West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
1
West Coast Publishing
PubForum File
January 2009
Alternative Fuels Topic
Alternative Fuels Topic ...............................................................................................................................................1
Topic Analysis (1/2) .....................................................................................................................................................2
Topic Analysis (2/2) .....................................................................................................................................................3
Topic Definitions ..........................................................................................................................................................4
Pro .................................................................................................................................................................................5
The US Should Transition To Alternative Fuel Vehicles ................................................................................5
Alternative Fuel Cars Are Key To Stop Global Warming...............................................................................6
Global Warming Is Real And Human Caused .................................................................................................7
Transportation Sector Is Key To Fossil Fuel Use ............................................................................................8
Alternative Fuel Cars Are Key To Solve Oil Dependence ..............................................................................9
Oil Dependence Causes Terrorism ................................................................................................................ 10
Alternative Fuel Cars Are Key To Competitiveness ..................................................................................... 11
The Auto Industry Is Key To The US Economy ........................................................................................... 12
Free Market Doesn’t Solve Alternative Fuel Vehicles .................................................................................. 13
Con .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
The Status Quo Is Encouraging Alternative Fuels ........................................................................................ 14
The US Already Raised Fuel Economy Standards ........................................................................................ 15
Transportation Is Not Key To Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................... 16
Free Markets Are Better Than Mandates For Alternative Fuel Vehicles ...................................................... 17
Incentives Are Better Than Mandates For Alternative Fuel Vehicles ........................................................... 18
Alternative Fuel Vehicles Are Not Key To The Auto Industry ..................................................................... 19
Mandating Alternative Fuel Vehicles Fails ................................................................................................... 20
Warming Is Not Occurring Or Caused By Humans ...................................................................................... 21
Mandates Hurt The Auto Industry ................................................................................................................. 22
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
2
Topic Analysis (1/2)
The Public Forum topic for January 2009 is “Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should
mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative
fuels.” The Pro side of this resolution will argue that the US reliance on fossil fuels as it’s primary transportation
infrastructure is damaging to the US and world, and that the US should instead transition to using vehicles powered
by fuels such as hydrogen, ethanol, or electricity. The Con side will argue that the current approach to encouraging
this transition is working without further intervention, that mandates would be a poor mechanism to achieve the goal
of energy independence, and that alternative fuels are unnecessary or harmful. This months Public Forum Briefs are
intended to give you a set of evidence to prepare and debate these questions.
TOPIC OVERVIEW
The vast majority of vehicles in the United States (and world) are run on “conventional” fossil fuels,
especially gasoline and diesel, both derived from oil. With increasing concerns over fossil fuel use, from
dependence on volatile political regions such as the Middle East to global warming, recent years have seen the
emergence of a variety of new technologies. These promise to make it possible to run vehicles on a variety of
“alternative fuels.” While there is a significant amount of definitional debate over what precisely constitutes an
“alternative,” it is widely agreed that it entails fuels which are not primarily gasoline or diesel.
One of the most prominent definitions is from the Internal Revenue Service, which defines alternative fuels
for the purposes of tax incentives. It says that an alternative fuel is “any fuel containing at least 85 percent of one or
more of ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen; or
any mixture which consists of two or more of biodiesel, diesel fuel, or kerosene, and at least 20% of which consists
of biodiesel.” Notably, this definition includes some fuels which are still partly derived from fossil fuels, including
mixes which still include gasoline. In the popular parlance, it’s perhaps more common to see alternative fuels meant
as a synonym with “non fossil fuels.”
In particular, two types of fuel are most commonly talked about as potential replacements for oil. The first
is hydrogen. Hydrogen can be created through a variety of processes, some of which require no other inputs but
electricity and water. When burned in a fuel cell, it produces no environmentally damaging waste products, and
hence is widely lauded as one of the best available alternatives. Unfortunately, it remains technologically difficult,
expensive, and commercially infeasible at the current date. The second is fuels derived from plants and other forms
of biomass, such as ethanol or methanol. While there are some concerns over the sustainability and environmental
impact of these fuels, they have the advantage of being much more easily used in existing infrastructure, with many
new cars even designed to run on a mix of ethanol and gasoline. There are also many other alternative fuel
proposals, including cars run on electricity, solar power, compressed air, non-traditional fossil fuels like liquid
natural gas, and many others.
While many of the aforementioned technologies exist in the status quo, they have not seen widespread
adoption by the US automobile industry. Some of the most significant hurdles have been the lack of distribution
infrastructure for alternative fuels, consumer concerns over purchasing a risky new technology, higher expenses
relative to gas powered automobiles, and potential impacts on the power, range, or safety of alternative fuel vehicles.
To overcome many of these, state and federal governments have offered a variety of incentives to both vehicle
producers and consumers to expand the availability of alternative fuel vehicles. Despite these efforts, the level of
market penetration has remained extremely low. In the face of this, some people have begun advocating a more
aggressive attempt by the government to push the US market towards adoption. This push is the focus of this
month’s resolution.
One thing to keep in mind in the context of this resolution is the relative importance of transportation to
United States fossil fuel use. By some estimates, the US transportation sector is the second largest sector in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. It accounts for approximately one-third of all fossil fuel consumed in
the United States, and is on track to rise to almost 40% in the next decade. Taken globally, the US transportation
sector is larger than the greenhouse gas emissions of any country besides China. It is in light of questions such as
this that the debate has sprung up over the importance of transitioning to alternative fuels.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
3
Topic Analysis (2/2)
DEBATING THE PRO SIDE
The Pro side of the resolution will cite many reasons why a transition to alternative fuel vehicles is
important. Many of these relate to the deleterious effects of fossil fuel use by the United States. Foremost among
these is global warming. Many people argue that decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used by the transportation
sector is one of the most important steps the US could take to reduce it’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Given the
potentially damaging implications of global warming, this makes reductions a pressing need. Oil use in
transportation is also argued to make the US more dependent on imported oil. In particular, we have to important a
significant amount of oil from politically unstable and potentially hostile regimes in the Middle East. It is even
argued that profits from oil exports are used to fund terrorist groups opposed to the United States.
To deal with these problems, the Pro side will argue that we should transition towards alternative fuel
vehicles. Most authors would concede that this would be difficult or impossible to accomplish overnight, hence the
timeframe of 2040 specified in the resolution. It is usually argued to take several decades to “turn-over” the vehicle
fleet in the US, as old cars are retired and people buy new cars. Giving the country several decades to finish the
transition might also lessen the economic blow and make the transition more feasible.
Another reason people argue the US should move rapidly to alternative fuel vehicles is to ensure the
competitiveness of the US auto industry. In the recent past, US automakers have focused largely on conventional
automobiles and light trucks, including “gas-guzzling” SUV’s, mini-vans, and even vehicles like Humvees. Some
people argue that this is a large part of the reason why the industry’s profits and market share have declined relative
to foreign competitors. Given that alternative fuel vehicles are expected to account for a large portion of the US
auto market over the next several decades, many people think the US auto industry needs to restructure to take
advantage of this. By producing more alternative fuel vehicles and catering to this emerging market segment, US
automakers would gain a competitive leg up on foreign automakers. This situation is especially true given the recent
economic problems the auto industry is facing as a result of the US credit crisis and poor macro-economic situation.
To be prepared for the Con’s attacks, the Pro should be able to defend why status quo efforts moving
towards alternative fuel vehicles are insufficient. They should be prepared to draw a distinction between a complete
shift of the US auto market and the piecemeal efforts done to date, such as raising fuel efficiency standards while
retaining gasoline powered vehicles. They should also be prepared to defend the seriousness of the problems
stemming from fossil fuel use, and the importance of the US transportation sector in addressing them. Finally, they
should be prepared to defend why “mandates” are the best mechanism to encourage the shift. One of the most
common Con strategies will be to defend the action of the free market, or incentive based schemes to encourage
alternative vehicles, rather than mandates. The Pro should be sure to point to the relative inefficacy of current
incentive schemes, and the failure of the free market in the status quo to shift to alternative fuel vehicles to the
required degree.
DEBATING THE CON SIDE
First, the Con should be prepared to take issue with the scope of the Pro’s harms and their ability to solve
them. They should argue that the downsides of fossil fuel use are limited, that the predicted impacts of global
warming and oil dependence are overblown or even false altogether. They should also focus on the ability of
reductions in fossil fuel use in only one sector to truly address the problem. While transportation is a large segment
of US fossil fuel use, it is not the largest, and there will be many other areas where reductions are also needed.
They should also point out that a switch to alternative fuel vehicles is unlikely to be sufficient to remedy
the competitive situation of the US auto industry. In particular, the industry suffers from a host of economic
problems, such as legacy health-care costs, rising labor costs, and better structured competitors. The current debate
over the possible federal bailout of the auto industry, as well as looming bankruptcies through the industry should
give some indication of the depth of the current crisis. The Con can easily argue that the Pro may make matters
worse, by adding a costly mandate on top of their already sizeable woes.
Perhaps the most important arguments for the Con are to argue that “mandates” are a poor mechanism to
encourage the spread of alternative fuel vehicles. In particular, mandates have a poor track record in the auto sector,
and many other sectors. The Con can easily defend that a more market based approach is a better idea, especially
incorporating incentives. They can also argue that the status quo trend is towards an inevitable switch, and further
government intervention is only likely to be counterproductive.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
4
Topic Definitions
1. Mandate means an authoritative command
Merriam-Websters Dictionary, 2008, “mandate,” accessed 12/1/08, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/mandate
1: an authoritative command ; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one2: an
authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>
2. New means made recently
American Heritage Dictionary, 2006, “new,” accessed 12/1/08, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/new
Having been made or come into being only a short time ago; recent: a new law.
3. Passenger vehicles mean vehicles less than 10,0000 GVWR
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 2008, “BTS Dictionary,” Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
accessed 12/1/08, http://www.bts.gov/dictionary/list.xml?letter=P
A vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less which includes passenger cars,
light pickup trucks, light vans, and utility vehicles.
4. Light trucks means a very specific type of vehicle
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 2008, “BTS Dictionary,” Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
accessed 12/1/08, http://www.bts.gov/dictionary/list.xml?letter=P
An automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation as described in
the second sentence below or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: 1) Transport more than 10
persons; 2) Provide temporary living quarters; 3) Transport property on an open bed; 4) Provide greater cargocarrying than passenger-carrying volume; or 5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes
or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the
automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as a screwdriver and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor
level, surface extending from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's
interior. An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile a) That has 4-wheel drive; or is rated at
more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and b) That has at least four of the following characteristics calculated
when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's
longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure: (i) Approach angle of not
less than 28 degrees; (ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees; (iii) Departure angle of not less than 20
degrees; (iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters; (v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18
centimeters each. (49CFR523)
5. Light truck is less than 10,000 pounds
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 2008, “BTS Dictionary,” Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
accessed 12/1/08, http://www.bts.gov/dictionary/list.xml?letter=P
Trucks of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less, including pickups, vans, truck-based station wagons,
and utility vehicles. (NHTSA2) (NHTSA3)
6. Powered by means using a particular kind of power
Wordnet, 2006, “powered,” Princeton University, accessed 12/1/08, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/powered
having or using or propelled by means of power or power of a specified kind; "powered flight"; "kerosine-powered
jet engines"
7. Alternative fuels means fuels other than gas
Natural Resources Defense Council, 2008, “Glossary of Environmental Terms,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/a.asp
transportation fuels other than gasoline or diesel. Includes natural gas, methanol, and electricity.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
5
Pro
The US Should Transition To Alternative Fuel Vehicles
1. We can transition to hydrogen cars in the next 15 years
Scott Doggett, July 2008, “Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles,” Green Car Advisor, accessed 12/1/08,
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/07/transition-to-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-is-doable-expertsreport-to-congress.html
A transition to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is entirely doable but requires nearly $200 billion in funding and further
technological breakthroughs, National Research Council experts said today in a report requested by Congress. While
stressing the "best-case scenario" nature of their report, the experts concluded that hydrogen could be the key driver
of a shift away from fossil fuels and emissions tied to global warming, with other clean technologies and biofuels
helping in that transition. "The benefits of hydrogen would be less in the early years but have a dominant effect" in
the longer run, panel chairman Mike Ramage, a retired ExxonMobil executive, said in a conference call with
reporters. "Hydrogen is a pathway to a sustainable energy future." The best-case scenario assumes the automotive
industry invests $145 billion and the federal government spends $50 billion over the next 15 years to drive down the
costs of hydrogen production and vehicles that run on hydrogen.
2. We should transition to alternative fuels quickly – we have the technology already
Charles Cresson Wood, Management Consultant, July 7, 2008, “Practical Tools,” Enphase Energy, accessed
12/1/08, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=52973
Those who have taken the time to investigate the world oil situation (I recommend Richard Heinberg's The Party's
Over) will come to the conclusion that we must get off of oil and we must do this rapidly. Unlike other major energy
transitions, such as wood-to-coal and coal-to-oil, moving from oil to alternatives will be forced and rapid. In
addition, there is no single substitute for oil to which the world can move en masse and this makes the transition
more complicated and difficult. There are in fact eleven commercially available alternative fuels that can substitute
for petroleum-based fuels. These include electricity, hydrogen, ethanol, butanol, biodiesel, straight vegetable oil,
dimethyl either, biomethane, propane, natural gas, and synthetic liquid fuel. One way that we can overcome the
resistance to change mentioned above, a way that we can encourage the transition to these — often cost-competitive
— alternative fuels, is to show management that there are actually many proven tools that can be used to assist with
the transition. The approach we take should undoubtedly involve three major initiatives, all of which are
complimentary and all of which should best be pursued simultaneously. We must be pushing conservation of
petroleum-based fuels, we must be increasing the efficiency of vehicles still using petroleum-based fuels and we
must also be rapidly transitioning to alternative fuels.
3. The US should encourage the development of alternative fuel vehicles
Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia, May 11, 1999, “Rockefeller Introduces Bill,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=293423
Rockefeller said, "Increasing the use of alternative fuel vehicles will both reduce our reliance on imported fuel and
improve our national air quality. Yet for too long, we have been caught in a 'chicken and egg' cycle, with the
infrastructure not available to support alternative fuel vehicles, and consumers not interested in the vehicles because
there's no support infrastructure. We can break this cycle by creating tax incentives that keep alternative fuels
affordable and help develop the necessary infrastructure. If consumers see affordable new fuels available at their
local gas stations, they will be much more likely to actually use an alternative fuel vehicle."
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
6
Alternative Fuel Cars Are Key To Stop Global Warming
1. Transition to alternative fuel cars is necessary to prevent global warming
Arindam Chattopadhyaya, June 24, 2008, “How to Use Alternative Fuels,” Buzzle, accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-to-use-alternative-fuels-for-cars-to-reduce-car-carbon-dioxide-emission-andglobal-warming.html
Our planet is getting hotter and hotter because of the Car carbon dioxide emission coming from our consumption of
fossil fuels and getting trapped in our atmosphere. It is necessary to find alternative fuel for car as one of the
possible practical solutions to global warming and control environment pollution. But since the big oil companies do
have an undeniable influence in politics, it may be hard to do something concrete about lowering our carbon
emission levels as well as finding good sources of alternative fuel. Because the government cannot act with true
conviction about this problem, we have to take the initiative for ourselves. We can do this by being conscious about
reducing our carbon emissions and by seeking viable alternative fuels.
2. Alternative fuel vehicles can stop global warming
National Resources Defense Council, 2008, Global Warming Basics, Accessed June 8, 2008,
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
Cost-effective technologies to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks of all sizes are available
now. There is no reason to wait and hope that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will solve the problem in the future.
Hybrid gas-electric engines can cut global warming pollution by one-third or more today; hybrid sedans, SUVs and
trucks from several automakers are already on the market.
3. Alternative fuel vehicles are a key step to fight global warming
Adrian M. Fenty, mayor of Washington DC, October 23, 2008, “District Announces,” States News Service, p. 1
George Hawkins, DDOE Director, said, "Everybody wins when we take cars off the road. Reducing emissions
means reducing pollution in the air we breathe. It also means reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we put into
the atmosphere -- gases that lead to the devastating consequences of global warming." Last year, DPW converted
100 percent of the Districts diesel-fueled fleet to ultra-low sulfur diesel. Alternative fuel vehicles are an important
part of the Districts fleet and include vehicles powered by E-85 ethanol and compressed natural gas, as well as
hybrid vehicles. In FY 2009, DPW will introduce B-20 biodiesel fuel.
4. Alternative fuel vehicles help fight global warming
Michael Gardner, staff writer, May 27, 2008, “Program may stall push,” Copley News Service, p. np
The program has rewarded automakers for building tiny golf-cart-like electric vehicles, and other cars that were
shipped out of state or taken off road and destroyed, as was the case with General Motors' celebrated EV-1 electric
car. Although the credit system provides an opportunity for automakers to build fewer ultra-clean cars, market
forces may push the industry to produce more. Consumers, wary of soaring prices at the pump, are shopping for
high-mileage and alternative-fuel vehicles. State and federal lawmakers are demanding better fuel efficiency and
strict tailpipe emissions to help curb global warming. "They need to stay on a path of accelerating these
technologies, otherwise they will be in big trouble," said Dan Sperling, a University of California Davis
transportation specialist and member of the air board.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
7
Global Warming Is Real And Human Caused
1. Global warming is real and a result of fossil fuel combustion
Adam Rose and Dan Wei, both School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern
California, April 2008, “Greenhouse gas emissions trading,” Energy Policy, p. np
The earth's mean temperature has been rising steadily in recent decades, and there is now a strong scientific
consensus that this phenomenon is primarily caused by human activity, most prominently the combustion of fossil
fuels (IPCC, 2007). In response, some progress has been made on the design of policies to mitigate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, is based on commitments from most industrialized countries
(ICs) and a handful of developing countries (DCs) to cap emissions. Individual cities and sub-national regions
around the world have made commitments as well (Kousky and Schneider, 2003; Peterson and Rose, 2006).
Mitigation actions are currently taking place at all levels independently and more are about to take place
cooperatively as the first Kyoto Protocol compliance period of 2008–2012 is about to begin.
2. Global Warming is unequivocal – temperature increases prove
IPCC, International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November 12, 2007, “Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers,” accessed 12/1/08, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1).
{1.1} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record
of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C1 is larger
than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure
SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land
regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2} Rising sea level is consistent with
warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr
and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps,
and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the
longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1} Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming
(Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to
3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow
cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1}
3. Warming is real – latest data and most-thorough studies. Gender modified.
MSNBC, April 6, 2007, “Experts Issue New Climate Warning”, accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6342&method=full
An international global warming conference approved a report Friday warning of dire threats to the Earth and to
[hu]mankind from increased hunger in Africa and Asia to the extinction of species unless the world adapts to
climate change and halts its progress. Africa will be hardest hit, the report concluded. By 2020, up to 250 million
people are likely to exposed to water shortages. In some countries, food production could fall by half, it said.
Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists
angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings. It has been a
complex exercise, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Several
scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises.
However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again. The climax of five days of negotiations was
reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick
in with every rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key
statements. There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in
the last five years. For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models, Martin Perry, who conducted the
grueling negotiations, told reporters.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
8
Transportation Sector Is Key To Fossil Fuel Use
1. Transportation is an incredibly important sector in greenhouse gas emissions
David L. Greene, PhD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Andreas Schafer, Energy Economics PhD, May 2003,
Pew Center for Global Climate Change, “Executive Summary,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/reduce_ghg_from_transportation/ustransp_execsumm.cfm
In the U.S. economy, transportation is second only to electricity generation in terms of the volume and rate of
growth of GHG emissions. In terms of carbon dioxide, which accounts for 95 percent of transportation's GHG
emissions, transportation is the largest and fastest growing end-use sector.1 Today, the U.S. transportation sector
accounts for one-third of all U.S. end-use sector CO2 emissions, and if projections hold, this share will rise to 36
percent by 2020. U.S. transportation is also a major emitter on a global scale. Each year it produces more CO2
emissions than any other nation's entire economy, except China. Given its size and rate of growth, any serious GHG
mitigation strategy must include the transportation sector.
2. Passenger cars and light trucks are the best area for alternative fuels
David L. Greene, PhD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Andreas Schafer, Energy Economics PhD, May 2003,
Pew Center for Global Climate Change, “Executive Summary,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/reduce_ghg_from_transportation/ustransp_execsumm.cfm
This report evaluates potential CO2 emission reductions from transportation in the United States. Measures
considered include energy efficiency improvements, low-carbon alternative fuels, increasing the operating efficiency
of the transportation system, and reducing travel. Highway vehicles should be the primary focus of policies to
control GHG emissions, since they account for 72 percent of total transportation emissions. Passenger cars and light
trucks together account for more than half of total sectoral emissions.
3. Now is critical – it takes a long time to turn over the vehicle fleet
David L. Greene, PhD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Andreas Schafer, Energy Economics PhD, May 2003,
Pew Center for Global Climate Change, “Executive Summary,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/reduce_ghg_from_transportation/ustransp_execsumm.cfm
The long lead times required to turn over the entire fleet of vehicles and the supporting infrastructure mean that
policies must be implemented now to create the impetus for change in order to achieve the reduction levels indicated
in this report. Within the next 15 years, energy efficiency improvements, various pricing policies, and low-carbon
replacement fuels are the key components of a comprehensive effort for reducing GHG emissions. Over the longer
term a large-scale transition away from petroleum fuel toward low-carbon alternative fuels should be considered.
Among the most promising low-carbon fuels for the longer term is hydrogen, which has many desirable fuel
characteristics and can be produced from a variety of zero-carbon feedstocks or from fossil fuels with subsequent
carbon sequestration. Obstacles, however, remain in areas such as hydrogen storage and the cost of hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles. A transition to hydrogen will require an entirely new infrastructure for producing, transporting,
distributing, storing, and retailing hydrogen, and possibly for sequestering CO2 emissions generated during its
production.
4. Transportation is the critical sector
David L. Greene, PhD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Andreas Schafer, Energy Economics PhD, May 2003,
Pew Center for Global Climate Change, “Executive Summary,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/reduce_ghg_from_transportation/ustransp_execsumm.cfm
The size and rate of growth of transportation's GHG emissions make them impossible to ignore. The
interconnectedness of transportation to nearly every aspect of human activity, the provision of most transportation
infrastructure as public goods, the important external costs associated with transportation activity and energy use,
and other market imperfections mean that no single policy is likely to achieve the needed reductions in
transportation GHG emissions. A suite of policies will be necessary. Devising and implementing an effective,
comprehensive strategy will be a difficult and complex task, but it can be done.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
9
Alternative Fuel Cars Are Key To Solve Oil Dependence
1. Alternative fuel vehicles are key to reduce fossil fuel use
Bruce Campbell, March 26, 2008, “Alternative Fuel Vehicles,” Ezine, accessed 12/1/08,
http://ezinearticles.com/?Alternative-Fuel-Vehicles-For-Reduced-Oil-Dependence&id=1069431
When one considers the limited availability of resources that the world consumes at such a high rate, the importance
of research on and design of vehicles that run on alternative fuel is even more apparent. Fuel prices continue to rise
at rates previously unheard of. If the trend of fossil fuel consumption continues, there will soon be a day with no oil
left on Earth. Auto makers throughout the globe have begun to make hybrid cars that do not use gas or diesel fuel.
Several years ago, we witnessed the debut of electric autos too. There is an ever increasing awareness that we must
conserve energy. Numerous nations are considering the substitution of hybrid vehicles in place of their current gas
or diesel fueled cars and vans.
2. Alternative fuel vehicles end oil dependence and terrorism
National Resources Defense Council, 2001, “US Oil Dependence,” accessed June 8, 2008,
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp
There is a faster, cleaner and cheaper alternative, a path to energy security that would save many times more oil than
could ever come from drilling in the Arctic Refuge or our other pristine protected places. The cornerstone of this
path is to reduce demand for gasoline with better gas mileage, cleaner fuels from America's farms, and faster
deployment of hybrid and fuel cell technologies. We also can promote public transportation and "smart growth"
development patterns that reduce driving, cut gasoline use, and offer a better quality of life. Below NRDC outlines
key energy security policies that would significantly reduce U.S. oil dependence over the next few years and the
following three decades. As our country girds for a struggle against international terrorism, Americans also are
concerned about the possibility of immediate oil price shocks or supply disruptions.
3. Alternative fuel vehicles can help wean the US off of oil
Greg Schneider, staff writer, April 1, 2005, “Disparate groups agree,” San Francisco Chronicle, accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/01/BUGH4C1LLI1.DTL&type=business
Environmentalists aren't the only ones applauding the stumbling sales of big SUVs and pickups in the face of high
gas prices. Groups of conservative Republicans see an opportunity to step up a campaign to promote alternative-fuel
vehicles and wean the nation from dependence on foreign oil. While skeptical about links between autos and global
warming, the conservatives have concluded that cutting gasoline consumption is a matter of national security. A
who's who of right-leaning military hawks -- including former CIA Director James Woolsey and Iraq war advocate
Frank Gaffney -- has joined with environmental advocates such as the Natural Resources Defense Council to lobby
Congress to spend $12 billion to cut oil use in half by 2025. The alliance highlights how popular sentiment is turning
against the gas-guzzling culture of the past decade and how technologies such as gas-electric hybrids are finding
increasingly widespread support.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
10
Oil Dependence Causes Terrorism
1. Oil dependence is the US Achilles heel in the war on terrorism
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, July 20, 2008, “The Strategic Vulnerabilities,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies,
accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11781854&Itemid=102
America’s dependence on oil is its Achilles’ heel in the battle against terrorism, a fact that has not escaped the
terrorists. Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders have declared the oil supply a top target, while plots by alQaeda and other groups have demonstrated their desire to disrupt world energy markets. A catastrophic attack on
key facilities would devastate the world economy, but disruptive attacks that fall short of that are also a powerful
tool of asymmetric warfare. This significant weakness should factor heavily in current political debates about
alternatives to oil.
2. We should pursue alternatives to oil to limit the impact of terrorism
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, July 20, 2008, “The Strategic Vulnerabilities,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies,
accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11781854&Itemid=102
Disruptions of the global oil supply will harm the U.S. and its allies. The situation appears to be growing more rather
than less perilous: Luft and Korin noted in their contribution to Francis Fukuyama’s 2007 compilation Blindside that
the growing worldwide demand for oil has reduced OPEC’s spare capacity from seven million barrels a day in 2002
to only two million barrels today (less than 2.5% of the market). “As a result,” they write, “the oil market today
resembles a car without shock absorbers: the tiniest bump can send a passenger to the ceiling.” Moreover, the world
is projected to have 1.25 billion cars on the road in 2030, a dramatic increase from 700 million today. Blindside was
sponsored by The American Interest magazine, based on a May 2006 conference that probed the nature of
uncertainty—or, in Fukuyama’s words, “why the future is inherently difficult to anticipate, and how to mitigate our
blindness to its vicissitudes.” Amidst other contributors’ discussions of such low probability yet high impact events
as an asteroid hitting the earth or a massive outbreak of avian flu, Luft and Korin warned that a severe oil shock
generated by a terrorist attack is “an eminently predictable catastrophe if ever there was one.” Indeed it is: an
eminently predictable catastrophe that would dramatically change the global order, in ways that most policymakers
have probably never contemplated. There are a great many reasons for the U.S. to pursue alternatives to oil. The
threat of terrorism should be a part of the discussion—and it also adds urgency to the equation.
3. Moving toward alternative fuels would stop funding terrorism with oil money
Jim DiPeso, REP Policy Director, January 12, 2003, “Foreign Oil Dependence,” Detroit News, accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.repamerica.org/opinions/op-eds/32.html
In short, oil money is a drug that results in our Middle Eastern friends supporting terrorism -- directly through cash
bribes, indirectly by breeding popular resentments that terrorists feed upon. Our unwillingness to confront Saudi
Arabia's rulers over their behavior is a consequence of our unwillingness to curb our oil appetite. As New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written: "Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers." Consequently, a
critical component of our campaign to root out terror must be undercutting the political and financial support base
for terror that is fed in part by oil. Our nation's long-term security depends on adopting a sensible energy policy that
improves fuel efficiency and diversifies our portfolio of energy resources. Such a serious national effort would give
the United States greater leverage to foster a more democratic, peaceful and prosperous Middle East.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
11
Alternative Fuel Cars Are Key To Competitiveness
1. Alternative fuel vehicles are key to boosting US auto competitiveness
Greg Schneider, staff writer, April 1, 2005, “Disparate groups agree,” San Francisco Chronicle, accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/01/BUGH4C1LLI1.DTL&type=business
The United Auto Workers also has come around to accepting the need for alternative-fuel vehicles. The union has
long viewed efforts to boost federal gas mileage standards as a threat to Detroit's success with truck and SUV sales,
and as bad for U.S. jobs. Now the union sees a new threat from the increasing popularity of foreign-produced hybrid
and advanced diesel technology, which a recent University of Michigan study said could cost the United States as
many as 200,000 jobs. So the union, in cooperation with the nonpartisan National Commission on Energy Policy,
has begun promoting a proposal for a federal program to encourage U.S. manufacturers to develop alternative-fuel
technology and keep those jobs here. "The guts of what we're proposing -- which is really an investment tax credit -that's not a Republican or Democrat idea. That's sort of motherhood and apple pie to business folks and conservative
folks. In theory, I do think we have support across the political spectrum to this type of approach," said Alan
Reuther, legislative director at the union.
2. Switching to alternative fuel vehicles is key to auto companies competitiveness
Jackson Sun, November 28, 2008, “Tennessee Editorial Roundup,” AP, p. np
The issue isn't whether to bail out the auto companies, but how. The U.S. auto industry creates millions of jobs,
some directly, but many more through original equipment manufacturers and other industry suppliers. Allowing the
auto companies to fail would effectively cede America's No. 1 manufacturing industry to foreign competitors. That
should not be allowed to happen. But for the companies to survive, they must make fundamental changes in how
they operate. They must shift to manufacturing more fuel-efficient vehicles. They must innovate and develop
electric and other alternative fuel vehicles. They should reduce the number of models produced. And they must
bring employee costs into line with those of foreign manufacturers to remain competitive.
3. Moving towards alternative fuel vehicles would make the US auto industry more competitive
Bracken Hendricks, senior fellow at Center for American Progress, September 18, 2008, “Developing a ‘green’
energy economy,” Testimony, CQ Congressional Testimony, p. np
It is also noteworthy, that currently in Congress appropriations for a $25 billion loan program for automobile
companies to retool factories and retrain workers are receiving serious consideration. While our paper, and the
projection of creating 2 million jobs, did not look at the benefits of investment in the automotive industry, it is clear
that investing in the rapid conversion of the U.S. auto industry to produce highly fuel efficient and alternative fuel
vehicles, could provide a major boost to global competitiveness, near term stimulative investments, and long term
reductions in CO2 emissions. This strategy should be encouraged. Any loan program that moves forward should
have strong guarantees that both the environmental performance goals and domestic retooling and workforce
investments are met, as a condition of the loans. In addition, the experience of the Chrysler loan guarantee program
showed that such emergency relief can also enable the government not only to share the risk, but to benefit from the
up side when such loans are successfully repaid. In the Chrysler loan guarantee program, the U.S. treasury made
$311 million dollars when it sold warrants issued as a part of the relief package.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
12
The Auto Industry Is Key To The US Economy
1. A collapse of the domestic auto industry would collapse the entire economy
Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow with American Progress, 2005, Strengthening America's Auto Industry,
American Progress, Accessed June 8 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/09/b1037455.html/
Recent months have brought news of a growing crisis among U.S. automakers. Faced with surging gasoline prices,
aging industrial plants and workers, crushing legacy health and pension costs, and a product line lacking in diversity,
U.S. automakers are losing money and market share. The response from industry has been to lay off workers, scale
back investment, and offer steep discounts that drive up sales but threaten profitability further. The story is not a
new one. Despite periods of profitability and growth, U.S. automakers have lost large swaths of the global and
domestic markets to foreign competitors over the last thirty years. Yet the economic importance of the auto industry
is undeniable; roughly one in five jobs in the industrial Midwest is dependent upon General Motors alone.
2. The auto industry is key to the whole economy
Eric Dash, New York Times Reporter, May 2008, Auto Industry Feels the Pain of Tight Credit, New York Times, p.
np
The impact on the broader American economy could be profound. Not only is the car a consumer’s biggest purchase
after the home, but the auto industry remains one of nation’s most important economic engines. With less money
available to bolster the industry’s growth, the businesses that support it are also facing the prospect of a sharp
slowdown. “It is a bleak picture, and it all hinges on the availability of financing,” said William Ryan, a financial
analyst at Portales Partners who has followed the auto business for years. “The whole universe related to the auto
industry is touched in some way — parts suppliers, manufacturers, salespeople, trucking people, the paint and
metals industries. Even semiconductors.”
3. The Auto industry is key to the US economy
Don Hall, President of Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, 2004, Proposal Effectively Reinstitutes Car Tax, p.
np
As important as the impact of such a drastic tax increase would be on Virginia car buyers, it would have an even
greater impact on our overall economy. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the automotive industry has
been one of the only sources of strength in our economy. The direct impact will be to the dealerships themselves.
New car and truck dealerships in Virginia account for nearly $20 billion in retail sales annually - more than 20
percent of Virginia's total retail sales. They employ more than 37,000 Virginians. However, the indirect impact
could be even more severe. New car and truck dealerships purchase more than $915 million in goods and services
from other Virginia businesses. This includes everything from advertising to utilities to insurance. Lost sales will
result in lost buying power, which will ripple throughout our economy. Most people don't realize how critical the
automotive industry is to our economy. According to a 2001 report on the "Contribution of the Automotive Industry
to the U.S. Economy" prepared by the University of Michigan and the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), for
every worker directly employed by the auto industry, nearly seven spin-off jobs are created.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
13
Free Market Doesn’t Solve Alternative Fuel Vehicles
1. The free market won’t encourage acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles – government is necessary to push
PhysOrg, May 30, 2007, “Alternative fuel vehicles,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.physorg.com/news99743069.html
Imagine a vehicle that runs on hydrogen or biofuels and offers the same features, performance and price as today's
gasoline vehicle. Will it capture half the market? Not likely, concludes a new MIT analysis of the challenges behind
introducing alternative-fuel vehicles to the marketplace. Not even if it's three times more fuel-efficient.
Among the barriers: Until many alternative fuel (AF) vehicles are on the road, people won't consider buying one-so
there won't be many on the road. Catch-22. The researchers' conclusions are not all gloomy, though. If policy
incentives are kept in place long enough, adoption will reach a level at which the market will begin to grow on its
own. But "long enough" may be a surprisingly long time. Given today's environmental pressures and energy security
concerns, we need to move away from fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. But repeated attempts to introduce other
technologies during the past century have nearly all failed. Dethroning the gasoline-consuming internal combustion
engine (ICE) has proved difficult. "The challenge is not just introducing an AF vehicle," said postdoctoral associate
Jeroen Struben of the Sloan School of Management, who has been examining the mechanisms behind such market
transitions. "Consumer acceptance, the fueling infrastructure and manufacturing capability all have to evolve at the
same time."
2. Government efforts are key to push alternative fuel vehicles
Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager, February 1, 2008, “Plug-In Hybrids,” American Progress, accessed
12/1/08, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/future_of_cars.html
Despite these concerns, plug-in hybrids offer part of the solution to the need to reduce oil use and global warming
emissions. The panelists agreed that easing the financial burden on both consumers and manufacturers would require
government help, either by funding research and development and process technology, or by offering consumer tax
rebates. Other issues, such as safety and durability of batteries, will need to be solved with future innovation and
development. In the long run, plug-in hybrids are just one weapon in a larger arsenal of tactics to fight global
warming and oil dependence. The United States must embrace the coming energy opportunity and lead the world in
implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce global-warming emissions.
3. Customers won’t buy alternative fuel vehicles on their own – government efforts are key
Jake Caldwell, Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy in the National Security Department at American
Progress, 2007, Cleaner Cars, Stronger Companies: Auto Emission Standards Must Aid Detroit and the
Environment, Center for American Progress, Accessed June 8 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/cafe.html
Because of the business and financial structure of the U.S. auto industry, however, this transformation will not be
easy. That’s why Congress has a key role to play, helping the Big Three retool their assembly lines, design shops,
and employee benefits packages to regain their competitive edge. Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corp., and
Chrysler Group are all handicapped right now by the need to generate enough cash flow to honor the health care
commitments and pension obligations to their current and retired employees. This cash flow-driven business model
works when the automakers can sell lots of big, high-priced cars at high-profit margins so that the companies can
also enrich their shareholders and invest in new technologies for new car models. Problem is, gas-guzzlers are out
of favor with consumers amid rising gas prices and growing concern about global warming. What’s worse, few
consumers want to buy the Big Three’s more fuel-efficient compact or sub-compact car models, which are more
expensive to build than what’s on offer by their rivals.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
14
Con
The Status Quo Is Encouraging Alternative Fuels
1. Consumers are already switching to alternative fuel vehicles
Resource Week, November 16, 2008, “Scott Robinson Honda,” p. 140
Speaking on the panel, Eric noted that earlier this year there was no shortage of hybrid vehicles on dealer's lots, but
once gas prices approached and exceeded $4 a gallon, consumers rushed to acquire these vehicles. While many feel
the stereotypical buyer of these units is the 30 something crowd, Scott Robinson Honda has seen a majority of their
alternative fuel vehicle buyers in the over 50 set. These boomers see the value in not only fuel economy but in doing
their part to curb emissions in this part of the state. Awareness has certainly been increasing in the media. When
Honda announced the FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle leasing program and invited consumers to
apply for one of these limited production vehicles they received over 70,000 applications, clearly showing the public
wants stylish, clean burning power sources for vehicles in their future.
2. Renewable fuels are already on the agenda
Jim Lane, staff writer, November 11, 2008, “Today in Biofuels Opinion,” Biofuels Digest, p. np
Against a background of increasing pressure on the industry to do more to control and reduce its carbon emissions,
alternative fuels have moved firmly onto and up the agenda as one way in which some or all of aviations greenhouse
gas emissions might be further controlled and reduced¦The main question in climate change terms is whether such
fuels have an overall benign or negative carbon balance. From a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson from
the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, the National Wildlife
Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists: œIn last years energy
bill, Congress explicitly required the EPA to accurately measure global warming emissions from renewable fuels
based on their entire lifecycle, from cultivation to fuel production to vehicle exhaust. However, industry trade
groups and others are pressuring EPA to omit or delay accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from land use
change, such as tropical deforestation, tied to expanding biofuels production.
3. Focus on alternative fuel vehicles is growing in the status quo
Sean Kilcarr, senior editor of Fleet Owner, October 1, 2008, “Mix & Match,” American City & County, p. 43
As prices for regular gasoline and diesel continue to increase, and concern about emissions and dependence on
foreign oil grows, interest in alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel use will only grow. "The higher the cost of
fossil fuel, the more cost-effective hybrids and AFVs using alternative fuels are," Mitchell says. "Also, diesel
vehicles use less fuel than comparably sized gasoline vehicles, so we have increased the number of diesel-powered
pickups and vans, and they use B20 to help clean the air. That's the simplest calculation of all."
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
15
The US Already Raised Fuel Economy Standards
1. The US is already raising fuel economy standards
Debbie Stabenow, senator from Michigan, November 14, 2008, “MSNBC,” Federal News Service, p. np
Well, Chris, first of all, let me say, I'm not going to say there's not been mistakes in the past. We all know that. But
here's what we also know. This is an industry that is racing like crazy to the new energy-efficient automobiles. The
CAFE standards have been raised. We put in place the ability for them to get retooling loans to be able to build these
new vehicles. And then what happens? The economy collapses in terms of the credit markets. So we're at a point
where, just as with all of the other businesses -- I mean, I'm amazed. It's okay to talk about banks, giving them
money when they start buying up other banks rather than giving out loans to people. It's okay to talk about AIG. But
when we talk about a small fraction of that to be able to keep manufacturing in this country, 3 million jobs -- and I
should also say, it's not just autos. It affects aerospace, defense. How are we going to build those tanks, make that
equipment that we need to defend ourselves around the world? It's all related to manufacturing.
2. The US is pushing ahead with raised fuel economy
Eric Fleischauer, staff writer, July 27, 2008, “Decatur’s auto hub,” The Decatur Daily, p. np
The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations are intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars
and light trucks sold in the United States. CAFE focuses on the fuel economy of a manufacturer's fleet of current
model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less. In December,
President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which raised CAFE standards to 35 miles per
gallon by 2020. The United States has the lowest average fuel economy among developed nations; the European
Union and Japan have fuel economy standards twice as high as the United States. The rush to comply with CAFE
standards focuses on vehicle weight. The best way to reduce vehicle weight is by substituting heavy metal parts with
carbon fiber.
3. Congress is already focused on alternative energy vehicles, including raised efficiency
John Cornyn, Texas Senator, June 18, 2008, “How High Must Gas Prices Rise,” States News Service, p. 1
"Congress must continue to pursue and encourage alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency. These
energy policies will serve us well in the future. But we must acknowledge that oil and gas is the bridge into that
future. It is simply irresponsible and harmful to ignore solutions that will increase energy supply and help bring
down the gas prices that are pinching the American taxpayersa pocketbook. Americans spent an additional $1,400
on energy costs last year, and the Department of Defense spent $12.6 billion on fuel just last year. "We cannot
afford to keep filling the coffers of Iran and Venezuela while we wait for alternative energies to solve our problems.
We need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy that includes increased American energy production. We
have raised CAFE standards, implemented a renewable fuel standard, and supported tax incentives for wind, solar,
biomass and energy efficiency appliances. Now, we need to grow our domestic energy production by tapping into
America' proven oil and gas reserves.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
16
Transportation Is Not Key To Fossil Fuels
1. Transportation focus alone can’t decrease energy use or emissions
Alan Reynolds, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist, 2004, Energy
Disinformation, Accessed June 8, 2008, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2720
Be careful to notice, however, that SUVs account for less than half of light truck sales, and that the growth of
consumption Mr. McClain mentions is mainly due to more people driving more miles, not that "the average fuel
economy of vehicles sold in America has stagnated." Since average fuel economy has barely changed, it cannot
possibly account for a significant oil-consumption change. Transportation accounts for 67 percent of petroleum use,
but only 27 percent of total energy use. The other third of each barrel of petroleum goes to produce plastics,
synthetic fibers, pesticides and fertilizer, fueling farm machinery, generating some electricity and heating some
homes.
2. Energy guzzling cars aren’t to blame for high oil prices
Alan Reynolds, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist, 2004, Energy
Disinformation, Accessed June 8, 2008, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2720
Transportation accounts for two-thirds of total U.S. petroleum use, or about 13 million barrels a day out of the 20
million barrels a day the U.S. used 2003. But household vehicles, such as cars and SUVs, account for only about
half of the petroleum used in transportation, roughly 6.5 million barrels a day. Oil imports are much larger than that,
about 10 million barrels a day. So, even if U.S. households had no cars, pickups or SUVs at all, we would still
import about 3.5 million barrels a day -- for other transportation and for industrial uses. Since light trucks account
for 18 percent of oil used for transportation (which is 67 percent of all oil use), and SUVs for no more than half of
that, it follows that SUVs account for no more than 6 percent of U.S. petroleum use and 2.4 percent of total U.S.
energy use. Blaming cyclical swings in energy prices on SUVs may be politically correct, but it's quite absurd.
3. Alternative fuel vehicles do not decrease oil consumption
Liz Weston, Column Writer for MSN Money, 2008, MSN Money, The costly secrets of hybrid cars, Accessed June
8, 2008, http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheCostlySecretsOfHybridCars.aspx
Behold GMC's hybrid, the K15 Sierra. This pickup truck scores a 3 on the EPA's 0-to-10 emissions scale, with 0
being the worst. It gets a whopping 18 miles per gallon in combined city and highway driving. That compares with
the 16 mpg attained by its non-hybrid sibling, the K1500 Sierra. So what, exactly, is green or even fuel-efficient
about this vehicle? You might ask the same question about Chevrolet's C15 Silverado hybrid (19 mpg, compared to
the regular C1500's 18). Even some of the new vehicles touted as significantly less gas-hungry than their peers still
post mileage ratings that could be bested by a regular old Toyota Corolla with a headwind.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
17
Free Markets Are Better Than Mandates For Alternative Fuel Vehicles
1. Free markets work better for encouraging alternative fuel vehicles
Bob McClure, December 5, 2008, “Letters,” Tampa Tribune, p. 25
Furthermore, state regulations are not needed to achieve the environmental benefits of cleaner cars. Consumer
preferences and market forces are already pushing automakers to lower emissions and increase fuel efficiency. Last
year more than 1.8 million hybrid-electric, ethanol-capable flex-fuel vehicles and clean diesel vehicles were sold in
the U.S. - a 15 percent increase from 2006. This year, more than 70 different models of alternative-fuel vehicles are
being offered in dealers' showrooms. These dramatic increases are not, primarily, the result of executive orders or
government regulations. They are a product of free markets at work. With automakers already striving to produce
cleaner, more efficient vehicles at affordable prices in response to market demands for an eco-friendly mix of
products, it makes no sense for Florida to replace federal emissions standards with standards that are unique to
Florida.
2. Free market economics will promote alternative vehicles, government intervention is not necessary
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, 2000, Why Subsidize Insight?,
Accessed June 8, 2008, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4516
Honda has sold about 2,000 Insights to American customers as of this writing. That's not many cars. For the time
being, Japanese subsidy or not, Honda is losing money on every car--about $8,000 per car for model year 2000,
according to Business Week. But whether it loses that money (with or without the government subsidy) is
inconsequential to a company with such an impressive array of profit-making lines. Instead, Honda's Insight is a loss
leader, a technological marker that shows just how far the "competition" (I'm afraid we all know who that is) has to
go to produce a fun car that can easily run 600 miles between 10-gallon fill-ups and can cruise the highway at well
over 100 mph. If the technology proves durable, economies of scale will eventually take over.
3. Consumers are already being encouraged to switch to alternative fuel vehicles by the market
Josh Loposer, April 4, 2008, “Alternative fuel vehicles,” Green Daily, accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.greendaily.com/2008/04/04/alternative-fuel-vehicles-where-were-at/
The list of concerns that consumers are bringing to the car lot these days is ever-growing. Issues from climate
change, to fuel prices, to Peak Oil are driving the decisions we make about what kind of vehicles we want to drive.
So, how is this effecting the US car market? And more importantly, what does the future of the American
automobile look like? The Auto Alliance released its numbers today regarding 2007's alternative fuel vehicle sales,
and the figures are encouraging, but short of mind-blowing. Last year, 1.8 million alternative fuel vehicles were sold
in the US -- that includes everything from hybrids to flex-fuel vehicles. Hybrid sales rose to over 347,000.
Alternative fuel vehicles are the future, but which one will dominate?
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
18
Incentives Are Better Than Mandates For Alternative Fuel Vehicles
1. We need incentives for alternative vehicles, not mandates
CNG Now, 2008, “Financial Incentives,” accessed 12/1/08, http://www.cngnow.com/ENUS/Incentives/Pages/FederalIncentives.aspx
Beyond much cleaner air and 40% savings on fuel cost, governments must do more to pave the way for CNG. At the
federal level, we need incentives for automakers to build CNG vehicles. At the federal, state and local levels,
financial incentives will motivate citizens to buy CNG vehicles or convert their current vehicles to CNG. We need
adequate incentives to motivate fuel retailers to sell CNG. We need a better financial incentive for purchase and
installation of the home refueling unit, currently just $1,000 – although some states and cities wisely add to that
amount. We need to support the education and certification of CNG mechanics with incentives for vocational
training centers and students who enroll and receive certification. Governments should also look at what other
nations have been doing to reduce their oil consumption and promote CNG. Germany, for example, has made
extensive investments in a CNG highway that assures long distance drivers can refuel after every 200-225 miles.
Why can’t the U.S. have just such a highway, coast to coast?
2. Incentives are needed to expand alternative fuel vehicles in the US
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico senator, February 5, 2007, “Senator Bingaman,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.cleanairsys.com/airzone-blog/2007/05/senator-bingaman-on-alternative-fuel.html
"Right now, over 50 percent of the nearly 21 million barrels of oil we use each day in the U.S. is imported. And
almost 70 percent of that oil consumption is used in the transportation sector. These numbers suggest that in order to
achieve energy security, we need to reduce our use of imported fuels. We can begin this effort by becoming efficient
users of transportation fuels," Bingaman said. The U.S. tax code has several incentives to encourage manufacturers
and consumers to build and purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. There are tax penalties that apply to the purchase
of the least fuel efficient vehicles. The tax code also features credits, against income or excise tax, for bio-based fuel
blends that take the place of imported fuels. But the Senator wants to do more. "We have taken steps that allow us to
continue providing incentives to all types of advanced technologies that increase our fuel efficiency and reduce
polluting emissions. What we learned today is that we also need to provide incentives for manufacturers to produce
these technologies in the United States," Bingaman said. Today the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee met to vote on legislation to promote the efficient use of energy, expand the use of biofuels and to invest
in research and development capture and storing of carbon emissions.
3. Incentives are key to overcoming consumer resistance to alternative fuel vehicles
Environmental Research Web, June 6, 2007, “Consumer acceptance,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/30173
Consumer acceptance of such vehicles is slowed by lack of exposure to them, in a classic Catch-22 scenario.
Similarly, fuel suppliers won't build alternative-fuel stations until there's sufficient demand, but consumers won't
buy the cars until they're sure fuel will be widely available. And production costs won't fall until volumes are high,
but large volumes won't be required until prices are low. On the plus side, policy incentives could boost adoption to
a level at which the market will begin to grow on its own. These incentives may need to be in place for a long time,
perhaps even many decades, say the researchers. Measures could include carbon-emission taxes and providing
incentives to scrap current vehicles and build alternative-fuel stations, particularly in remote areas. Struben and
colleague John Sterman developed a system dynamics model to simulate how markets for alternative-fuel vehicles
may proceed. The pair looked at technologies such as conventional and advanced internal-combustion engines,
hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels, inputting decisions from consumers, fuel suppliers and
auto manufacturers.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
19
Alternative Fuel Vehicles Are Not Key To The Auto Industry
1. The whole auto industry is a mess – alternative fuel vehicles can’t save them
Andrew English, staff writer, December 7, 2008, “Is this the end,” UK Telegraph, accessed 12/7/08,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3660579/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-the-auto-industry.html
But as well as providing a few moments of Schadenfreude, the embarrassments of these masters of the motoring
universe illustrate the grim plight of the car industry as a whole. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are in dire
straits, claiming that they have just a few days’ worth of cash left before they become insolvent and are forced to
seek protection from their creditors under America’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy regulations. While the US has become
used to “flying Chapter 11” after the beleaguered airline industry sought shelter there in the last recession, there is
no guarantee consumers will be willing to drive that way as well, especially given the long-term sales consequences
of severed warranties and a dwindling pile of spare parts. And the crisis is not confined to America. Chapter 11
could force the Big Three’s overseas operations into administration, for fear of creditors suing them for return of
funds, which would affect Vauxhall, Saab and Volvo. Last week, Porsche, the German sports-car company,
announced record profits, but even as he pocketed his £6.74 million bonus, chairman Wendelin Wiedeking gave
warnings that there were dark clouds ahead: year-on-year sales are down 18 per cent over the past four months, and
revenue has fallen by 15 per cent.
2. The auto industry will disappear in the status quo – alternative fuel vehicles can’t save it
Malin Rising, staff writer, December 7, 2008, “Krugman,” AP, accessed 12/7/08,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTDu0_1uS4AJHEN10aFE75hDSZFQD94TS8KO4
Nobel economics prize winner Paul Krugman said Sunday that the beleaguered U.S. auto industry will likely
disappear. "It will do so because of the geographical forces that me and my colleagues have discussed," the
Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist told reporters in Stockholm. "It is no longer
sustained by the current economy." Krugman won the 10 million kronor (US$1.4 million) Nobel Memorial Prize in
economics for his work on international trade patterns. Some of his research on economic geography seeks to
explain why production resources are concentrated in certain locations. Speaking to reporters three days ahead of the
Nobel Prize ceremony, Krugman said plans by U.S. lawmakers to bail out the Big Three automakers were a shortterm solution, resulting from a "lack of willingness to accept the failure of a large industry in the midst of an
economic crisis."
3. Lots of factors hurt US competitiveness
Bernard Schwartz, Retired Chairman and CEO, Loral Space & Communications, Inc., 2006, The Future of U.S.
Competitiveness, Brookings, Accessed April 9 2008, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2006/1005globaleconomics.aspx
But simultaneously in America we see while they are growing fast, the emerging countries are emerging extremely
strongly, we see a low savings rate, we see decreasing investments in technology and research and development,
soaring fiscal deficits, rising health costs and pension liabilities, concern about the weakening dollar, insufficient
Ph.Ds in academic producing important players in the hard sciences, a faltering K through 12 school system, and,
finally, a credit system that is reliant on the kindness of foreign countries. All of these factors seem to point to a
most formidable challenge for the United States.
4. The housing crisis will collapse the auto industry
Eric Dash, New York Times Reporter, May 2008, Auto Industry Feels the Pain of Tight Credit, New York Times, p.
np
The auto industry is getting sideswiped by the housing crisis. Auto lenders and banks, closing their wallets, have
prevented hundreds of thousands of consumers from obtaining the financing for a car. Home equity loans, which had
been used in at least one of every nine deals, when lenders were more generous, are no longer a source of easy
money for many prospective buyers. And used-car prices have fallen nearly 6 percent as repossessed cars and gasguzzling trucks and S.U.V.’s flood auction lots.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
20
Mandating Alternative Fuel Vehicles Fails
1. Federal mandates for alternative fuel vehicles empirically fail
Kimberly Kindy and Dan Keating, staff writers, November 28, 2008, “Flex-fuel fleet,” Washington Post, accessed
12/1/08,
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081128/NATION/811280305/1448/LIFESTYLE14
The federal government has invested billions of dollars over the past 16 years, building a fleet of 112,000
alternative-fuel vehicles to serve as a model for a national movement away from fossil fuels. But the costly effort to
put more workers into vehicles powered by ethanol and other fuel alternatives has been fraught with problems, many
of them caused by buying vehicles before fuel stations were in place to support them, a Washington Post analysis of
federal records shows. "I call it the 'Field of Dreams' plan. If you buy them, they will come," said Wayne Corey,
vehicle operations manager with the U.S. Postal Service. "It hasn't happened." Under a mandate from Congress,
federal agencies have gradually increased their fleets of alternative-fuel vehicles, a majority of them "flex-fuel,"
capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol-based E85 fuel. But many of the vehicles were sent to locations
hundreds of miles from any alternative fueling sites, the analysis shows.
2. Federal mandates for alternative fuel vehicles empirically cause more emissions
Kimberly Kindy and Dan Keating, staff writers, November 28, 2008, “Flex-fuel fleet,” Washington Post, accessed
12/1/08,
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081128/NATION/811280305/1448/LIFESTYLE14
As a result, more than 92 percent of the fuel used in the government's alternative-fuel fleet continues to be standard
gasoline. A new law -- meant to align the vehicles with alternative-fuel stations -- now requires agencies to seek
waivers when their fleet is more than five miles or 15 minutes from an ethanol pump. The latest generations of
alternative vehicles have compounded the problem. Often, the vehicles have larger engines than the ones they
replaced in the fleet. Consequently, the federal program -- known as EPAct -- has sometimes increased gasoline
consumption and emission rates, the opposite of what was intended. The EPAct program offers a cautionary tale as
President-elect Barack Obama promises to kill dependence on foreign oil and revive the economy by retooling for
the green revolution, experts say. "This is an example of a law that has had a perversely different effect than what
was originally intended," said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washingtonbased environmental nonprofit organization.
3. Attempts to mandate alternative fuel vehicles empirically backfire
Bradford Plumer, New Republic, November 25, 2008, “The Flex-Fuel Fiasco,” accessed 12/1/08,
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/11/25/the-flex-fuel-fiasco.aspx
There are plenty of ideas kicking around out there about how Congress can help promote a new transportation
infrastructure that doesn't rely quite so heavily on oil. One oft-mentioned proposal involves having federal agencies
buy up plug-in hybrids and flex-fuel cars for their fleets, in order to help jump-start the market for those vehicles.
One snag, though, as Kimberly Kindy and Dan Keating of The Washington Post illustrated in a must-read piece over
the weekend, is that the government can mangle these mandates very, very badly—and actually end up making the
problem worse. Especially when it comes to flex-fuel cars. The story goes like this: Back in 1992, Congress passed a
law requiring all federal agencies to buy alternative-fuel vehicles for 75 percent of their light-duty fleet. The catch
was that, while the agencies had to buy the cars, they didn't actually have to use the alternative fuel. So a lot of
agencies ended up purchasing cars that could run on propane, compressed natural gas, or E85 (an 85 percent ethanol,
15 percent gasoline blend), and them shipped them to areas that didn't actually have any alternative fueling
stations—the infrastructure just wasn't in place. Fewer than 0.1 percent of fueling stations in the United States even
offer E85. That meant most flex-fuel cars were running on plain old gasoline, and, since these vehicles generally
have larger-than-average engines, they actually end up using more oil and emitting more carbon dioxide. The Postal
Service used 1.5 million additional gallons of gas last year because only 1 percent of its 37,000 flex-fuel vans were
actually running on ethanol.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
21
Warming Is Not Occurring Or Caused By Humans
1. New evidence shows there is little risk of warming
Phil Gentry, staff writer, August 9, 2007, UAH, accessed May 14 2008,
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more
heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a
decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in
UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center. That was not what he expected to find. "All leading climate models
forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would
amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback.
What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As
the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the
atmosphere to outer space."
2. Warming is not human caused
Arthur Robinson et. al, founder, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, Fall 2007, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, p. 5.
Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observe temperatures. Solar activity correlates
quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use
is not measurably warming the earth Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming
and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon
responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not
among those phenomena The over all experimental record is self-consistent. The Earth has been warming as it re
covers from the Little Ice Age at an average rate of about 0.5 ºC per century. Fluctuations within this temperature
trend include periods of more rapid in crease and also periods of temperature decrease. These fluctuations correlate
well with concomitant fluctuations in the activity of the sun. Neither the trends nor the fluctuations within the trends
correlate with hydrocarbon use. Sea level and glacier length reveal three intermediate uptrends and two down trends since 1800, as does solar activity. These trends are climatically benign and result from natural processes.
3. Warming is not anthropogenic
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 27.
! This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant.
Our argument is based on the well- established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published
by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperaturetrend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models. It is significant that the IPCC has
never made such a comparison, or it would have discovered the same result – namely that the current warming is
primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion (on AGW) on
circumstantial ‘evidence’ that does not hold up under scrutiny.
West Coast 2009
January PF
PubForum
22
Mandates Hurt The Auto Industry
1. Mandates empirically hurt the auto industry
Jim Jordan, Congressman from Ohio, December 7, 2008, “A long-term strategy needed,” Springfield News-Sun,
accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2008/12/07/sns120708jordanturn.html
?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=22
In order to succeed, private businesses like the Big Three must be able to adapt to changing market conditions.
However, I also believe this episode demonstrates the real world consequences of Congress failing to make its top
priority becoming independent from unstable sources of foreign oil. The slowing world economy has helped bring
gas prices back down in the short term, but the fundamental problem still exists. Republicans and the American
people cannot allow the Democrat Congress to lose focus on allowing the increased drilling and refining that will
improve the long-term financial stability of the auto industry. The Democrat-run Congress sought to "help" car
makers by arbitrarily raising the federal miles-per-gallon regulations, further increasing the cost of producing cars
and trucks in America. These new, costly federal mandates are hurting the competitiveness of the auto industry. A
more common-sense approach is to encourage innovation and efficiency by allowing them to reach higher standards
in a market-oriented way that meets the needs of their customers.
2. Adding costs to automakers through new mandates would undermine their competitiveness and hurt the
consumer
Jim Jordan, Congressman from Ohio, December 7, 2008, “A long-term strategy needed,” Springfield News-Sun,
accessed 12/1/08,
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2008/12/07/sns120708jordanturn.html
?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=22
These costs, like the cost of all taxes and government mandates, will be passed on to consumers through higher car
prices and higher electricity prices, and will put American auto makers further in the hole. The American people
have a right to be angry about their hard-earned tax money being squandered by greedy corporate executives on
lavish vacations for themselves. They also have a right to demand real changes in how companies do business if
they are to receive what amounts to a blank check, funded by the taxpayers. Making immediate changes in the areas
of energy, taxes, and regulation would be critical to turning the automobile industry around, not to mention the
internal restructuring the Big Three will need to make in terms of labor and legacy costs. The automobile industry
affects one in every ten jobs in America. Its importance is woven through every part of society. As we proceed
through the debate over whether or not to add the Big Three to the list of companies receiving taxpayer-funded
bailouts, I urge Congress to focus on the real, long-term solutions that will truly help return our auto industry to the
top of their class.
3. Forcing the auto industry to transition to alternative fuels would collapse them
Christine Hall, Competitive Enterprise Institute, November 7, 2008, “CEI Attacks Auto Industry,” CEI, accessed
12/1/08, http://cei.org/node/21298
“Congressional attempts to favor domestic automakers will be a waste of taxpayer money, a skewing of automaker
competition, and an invitation for even more industries to seek bailouts in the future,” said Sam Kazman, CEI
General Counsel. “If Congress wants to help the auto industry, the best way to do so is by repealing the stringent
fuel economy standards that it enacted last December,” Kazman added. “With gas prices dropping, fuel economy
mandates will become an even tighter noose around the industry’s throat. Meanwhile, thousands of vehicle
occupants will be killed due to reduced crashworthiness as the industry downsizes automobiles to meet the
standards.” In CEI’s view, even though multi-billion dollar bailouts may no longer be the rarity they once were, that
does not entitle them to Cole Porter’s Anything Goes status. There are a number of major automakers that will be
able to not only survive but eventually prosper.