasers, and jamming devices.The space-based lasers currently under study accomplish ground moving target indication, and air moving target indication, which would be part of missile defense.29 The main difficulty with the laser is designing a power plant, which can produce the required energy in space without the enormous solar arrays required. By using a solar power satellite to beam power to the laser, this eliminates the problem. Another project, which would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, is a device, which would beam RF power to a particular geographic location to blind or disable any unprotected ground communications, radar, optical, and infrared sensors.30 As with the laser and other directed energy applications, the limiting factor right now is generating enough power in space to energize the RF beam.

SPS has ABM capabilitiesVirgiliu Pop, University of Glasgow Law School PhD, 2k. “SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF NON-TERRESTRIAL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION”, http://www.geocities.com/virgiliu_pop/publications/security.pdf

The SPS system, although not directly aimed atcountering strategic ballistic missiles, might be accused of having an ABM “hidden agenda”, given its real ABM capabilities. Indeed, “[i]t was speculated that a high-energy laser beam could function as a thermal weapon to disable or destroy enemy missiles”22. Foldes also considers that one of the most logical offensive uses of SPS can include the “microwave heating of other space objects”23. OTA believes that “[a]lthough unlikely, use of the SPS for directed-energy weaponry, either directly, or as a source of energy to be transmitted to remote platforms, or for tracking, would be regulated by the ABM Treaty. Use of the SPS for ABM purposes would hence be banned”24. The unilateral deployment of a SPS system either by the USA or Russia would entail the risk of apparent violation of the ABM treaty, and OTA considers that “[r]enewed negotiations may have to take SPS development into account, perhaps by specifying SPS designs that make it unusable as a weapons system”25.

SPS dual use tech increases potential for space milPop, 2000 (Virgiliu Pop, Space Future, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml)

<The prospective of exploitation of solar energy in the Geostationary Orbit and of mineral resources on the Moon and asteroids raises the issue of legality of the exploitation technologies to be used from their military point of view. "The development of a mineral resource regime for the Moon" - considers Bilder - "is likely to have less immediate practical military (...) significance than has been the case with the general development of the Antarctic and Law of the Sea regimes"[1]. However, a certain number of technologies that can be used for the peaceful exploitation of non-terrestrial natural resources carry also the potential of being used for warfare. This is true both in the case of the Solar Power Satellites that would exploit solar energy in Earth orbit, and in that of peaceful nuclear explosions that may be used in exploiting minerals from the Moon, asteroids and other celestial bodies. These "dual-use technologies" raise security issues that need to be analysed in detail. In the same time, important problems arise from the possible use of non-terrestrial mineral resources for the manufacture of weapons. >

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 31


1

Militarization Links 2/2

SPS dual use tech that could be used for space militarization Pop, 2000(Virgiliu Pop, Space Future,

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml)

<The prospective of exploitation of solar energy in the Geostationary Orbit and of mineral resources on the Moon and asteroids raises the issue of legality of the exploitation technologies to be used from their military point of view. "The development of a mineral resource regime for the Moon" - considers Bilder - "is likely to have less immediate practical military (...) significance than has been the case with the general development of the Antarctic and Law of the Sea regimes"[1]. However, a certain number of technologies that can be used for the peaceful exploitation of non-terrestrial natural resources carry also the potential of being used for warfare. This is true both in the case of the Solar Power Satellites that would exploit solar energy in Earth orbit, and in that of peaceful nuclear explosions that may be used in exploiting minerals from the Moon, asteroids and other celestial bodies. These "dual-use technologies" raise security issues that need to be analysed in detail. In the same time, important problems arise from the possible use of non-terrestrial mineral resources for the manufacture of weapons. >

SPS capable of mass destruction—makes it a space weaponPop, staff writer for Space Future, 2000(Virgiliu Pop, Space Future,

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml)

Although Solar Power Satellites were envisioned as an energy program, their use raises significant military implications[2]. Concerns have been

expressed regarding the lawfulness of solar power satellites ( SPS) under the Outer Space Treaty in the context of their possible use as weapons of mass destruction and under existing arms control treaties in the context of their use as prohibited means of warfare. At the same time, given the

significant importance and value of a SPS system, its use raises also the issue of vulnerability[3], hence self defence[4].

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 32

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml


1

***CP solvency

UN Must Approve SPS

Must get UN approval for SBSPAdam Hadhazy, Writer for Scientific American, Editor-in-Chief for Portal to the Universe, 4/16/09, “Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the Light of Day?”, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finally-see-the-light-of-day

Many other obstacles stand in the way of commercially viable SBSP. A crucial regulatory matter: getting clearance from the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that allocates use of the electromagnetic spectrum. SBSP's ideal microwave frequencies are already used by wireless systems such as Bluetooth, according to Smith. "Even if we could narrow the beam [from space] down and ensure complete signal integrity in the broadcast wave area," the ITU may deem the possible interference from SBSP as too disruptive to some extant technologies, he says.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 33


1

Other Countries Solve

Other countries looking towards SPS nowJohn Mankins, President at Artemis Innovation Management Solutions LLC, Member of the Board at Space Canada, Associate Fellow at AIAA, Various and Sundry at NASA, 1/19/09, Acta Astronautica, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576509000551

During the 1980s, R&D continued in a range of relevant areas, particularly in the area of solar power generation in commercial and scientific spacecraft. Also during the 1980s and early 1990s, low level international interest in the SPS concept emerged, including WPT flight experiments in Japan and other activities in Europe and Canada. In the US, activities were largely limited to generic research and to modest systems studies of potential applications of SSP technology to space science and exploration missions.

Japan will launch SPS- solves all of the caseAberdeen Press and Journal, February 5, 2001 SECTION: Business:Construction:Aggregates, Pg.17 HEADLINE: Japan plans solar satellite BYLINE: By Iforsyth, l/n

JAPAN has announced plans to build a solar power satellite by 2040 capable of transmitting a gigawatt of energy to Earth as microwaves or radio waves. The estimated weight of the satellite is 20,000 tonnes - add in the weight of the construction base, the work crew and their consumables and this project will require relatively cheap ac$-cess to space. This would make future mis$-sions to Mars and beyond far more feasible. Powersats, if they prove fea$-sible, would significantly reduce global warming by substituting for fossil fuels.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 34


1

Privatization CP Solvency

Reward based incentives ensures innovation and production Eligar Sadeh (Astroconsulting International LLC), 09. Space policy challenges facing the Barack Obama administration, Space Policy 25 (2009) 109e116

9.3. Policy choice for the USA Government Maintain a national space policy commitment to space commercial development or build upon that commitment by supporting publice private partnerships to foster commercial space development. Maintain a national space policy commitment to foster space commerce development. This entails a renewed commitment to encourage fixed-price and reward-based contacting, procurement of commercial services, as opposed to physical systems, and lending political support to legislative initiatives in the USA Congress that call for taxed-based incentives and prizes to encourage space commerce development. Presidential support for the following congressional initiatives furthers national space policy in the area of commercial space e the Space Tourism Promotion Act; the Zero Gravity Zero Tax Bill; the Invest in Space Now Act; and the Spaceport Equality Act. Support for an expansion of congressional funding of prizes, like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Grand Challenge and NASA’s Centennial Challenges, advances national space policy directed at fostering space commerce development. A commitment to expanding publiceprivate partnerships in the space arena paves the way for space infrastructural development. One example is the contracting undertaken by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with new space companies to develop technologies of interest to security space. NASA is implementing partnerships with the private sector as exemplified by the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Space Act Agreements with new space companies. A further expansion of such relationships and support for new publiceprivate partnerships fosters emerging space businesses and efforts in areas ranging from operationally responsive space, small satellites (smallsats) reusable launch vehicles, and space tourism to developing areas in space-based solar power , space-based zero-gravity manufacturing research, propellant depots, and point-to-point sub-orbital travel. These technologies, if supported and developed with the help of the USA Government, will be contributors to the long-term national security and prosperity of the USA, and will benefit global security concerns and the global economy.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 35


1

***Oil Disad

Oil DA—1NC

1. Russia shifting dependence but oil prices are still key to the Russian economyCIA, 6/15/11. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, Russia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

Russia has undergone significant changes since the collapse of the Soviet Union, moving from a globally-isolated, centrally-planned economy to a more market-based and globally-integrated economy. Economic reforms in the 1990s privatized most industry, with notable exceptions in the energy and defense-related sectors. The protection of property rights is still weak and the private sector remains subject to heavy state interference. Russian industry is primarily split between globally-competitive commodity producers - in 2009 Russia was the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest exporter of oil, and the third largest exporter of steel and primary aluminum - and other less competitive heavy industries that remain dependent on the Russian domestic market. This reliance on commodity exports makes Russia vulnerable to boom and bust cycles that follow the highly volatile swings in global commodity prices. The government since 2007 has embarked on an ambitious program to reduce this dependency and build up the country's high technology sectors, but with few results so far. The economy had averaged 7% growth since the 1998 Russian financial crisis, resulting in a doubling of real disposable incomes and the emergence of a middle class. The Russian economy, however, was one of the hardest hit by the 2008-09 global economic crisis as oil prices plummeted and the foreign credits that Russian banks and firms relied on dried up. The Central Bank of Russia spent one-third of its $600 billion international reserves, the world's third largest, in late 2008 to slow the devaluation of the ruble. The government also devoted $200 billion in a rescue plan to increase liquidity in the banking sector and aid Russian firms unable to roll over large foreign debts coming due. The economic decline bottomed out in mid-2009 and the economy began to grow in the first quarter of 2010. However, a severe drought and fires in central Russia reduced agricultural output, prompting a ban on grain exports for part of the year, and slowed growth in other sectors such as manufacturing and retail trade. High oil prices buoyed Russian growth in the first quarter of 2011 and could help Russia reduce the budget deficit inherited from the lean years of 2008-09, but inflation and increased government expenditures may limit the positive impact of these revenues. Russia's long-term challenges include a shrinking workforce, a high level of corruption, difficulty in accessing capital for smaller, non-energy companies, and poor infrastructure in need of large investments.

2. Plan ends US dependence on foreign oil—creates domino effectAviation Week 7. ‘NSSO Backs Space Solar Power’ http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/solar101107.xml&headline=NSSO%20Backs%20Space%20Solar%20Power%20&channel=space

Collecting solar power in space and beaming it back to Earth is a relatively near-term possibility that could solve strategic and tactical security problems for the U.S. and its deployed forces, the Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) says in a report issued Oct. 10. As a clean source of energy that would be independent of foreign supplies in the strife-torn Middle East and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could ease America's longstanding strategic energy vulnerability, according to the "interim assessment" released at a press conference and on the Web site spacesolarpower.wordpress.com. And the U.S. military could meet tactical energy needs for forward-deployed forces with a demonstration system, eliminating the need for a long logistical tail to deliver fuel for terrestrial generators while reducing risk for eventual large-scale commercial development of the technology, the report says. " The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul E. Damphousse of the NSSO, in presenting his office's report. That could change if the Pentagon were to act as an anchor tenant for a demonstration SSP system, paying above-market rates for power generated with a collection plant in geostationary orbit beaming power to U.S. forces abroad or in the continental U.S., according to Charles Miller, CEO of Constellation Services International and director of the Space Frontier Foundation. By buying down the risk with a demonstration at the tactical level, the U.S. government could spark a new industry able to meet not just U.S. energy needs, but those of its allies and the developing world as well. The technology essentially exists, and needs only to be matured. A risk buy-down by government could make that happen, according to the NSSO report. "This is not a 50-year solution," said John Mankins, an expert in the field and president of the Space Power Association. "The kinds of things that are possible today say a truly transformational demonstration at a large scale is achievable within this decade." As an example, Mankins listed the rapid progress in boosting the efficiency of solar cells. While 20-25 percent

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 36


1

1NC Oil DA 2/2

CONTINUED NO TEXT DELETEDefficiency was once considered a long-term goal, efficiencies on the order of 40 percent already have been achieved. And the modularity and scalability of the systems needed to build an SSP platform make testing relatively straightforward. Even from its perch in low-Earth orbit, for example, the International Space Station could be used as a test bed for SSP components and even demonstrate low-level power transmission from orbit to Earth. The exposed facility on Japan's Kibo laboratory, due for launch in the first half of next year, could be used to test pointing and transmitting hardware, Mankins said, as well as to conduct space-exposure experiments on materials that might be used in building the large structures needed to collect sunlight in meaningful amounts. The Internet-based group of experts who prepared the report for the NSSO recommended that the U.S. government organize itself to tackle the problem of developing SSP; use its resources to "retire a major portion of the technical risk for business development; establish tax and other policies to encourage private development of SSP, and "become an early demonstrator/adopter/customer" of SSP to spur its development.

3. Russian economic collapse causes global nuclear warSteven David, Professor of International Relations and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University, January/February 99. Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars, published in Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars.html

If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military . In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial , however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 37


1

Oil DA—Links

SPS ends dependence on foreign oil—finally competitive with fossil fuelsLA Times 10/11/07. “Orbiting solar panels' day may be near” http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/11/science/sci-spacesolar11

A new federal study released Wednesday concluded that continued increases in oil prices may finally make the generation of solar power in orbit economically competitive. The report urged the government to sponsor a demonstration of the technology to spur private investment in the concept. The orbiting power plants would reduce the nation's dependence on imported oil and help reduce the production of carbon dioxide that is contributing to global warming, according to the report led by the National Security Space Office, part of the Department of Defense. "This is a solution for all mankind," said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman of the spaceflight advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation. Aldrin joined a group of other space advocacy organizations to unveil the report in Washington. Since the Space Age began 50 years ago, scientists have dreamed of launching acres of photovoltaic cells into orbit and beaming the electricity electromagnetically to Earth's surface but have stumbled over the project's high cost and the technical difficulties. The report estimated that in a single year, satellites in a continuously sunlit orbit could generate an amount of energy nearly equivalent to all of the energy available in the world's oil reserves. Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society, said space-based solar energy could generate so much power that it could transform the United States from an energy-importing country into an energy-exporting nation. "It is the largest energy option which is available to us today in the sense that it would derive more power potentially than all of the other power sources combined," Hopkins said. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent $80 million in the last three decades to study space-based solar energy, but the effort faded in the mid-1990s.

SPS spills over—ends Asian oil dependenceIan O’Neill, Discovery News associate, 6/1/08. “Harvesting Solar Power from Space” http://www.universetoday.com/14646/harvesting-solar-power-from-space/

So how could this plan work? Construction will clearly be the biggest expense, but the nation who leads the way in solar power satellites will bolster their economy for decades through energy trading. The energy collected by highly efficient solar panels could be beamed down to Earth (although it is not clear from the source what technology will go into “beaming” energy to Earth) where it is fed into the national grid of the country maintaining the system. Ground based receivers would distribute gigawatts of energy from the uninterrupted orbital supply. This will have obvious implications for the future high demand for electricity in the huge nations in Asia and will wean the international community off carbon-rich non-renewable resources such as oil and coal. There is also the benefit of the flexible nature of this system being able to supply emergency energy to disaster (and war-) zones.

SPS solves oil relianceNew Scientist, 11/24/07. “Plugging into the Sun” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626311.600-plugging-into-the-sun.html

IF IT happens, it will be the space engineering feat that tops them all. Spanning several square kilometres, a space power station would be by far the largest orbiting structure ever built. While the engineering may be on a colossal scale, the idea behind space solar power is simple enough. Lob giant solar panels into geostationary orbit, then use the electricity they generate to send an intense beam of laser light or microwaves down to Earth where it will be converted back into electricity to be pumped into the grid. In one fell swoop we could slash CO2 emissions and reduce our reliance on oil. The beam could be used to deliver power to remote locations without the need for expensive transmission lines, and even provide instant on-demand electricity to soldiers in the field. The dream of generating our electricity in space has been around for decades, but so far it has always proved too expensive to follow through.

Any change in oil prices kills Russian economy Anna Korppoo, Senior Research Fellow for Energy Policy, 10. “Russia’s Climate Commitments: Which GDP Growth Contributes To Emissions?” via Google Scholar

It is notoriously difficult to estimate the future development of international oil prices, which could boost the Russian GDP to growth beyond its natural growth potential, i.e., over 4-5% per annum. The European Central Bank estimates that an oil price change by 1% changes Russia’s GDP growth by 0.5 percentage-points the same year 17. Further, Ollus (2007) has estimated that a US$10 increase in international oil prices translates to 2% increase of the Russian GDP.18 Figure 4 illustrates the correlation of the Russian GDP with oil prices

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 38


1

Oil DA—Unique Internal Links Ext

Current oil prices key to Russian economy—any decrease causes instability RIA Novosti, prominent Russian News Source, 10/10/10. “Russian economy to show stable growth with oil price above $60 - Kudrin” http://en.rian.ru/business/20101010/160898404.html

The Russian economy will demonstrate stable growth next year if global oil prices stay above $60 per barrel, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said on Sunday. According to the Russian government's forecast, the price of Russia's Urals oil blend is expected to stay at the level of $75 per barrel in 2010 and 2011 and rise to $78 per barrel in 2012 and to $79 per barrel in 2013. The government's projections for Russia's federal budget in the next three years are based on the average annual price of $70 per barrel. According to data of the Russian Finance Ministry, the average price of Urals oil blend was $77.4 per barrel in September 2010 compared with $67.15 per barrel in September 2009.

Oil prices key to the ruble and Russian bond marketsBloomberg 6/27/11. “Russia’s Ruble Declines to Four-Week Low Versus Dollar as Oil Price Slides”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/russia-s-ruble-declines-to-four-week-low-versus-dollar-as-oil-price-slides.html

The ruble slid to its weakest against the dollar in a month as oil, Russia’s chief export earner, dropped on speculation the International Energy Agency may release more of its stockpiles to steady prices.The ruble lost 0.6 percent to 28.33 per dollar at the 5 p.m. close in Moscow, the weakest since May 25. The Russian currency was down 0.2 percent at 40.2 per euro, leaving it 0.4 percent weaker at 33.6715 versus the central bank’s target dollar-euro basket, its lowest level in two months based on closing prices.The IEA will act again if needed after announcing its third release of emergency stockpiles since its creation in 1974 last week, aimed at stabilizing prices as the war in Libya chokes global crude supplies, Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said in Beijing June 25. Crude for August delivery dropped as much as $1.34 a barrel today, and last traded down 1 percent at $90.22 a barrel.“The oil and Russia relationship remains close,” Chris Weafer, chief strategist and head of research for Russia at ING Groep NV in Moscow, wrote in an e-mailed note June 25. Oil prices “will again be one of the major factors determining Moscow’s bourses and the ruble,” he wrote.Crude prices slipped 15 percent in the three months after the IEA last released emergency supplies in September 2005. The agency released stockpiles after Hurricane Katrina knocked out 10 percent of U.S. refining capacity.Russian government dollar bonds due 2015 fell, pushing the yield up eight basis points to 2.996 percent. The country’s ruble Eurobond yielded two basis points more at 7.021 percent.Non-deliverable forwards, which allow companies to hedge against currency movements, show the ruble at 28.6088 per dollar in three months.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 39

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/russia-s-ruble-declines-to-four-week-low-versus-dollar-as-oil-price-slides.html


1

Oil DA—Unique Internal Links Extension 2/2

High oil prices drives the Russian equity market–key to stabilizing overall interest rates and maintaining social spending that’s the lynchpin of stabilityOwain Bennallack (Develop executive editor), 3/3/11. “The one market you can buy on higher oil prices” http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2011/03/03/the-one-market-you-can-buy-on-higher-oil-prices.aspxYes, we're talking about Russia. As Matthias Siller, Investment Manager at Baring Asset Manager explains: "There is generally a close relationship between the performance of the Russian equity market and the oil price, with Russia lagging slightly. In a stronger oil price environment, it is our belief that the Russian market will gain upward momentum." The following graph shows the relationship between the oil price and the Russian market very clearly: Source: Baring Asset Management / Datastream, as at 24 Feb 2011 You can clearly see that going on this prior trend, the Russian market could be about to shoot upwards. It's already started 2011 with a bang in comparison with most other emerging markets, which have wilted. More reasons to buy Russia We're not habitual graph followers at the Fool. But there are very strong reasons why Russia rises when the oil price does -- principally, that the country is a huge exporter of oil, and its markets are stuffed to overflowing with oil producers. In the short term at least, higher oil prices will massively boost their profitability. It's estimated that a $150 barrel of oil would increase Russian oil firm's operating profitability by an average of 60-80%. But Baring's Matthias Siller points to two other reasons to be optimistic about Russian equities in this climate: ■More taxes for the government: It's an election year in Russia, and incumbents flush with oil-fuelled tax receipts could well increase infrastructural and social security spending, to the benefit of banks, construction firms, property companies, and retailers. ■A boost to oil production: Russian oil companies badly need to upgrade their facilities to get more of their reserves to market. A higher oil price would give the Russian authorities leeway to introduce better tax incentives to encourage this, which could enable Russia's producers to increase their output and profits. The Russian market is on a P/E of just 10 and forecast to fall to around 7, so on the face of it this is pretty compelling opportunity.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 40


1

***Disad Impacts Turn the Aff***

War turns the case – it will cause attacks against satellitesM.V. Smith (Air Force Colonel, PhD student in the strategic studies program under Professor Colin Gray at the University of Reading in the UK, former Chief of Future Concepts for the National Security Space Office at the Pentagon, and the Director of the Space Solar Power Stud), 7/12/08. http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/ad-astra-special-report-space-based-solar-power/#comment-2680

Here’s a comment which is always controversial; space is already weaponized. There already exists in space and on the Earth the types of systems that we use every day for routine civil, commerical, and military space operations that can also be used as weapons to negate satellites. Everything for ramming one satellite into another or merely jamming satellite signals is already in place…it merely depends on how you use the systems we currently have. We’ve already witnessed a number of episodes of hostile satellite jamming and bandwidth piracy around the globe. Fortunately, most space faring states are highly motivated to use space peacefully. But if war between space faring nations breaks out here on Earth I believe it is highly likely that those nations will negate each other’s satellites–the alternative to negating uninhabited satellites may be the killing of more people on Earth. This places advocates of “space sanctuary” in a strange moral dilemma. Unfortunately, achieving orbit does not place activities in space beyond the realm of human affairs. It is really a matter of politics as usual, no matter where your assets lie; air, land, sea, or space. Preventing battles in space depends on preventing wars on Earth.

Economic decline and terrorism turn the aerospace industryRobert Walker (Chair of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissions), November 2. Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf

Many governments have well-established aerospace industrial policies because of the unique market dynamics of the industry and the blurring line between civil and military products. Aerospace is a complex, expensive and highly cyclical industry char- acterized by long lead times for new product development and purchase decisions. The aerospace industry also is highly susceptible to external factors such as terrorism or general economic downturn. And in spite of growing overall size of the commercial aviation market, it can support only a limited number of major aerospace manufacturers. As a result, governments often provide financial support to help their companies get into the market and to stay there.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 41

http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/ad-astra-special-report-space-based-solar-power/#comment-2680

Date post:	26-Jul-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ellen-dymit
View:	15 times
Download:	1 times

SPS-neg

Documents