Document1
DDW 2011
1
The United States federal government should deploy space based solar power.
Contention 1 is Inherency
Tech barriers to SPS have been resolved – all that remains is government inaction
Edmonton Journal, Austin Mardon received an honourary doctorate of laws from the University of Alberta on
Friday. He is a member of the Order of Canada and is a full member of the International Academy of
Astronautics . Pauline Balogun is a U of A student who is interested in green technologies for the future,
6/12/11, “Solar satellites key to green energy”,
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Solar+satellites+green+energy/4933251/story.html//jchen
With gas prices on the rise, the race is on for cheap alternative fuel sources, including solar power, but
amid a wash of criticism, the solar industry may not even be in the running. The major criticisms
against solarpower facilities, such as wind farms, are unreliability and inefficiency. Solar power
depends on environmental factors beyond human control and that makes investors anxious. These
facilities also require areas with high amounts of sunlight, usually hundreds if not thousands of acres of
valuable farmland and all for relatively little power production. This is why, in the 1960s, scientists
proposed solar-powered satellites (SPSs). SPSs have about the most favourable conditions imaginable
for solar energy production, short of a platform on the sun. Earth's orbit sees 144 per cent of the
maximum solar energy found on the planet's surface and takes up next to no space in comparison to
land-based facilities. Satellites would be able to gather energy 24 hours a day, rather than the tenuous
12-hour maximum that land-based plants have, and direct the transmitted energy to different locations,
depending on where power was needed most. So, with so many points in its favour, why hasn't anyone
built one yet? Obviously, putting anything into outer space takes a lot of money. Many governments
claim there simply isn't any money in the budget for launching satellites into space, but in 2010, amid
an economic crisis, the United States managed to find $426 million for nuclear fusion research and
$18.7 billion for NASA, a five-per-cent increase from 2009. The most recent projections, made in the
1980s, put the cost of launching an SPS at $5 billion, or around 8-10 cents/ kWh. Nuclear power plants
cost a minimum of $3 billion to $6 billion, not including cost overruns, which can make a plant cost as
much as $15 billion. In the U.S., nuclear power costs about 4.9 cents/kWh, making SPS power supply
only slightly more expensive. But these estimates are over two decades old and the numbers likely
need to be re-examined. The idea for space-based solar energy has been around since the '60s; given
the technological advancements since then, surely governments 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. Still, these satellites should not be so largely dismissed. There is
a significant design flaw keeping these satellites from production. One of the major shortfalls in the
design of SPSs is simply in getting the power from point A to point B. This remains the most
controversial aspect of SPSs: the use of microwaves to transmit power from high orbit to the ground.
Critics often cite the dangers of microwave radiation to humans and wildlife, however, the strength of
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
1
Document1
DDW 2011
1
the radiation from these beams would be equal to the leakage from a standard microwave oven, which
is only slightly more than a cellphone. A NASA report from 1980 reveals that the major concern with
solarpowered satellites was problems with the amplifier on the satellite itself. Several workable
solutions were proposed in that same report. The report also recommended that NASA develop and
invest in SPS technology, so that by the 2000s, these satellites would be a viable alternative fuel
source. This recommendation was ignored. We should already have the technology and the
infrastructure in place for green energy, but we don't. Instead, we are engaged in a mad dash for the
quickest, cheapest alternative to oil and that may be the source of our downfall. For the sake of the
future, expediency must take a back seat to longevity and longevity may just be found in outer space.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
2
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Contention 2 is Deterrence
Scenario 1 is Airpower
Uncertain Space Policy is damaging the Aerospace Industry- Government action is key
Maser 11
[Jim, Chair of the Corporate Membership Committee – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
President – Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, “A Review of NASA’s Exploration Program in Transition: Issues for
Congress and Industry”, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Hearing, 3-30,
http://www.prattwhitney.com/media_center/executive_speeches/jim_maser_03-30-2011.asp]
Access to space plays a significant part in the Department of Defense’s ability to secure our nation.
The lack of a unified national strategy brings uncertainty in volume, meaning that fixed costs will go
up in the short term across all customers until actual demand levels are understood. Furthermore, the
lack of space policy will have ripple effects in the defense budget and elsewhere, raising costs when it
is in everyone’s interests to contain costs.Now, it is of course true that there are uncertainties about the
best way to move forward. This was true in the early days of space exploration and in the Apollo and
Shuttle eras.Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of waiting until we have all the answers. We
must not “let the best be the enemy of the good.” In other words, selecting a configuration that we are
absolutely certain is the optimum configuration is not as important as expeditiously selecting one of
the many workable configurations, so that we can move forward.This industry has smart people with
excellent judgment, and we will figure the details out, but not if we don’t get moving soon. NASA
must initiate SLS and MPCV efforts without gapping the program efforts already in place intended to
support Constellation.The time for industry and government to work together to define future space
policy is now. We must establish an overarching policy that recognizes the synergy among all
government space launch customers to determine the right sustainable industry size, and plan on
funding it accordingly.The need to move with clear velocity is imperative if we are to sustain our
endangered U.S. space industrial base, to protect our national security, and to retain our position as the
world leader in human spaceflight and space exploration. I believe that if we work together we can
achieve these goals.We are ready to help in any way that we can. But the clock is ticking.
Infrastructure advances of SPS ensures the US remains the aerospace leader.
NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the
newly formed Defense Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space‐ Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic
Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential
Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay
closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our “national jewel” which has
enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is
remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must
maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the
21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public
investments in long‐ term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough
aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
3
Document1
DDW 2011
1
research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…Government policies and
investments in long‐ term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not
have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related
infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal
government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐ term enabling research and
related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create
an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking
and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that
Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including
our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government
must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our
national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐ faring
nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that our freedom, mobility, and quality of
life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers
in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United
States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch
infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government
and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems
in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the
report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a
long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term
research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the
aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐
term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged
the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products,
and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security,
noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome
restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐ public partnerships were also to be
encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our
defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and
development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to
increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace
capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a
requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical
skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide
expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace
research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the
establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time
to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and
planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must
overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program
would be a powerful expression of this imperative.
Aerospace Power in space is key to deterrence and primacy
Snead 07 – [Mike Sead Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
4
Document1
DDW 2011
1
development , “How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,”
Spacefaring America Blog, 6/3, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-shouldstart-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx, Caplan]
Why is being a great power important to the United States? The reason is quite fundamental and
clearly evident from the events of the 20th century. A nation whose citizens wish to remain free either
establishes strong political and military alliances with a great power willing to protect their freedom or,
absent such a protector, becomes a great power. In the Revolutionary War, Americans broke free of
Great Britain by forming an alliance with France—another great power of the day that was willing to
expend its treasure to help Americans gain freedom (and without requiring a formal, permanent
alliance with France!). The U.S. repaid this moral debt to France in World War I and II and accepted
the great power protector role with many other countries. Because there is no great power protector
nation waiting in the wings to assure America's freedom, America must act to sustain its great power
status. What role does becoming a true spacefaring nation play in great power status? Recall, from SA
Blog 4, the Aerospace Commission's conclusion: "The Commission concludes that the nation will have
to be a space-faring nation to be the global leader in the 21st century—our freedom, mobility, and
quality of life will depend on it." (Note: this was the Aerospace Commission's conclusion and not from
the national security-focused Space Commission.) A "global leader" is a great nation. This conclusion
is an extension of the fact that many great nations have depended on their seafaring and, most recently,
air-faring capabilities to sustain their great power status. In looking at Waltz's five great power criteria,
seafaring/air-fairing extended territory, increased population, provided access to new and different
resources, increased economic strength through trade, provided the logistics mobility to forge new
political alliances, and, obviously, added military power. While seafaring and air-fairing extend, in two
dimensions, a great nation's power projection capabilities beyond its contiguous land borders to enable
it to access the entire planet, spacefaring will enable great nations to extend their power in three
dimensions into space. Several of Waltz's great power criteria will be influenced by a great power
becoming spacefaring: Territory: A spacefaring nation will in the mid-term have access to the entire
Earth-Moon system followed by the entire central solar system. In the longer term, this access will
grow to the entire solar system. A spacefaring great power will reach across the solar system just as
today's great power's have economic, political, and security reach across the planet. Resource
endowment: A spacefaring nation will have access to traditional, but extraterrestrial material resources
from, in the mid-term, the Moon, asteroids, and comets. (Note: We don't think of these as traditional
raw material resources today, but neither was the ocean bottom viewed as a significant source of
energy resources only a century ago.) A spacefaring nation will also have access to new, nontraditional resources in space—vacuum; zero-gravity; unlimited, 24/365 solar energy; and, potentially,
entirely new physics-based energy sources. Economic capability: Economic capability arises from
human enterprise applied to extracting wealth (either material or intellectual) from accessing resources.
A spacefaring nation will have the spacefaring logistics infrastructure to enable its citizens and private
enterprises to access and make use of the resources of space. Military strength: A spacefaring nation
will have the technologies and spacefaring logistics infrastructure necessary to enable its military to:
(1) exploit space to better provide for national security; (2) protect and defend the spacefaring nation's
space enterprises and its citizens living and working in space; (3) protect the Earth and the Moon from
impact by significant asteroids and comets; (4) use its military space capabilities to support human and
robotic scientific discovery and exploration; and, (5) use the development of advanced military
capabilities to "prime the technology pump" for further commercial technology and capability
advancements—particularly with respect to spacefaring logistics. Why is it important for the U.S., as a
great power today, to become spacefaring to preserve its great power status in the 21st century? Great
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
5
Document1
DDW 2011
1
power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on
advancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational
capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power that
does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively less powerful.
Eventually, it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power for
protection. As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for
the pace of change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade
later leadership in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright
Brothers' first flights, the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare
through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on
French-built aircraft. Twenty years later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning
another major European war, the U.S. found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish
national investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was the era
of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces
at a significant disadvantage compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because
military air power was quickly emerging as the "game changer" for conventional warfare. Land and
sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive and generally needed air superiority to
prevail. With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those
derived from becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great
power strengths through expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid
emergence of new or the rapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of
effectively challenging the U.S. Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already speaking
of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace
technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation,
starting in 2009 with the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in
space, not just through prudent increases in military strength but also through the other areas of great
power competition discussed above. This is an advantage that the next presidential administration
should exercise.
Aerospace Decline Kills Air Power
Thompson 9 (David, President – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, “The Aerospace
Workforce”, Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis)
Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological
vitality, and global leadership. Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies
abroad. They connect the farthest corners of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and satellite
communications, and they monitor the Earth, explore the solar system, and study the wider universe. The U.S.
aerospace sector also contributes in major ways to America's economic output and high- technology
employment. Aerospace research and development and manufacturing companies generated approximately
$240 billion in sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75 percent of our country's gross national product. They currently
employ about 650,000 people throughout our country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in
aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees to the sector's workforce, bringing the total
to over 775,000 people. Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the
largest concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth. However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing
the most serious demographic challenge in his 100-year history. Simply put, today, many more older,
experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental aerospace
workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become even more
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
6
Document1
DDW 2011
1
severe over the next five years as the final members of the Apollo-era generation of engineers and scientists
complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact, around 50 percent of the
current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years. Meanwhile, the
supply of younger aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the
mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we see in the near future. In part, this is the result of
broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our country's universities continue a
multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other industries keeps
increasing. Today, only about 15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in engineering or
science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and Asian countries. Due to the dualuse nature of aerospace technology and the limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S.
citizens, our industry's ability to hire the best and brightest graduates from overseas is also severely constrained.
As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to
experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second question concerns
the implications of a cutback in human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S.
human spaceflight programs directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers,
its influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow's aerospace professionals is much greater than its
immediate employment contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human spaceflight
have been tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to
pursue careers in the aerospace sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA
members have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show in brief video interviews at the end of
my statement. Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a recent study
conducted earlier this year by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering
undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they chose this field of study. Therefore, I
think it can be predicted with high confidence that a major cutback in U.S. human space programs would be
substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback would put even greater stress
on an already weakened strategic sector of our domestic high-technology workforce. Your final question centers
on other issues that should be considered as decisions are made on the funding and direction for NASA,
particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers the following suggestions in this regard.
Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future supply of aerospace professionals, administration
and congressional leaders should also consider the collateral damage to the space industrial base if human space
programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low annual production rates and highly-specialized product
requirements, the domestic supply chain for space systems is relatively fragile. Many second- and third-tier
suppliers in particular operate at marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could force
some critical suppliers to exit this sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion
in total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008. Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending
could have large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and scientific space
programs as well, potentially triggering a series of disruptive changes in the common industrial supply base that
our entire space sector relies on.
Airpower deters nuclear conflicts in Asia
Ashley J. Tellis et al, Chung Min Lee, James Mulvenon, Courtney Purrington, and Michael D. Swaine, sources
of conflict in the 21st century, availible via the rand website @ rand.org. chapter 3, 1998
The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and
space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia.
This argument is justified by the fact that several sub-regions of the continent still harbor the potential
for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuously on the Korean peninsula and to a
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
7
Document1
DDW 2011
1
lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas such as
Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and therefore has pre-planned
the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for
operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, US airpower would be at the
forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian
continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability
unmatched by any other country or service, (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close
proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be
carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating
tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of
warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense
(SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS and tankers—are relevant in the
Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve large, fairly modern,
conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, ChinaTaiwan, India-Pakistan and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of
unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean
peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While
emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological
warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are
increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic
missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles.
India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India
will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key
implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function
as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for
two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In
other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia,
and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military
forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the
disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after
conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to
prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air
power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response. Such responses
would be necessitated by three general classes of contingencies. The first involves the politico-military
collapse of a key regional actor, as might occur in the case of North Korea, Myanmar, Indonesia, or
Pakistan. The second involves acute politicalmilitary crises that have a potential for rapid escalation, as
may occur in the Taiwan Strait, the Spratlys, the Indian subcontinent, or on the Korean peninsula. The
third involves cases of prolonged domestic instability that may have either spillover or contagion
effects, as in China, Indonesia, Myanmar, or North Korea.
Scenario 2 is Power Projection
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
8
Document1
DDW 2011
1
SPS is key to force mobility– provides the only sustainable power source to the military
Taylor Dinerman, senior editor at the Hudson Institute’s New York branch and co-author of the forthcoming
Towards a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National Defense University Press, 11/24/2008,
“Space solar power and the Khyber Pass”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1255/1
Last year the National Security Space Office released its initial report on space solar power (SSP). One
of the primary justifications for the project was the potential of the system to provide power from
space for remote military bases. Electrical power is only part of the story. If the military really wants to
be able to operate for long periods of time without using vulnerable supply lines it will have to find a
new way to get liquid fuel to its forward operating forces. This may seem impossible at first glance,
but by combining space solar power with some of the innovative alternative fuels and fuel
manufacturing systems that are now in the pipeline, and given enough time and effort, the problem
could be solved. The trick is, of course, to have enough raw energy available so that it is possible to
transform whatever is available into liquid fuel. This may mean something as easy as making methanol
from sugar cane or making jet fuel from natural gas, or something as exotic as cellulosic ethanol from
waste products. Afghanistan has coal and natural gas that could be turned into liquid fuels with the
right technology. What is needed is a portable system that can be transported in standard containers
and set up anywhere there are the resources needed to make fuel. This can be done even before space
solar power is available, but with SSP it becomes much easier. In the longer run Pakistan’s closure of
the Khyber Pass supply route justifies investment in SSP as a technology that landlocked nations can
use to avoid the pressures and threats that they now have to live with. Without access to the sea,
nations such as Afghanistan are all too vulnerable to machinations from their neighbors. Imagine how
different history would be if the Afghans had had a “Polish Corridor” and their own port. Their access
to the world economy might have changed their culture in positive ways. Bangladesh and Indonesia are
both Muslim states whose access to the oceans have helped them adapt to the modern world.
Energy insecurity undermines forward deployment and power projection
Wald and Captain 09
[ General Charles F. Wald (USAF Ret) Director and Senior Advisor, Aerospace & Defense Industry, Tom
Captain Vice Chairman, Global and U.S. Aerospace & Defense Industry Leader, “ Energy Security America’s
Best
Defense”
2009,
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomUnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AD/us_ad_EnergySecurity052010.pdf, Caplan]
Energy security and national security are closely interrelated: threats to the former are likely to
translate as threats to the latter. The U.S. military, in its planning for the future, recognizes the ability
of an adversary (or adversaries) to use the ‘oil weapon.’ The control over enormous oil supplies gives
exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose democratic interests and values — and
the United States and its allies. Case in point — Russia has withheld natural gas supplies to both
Ukraine and Georgia in the last few years alone, demonstrating that, as the Economist wrote in 2006,
“when it comes to hydrocarbons, geopolitics, and geology are inextricable.” The global oil market is
highly vulnerable to potential supply disruptions. Global energy reserves are heavily concentrated
among a handful of major producers and the largest consuming centers are often far from producing
basins. Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. These “lines of
communication” (LOCs) represent a critical part of the global energy security infrastructure due to the
high percentage of the world’s daily energy supply that passes through their narrow straits. The Straits
of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Bab el-Mandeb, and Bosporus/Turkish
Straits are all extremely critical and vulnerable LOCs. Disruptions at any one of these chokepoints
could interrupt a significant percentage of the world’s daily requirement for fuel. The Straits of
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
9
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Hormuz is the world’s most important oil chokepoint, with over 17 million barrels of oil passing
through it every day. That equates to roughly 40% of all seaborne traded oil and more than 20% of oil
traded worldwide. At its narrowest point, the straits are 21 miles wide, and the shipping lanes consist
of two-mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a two-mile wide buffer
zone. In early 2009, the U.S. DoD Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics (AT&L), Dr. Ashton Carter, testified to Congress that “protecting large fuel convoys imposes
a huge burden on the combat forces.” He went on to say that “reducing the fuel demand would move
the department more towards efficient force structure by enabling more combat forces supported by
fewer logistics assets, reducing operating costs, and mitigating budget effects caused by fuel price
volatility.” At the U.S. Marines Corps’ (USMC) 2009 Energy Summit, Commandant General James
Conway identified fuel convoy security in Afghanistan as one of his most pressing problems related to
risk of casualties. General Conway said he was in the process of reorganizing the USMC/Headquarters
(HQ) staff to better address energy problems and to more clearly focus on energy efficiency. During
that conference, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, made the same comment
regarding his U.S. Navy HQ staff. On any given day, the U.S. military hosts a substantial forward
contingent abroad, serving in strategically critical support missions. Since the conflicts in Afghanistan
and Iraq began in 2001 and 2003, respectively, the amount of oil consumption at forward bases has
increased tenfold. Every forward operating base (FOB) in Afghanistan requires a minimum of 300
gallons of diesel daily to satisfy its requirements. A typical USMC combat brigade alone requires over
500,000 gallons of fuel per day. High fuel requirements in forward deployed locations present the
military with a significant logistical burden. More importantly, the transport of this fuel via truck
convoy represents casualty risks, not only from IEDs and enemy attacks, but also rough weather,
traffic accidents, and pilferage. DoD officials reported that in June 2008 alone, a combination of these
factors caused the loss of some 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel. The following pictures illustrate
the logistical difficulty in fuel transport and distribution in theaters of war. They dramatically illustrate
the magnitude, vulnerability, and conditions that the operation consists of in the type of expeditionary
warfare experienced in the last 20 years. According to a 2001 Defense Science Board (DSB) report,
over 70% of the tonnage required to position today’s U.S. Army into battle is fuel. With the logistics,
fuel convoys and distribution requirements to transport fuel into battle, it is not surprising that U.S.
adversaries are targeting one of its most vulnerable assets. In addition, the number of fuel convoys —
trucks traveling over unimproved roads in remote areas — has skyrocketed in the Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts, in order to supply the engines of the personnel carriers, camp generators, jeeps, tanks and
other equipment requiring a continuous oil supply to operate. Between July 2003 and May 2009, IEDs
accounted for some 43% of U.S. fatalities in Iraq. For many months between 2005 and 2008, the IEDrelated fatality rate exceeded 50% (as seen in the chart below). Convoys, whose primary tonnage is
fuel, represent a substantial target of IED-related assaults. Over the past five fiscal years (FY 2005
through FY 2009), IEDs accounted for about 38% of U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan. In contrast to the
situation in Iraq where IED related U.S. casualties declined both in absolute numbers and as a
percentage of total U.S. casualties beginning in the second half of 2007, the situation in Afghanistan
has only worsened, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of total U.S. fatalities, as seen in the
chart below. Indeed, the total U.S. IED-related fatalities in Afghanistan for just the two months of July
and August 2009 were 50% higher than they were for the entirety of FY 2007. For FY 2009, IEDs will
likely have accounted for slightly more than half of all U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the
following chart correlates the number of total U.S. casualties in Afghanistan — killed in action and
wounded — from 2002 through the present, to the increasing consumption of fuel by U.S. forces. This
demonstrates that the number of convoys required to transport an ever increasing requirement for fossil
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
10
Document1
DDW 2011
1
fuels is itself a root cause of casualties, both wounded and killed in action. As mentioned, the use of
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and roadside bombs by U.S. adversaries has been an especially
effective means to disable friendly fighting forces by disrupting their supply of energy. The chart
shows that the current Afghan conflict may result in a 124% increase in U.S. casualties through 2014
(17.5% CAGR), should the war be prosecuted with a similar profile to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Beyond the danger to lives — the most important issue raised here — there is the issue of cost. Beyond
the basic purchase cost of fuel are other ‘hidden’ costs, including maintaining fuel transport equipment,
training personnel, and maintaining and protecting the oil supply chain. The military currently pays
between $2 and $3 per gallon for fuel depending on market conditions. The process of getting the fuel
to its intended destination, even assuming that no protection is provided to the convoys during
transport, increases the cost to nearly $15 a gallon. Protection of fuel convoys in combat zones requires
an enormous show of force in the form of armored vehicles, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft,
forcing costs even higher. Protecting fuel convoys from the ground and air costs the DoD upward of 15
times the actual purchase cost of fuel, depending on the level of protection required by the convoy and
the current market prices of the fuel commodity. Fuel costs grow exponentially as the delivery distance
increases or when force protection is provided from air. The following chart illustrates the fully
burdened costs of fuel and shows how high the cost is to protect and transport this fuel to its final
destination, bringing the cost per gallon to almost $45 per gallon, compared to the average cost at the
retail gas pump of approximately $3 per gallon in 2009. The business case for alternative energy
development has rested first on the concept of a sustainable planet, resulting in reductions in
hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions in the creation and use of fossil fuels. With the dramatic
rise in the price of oil seen in 2008, and increased recognition that the oil supply may be limited, the
business case has shifted emphasis to the economic benefit for developing and using renewable energy
sources. This study demonstrates that the development and use of alternative energy can be a direct
cause for reductions in wartime casualties and may rank on par with the business cases for
development of ever more effective offensive weapons, sophisticated fuel transport tankers, mine
resistant armored vehicles, and net-centric sensing technologies. Aerospace and Defense firms, their
government customers, and research labs around the world are well positioned to accelerate the
development and deployment of such technologies.
That’s key to deter nuclear conflict
Gerson 9 – Michael S. Gerson, Research analyst @ Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research
center, where he focuses on deterrence, nuclear strategy, counterproliferation, and arms control, Autumn 2009,
“Conventional Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age,” Parameters
Conventional deterrence also plays an important role in preventing nonnuclear aggression by nucleararmed regimes. Regional nuclear proliferation may not only increase the chances for the use of nuclear
weapons, but, equally important, the possibility of conventional aggression. The potential for
conventional conflict under the shadow of mutual nuclear deterrence was a perennial concern
throughout the Cold War, and that scenario is still relevant. A nuclear-armed adversary may be
emboldened to use conventional force against US friends and allies, or to sponsor terrorism, in the
belief that its nuclear capabilities give it an effective deterrent against US retaliation or intervention.15
For example, a regime might calculate that it could undertake conventional aggression against a
neighbor and, after achieving a relatively quick victory, issue implicit or explicit nuclear threats in the
expectation that the United States (and perhaps coalition partners) would choose not to get involved. In
this context, conventional deterrence can be an important mechanism to limit options for regional
aggression below the nuclear threshold. By deploying robust conventional forces in and around the
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
11
Document1
DDW 2011
1
theater of potential conflict, the United States can credibly signal that it can respond to conventional
aggression at the outset, and therefore the opponent cannot hope to simultaneously achieve a quick
conventional victory and use nuclear threats to deter US involvement. Moreover, if the United States
can convince an opponent that US forces will be engaged at the beginning of hostilities—and will
therefore incur the human and financial costs of war from the start—it can help persuade opponents
that the United States would be highly resolved to fight even in the face of nuclear threats because
American blood and treasure would have already been expended.16 Similar to the Cold War, the
deployment of conventional power in the region, combined with significant nuclear capabilities and
escalation dominance, can help prevent regimes from believing that nuclear possession provides
opportunities for conventional aggression and coercion.
Scenario 3 is Soft Power
SPS has immense international support – US development key to soft power
NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, “Space‐ Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no outright policy or legal showstoppers exist to
prevent the development of SBSP. Full‐ scale SBSP, however, will require a permissive international
regime, and construction of this new regime is in every way a challenge nearly equal to the
construction of the satellite itself. The interim review did not uncover any hard show‐ stoppers in the
international legal or regulatory regime. Many nations are actively studying Space‐ Based Solar
Power. Canada, the UK, France, the European Space Agency, Japan, Russia, India, and China, as well
as several equatorial nations have all expressed past or present interest in SBSP. International
conferences such as the United Nations‐ connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject
and there is even a UN‐ affiliated non‐ governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is
dedicated to promoting the study and development of SBSP. The International Union of Radio
Science (URSI) has published at least one document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject
by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is presently ongoing. There seems to be
significant global interest in promoting the peaceful use of space, sustainable development, and carbon
neutral energy sources, indicating that perhaps an open avenue exists for the United States to
exercise “soft power” via the development of SBSP. That there are no show‐ stoppers should in no
way imply that an adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a regime must address liability,
indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and
parking orbits, and transit corridors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space
Situational Awareness, data‐ sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some significant
similarities to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) role for facilitating safe
international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the
satellite technology development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the
construction of such a framework immediately.
SPS is key to international collaboration in space
Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School
of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, “The New Viability of Space Solar
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
12
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Power: Global Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor”,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_yl
o=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011
If a non-integrated, decentralized SSP system were to be a truly international effort, perhaps costs for
such an effort could be reduced. It is conceivable that a sense of global mobilization (being part of a
common human endeavor) might take hold in an international effort to build thousands of SSP space
and ground segments. The peoples of poor nations might be able to find employment in digging the
foundations for and in the maintenance of SSP assembly and launch facilities and ground rectennae.
Borrowing from FDR’s New Deal philosophy, these facilities could purposely be built around the
globe so that vocational training in aerospace technology could also be offered, adding to the human
capital in developing countries. This new environment of international cooperation could and should
be constantly verified by UN inspectors to ensure that these new facilities remain true to peaceful
purposes. There are of course risks in any new relationship, but in light of the track record of other
attempts to maintain international security, these acceptable risks are perhaps worth the effort to make
them work. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is conscious of making every member of the
U.S. Military feel needed in the war on terror. This is the same approach that could be taken when
building a system of SSP for the peoples of Earth. Making poor people of the world actually feel
needed should be a focal point of U.S. foreign policy. This would reduce the general sense of
marginalization in many parts of the world, perhaps making terrorism at least flourish less. This
approach could start by abandoning “diplomatic” terms such as “periphery” and “international
development.” These terms only reinforce the idea that other countries and other cultures have nothing
of inherent value to offer the West. When Rumsfeld was a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry, he said
that the role of serendipity in developing new products increased with the number of separate areas of
research and development that were funded. This idea should be even more true as human capital is
developed around the world. Some see involvement in space as a luxury that much of the world cannot
afford. This same logic would also deny golf lessons for inner city youth. Perhaps this worldview fails
to see the value in “teeing up” unknown lessons to be learned, both by playing golf and by exploring
space.14A global mobilization for a common human endeavor via the common language of science
and technology, as it relates to outer space need not be seen as naïve or some call for one world
government. Ronald Reagan for instance, characteristically and perhaps instinctively invoked the
rhetorically inclusive phrase, “the people of this planet” when he attempted to marshal international
condemnation against terrorism during his administration.26
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
13
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Independently, international space cooperation cements US leadership
CSIS “National Security and the Commercial Space Sector”, 2010 CSIS Draft for Comment, April 30th,
http://csis.org/files/publication/100430_berteau_commercial_space.pdf
“New opportunities for partnership and collaboration with both international and commercial space
actors have the potential to support future national security space activities and enhance U.S.
leadership.” Forming alliances and encouraging cooperation with foreign entities could provide several
benefits to the United States, including ensuring continued U.S. access to space after a technical failure
or a launch facility calamity, strengthening the competitive position of the U.S. commercial satellite
sector, enhancing the U.S. position in partnerships, and reinforcing collaboration among other spacefaring nations. As the Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2000 Defense Industry Viewpoint notes, strategic
commercial alliances: (1) provide capabilities to expand quickly service offerings and markets in ways
not possible under time and resource constraints; (2) earn a rate of return 50 percent higher than base
businesses—“returns more than double as firms gain experience in alliances”; and (3) are a powerful
alternative to acquiring other companies because they “avoid costly accumulation of debt and buildup
of balance sheet goodwill.” In those respects, international commercial alliances could help U.S. firms
access foreign funding, business systems, space expertise, technology, and intellectual capital and
increase U.S. industry’s market share overseas, thus providing economic benefits to the United States.
Moreover, U.S. experiences with foreign entities in foreign markets could help those entities obtain the
requisite approvals to operate U.S. government satellite systems in other countries, resolve satellite
spectrum and coordination issues, and mitigate risks associated with catastrophic domestic launch
failures by providing for contingency launch capabilities from foreign nations. Multinational alliances
would also signal U.S. policymakers’ intent to ensure U.S. commercial and military access to space
within a cooperative, international domain, help promote international cooperation, and build support
for U.S. positions within various governmental and business forums. First, partnerships could allow the
United States to demonstrate greater leadership in mitigating those shared risks related to vulnerability
of space assets through launch facility and data sharing, offering improved space situational awareness,
establishing collective security agreements for space assets, exploring space deterrence and satellite
security doctrines, and formulating and agreeing to rules of the road on the expected peaceful behavior
in the space domain. Second, partnerships could also help the United States build consensus on
important space-related issues in bilateral or multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the
International Telecommunication Union, and the World Trade Organization; working with emerging
space-faring nations is particularly important because of their growing presence in the marketplace and
participation in international organizations. Third, alliances could serve as a bridge to future
collaborative efforts between U.S. national security forces and U.S. allies. For example, civil
multinational alliances such as the International Space Station and the international search and rescue
satellite consortium, Cospas-Sarsat, involve multiple countries partnering to use space for common
public global purposes. Finally, developing government, business, and professional relationships with
people in other countries provides opportunities for the United States to further the principles upon
which U.S. national security relies—competition, economic stability, and democracy.
Soft power prevents extinction
Joseph Nye, Harvard, US MILITARY PRIMACY IS FACT - SO, NOW, WORK ON 'SOFT POWER' OF
PERSUASION, April 29, 2004, p,
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_soft_power_csm_042904.htm
Soft power co-opts people rather than coerces them. It rests on the ability to set the agenda or shape the
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
14
Document1
DDW 2011
1
preferences of others. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public
relations, and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of power - a means of pursuing national interests.
When America discounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price. When
US policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester
and further reduce its leverage. The manner with which the US went into Iraq undercut American soft
power. That did not prevent the success of the four-week military campaign, but it made others less
willing to help in the reconstruction of Iraq and made the American occupation more costly in the
hard-power resources of blood and treasure. Because of its leading edge in the information revolution
and its past investment in military power, the US probably will remain the world's single most
powerful country well into the 21st century. But not all the important types of power come from the
barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting desired outcomes, but transnational issues such as
climate change, infectious diseases, international crime, and terrorism cannot be resolved by military
force alone. Soft power is particularly important in dealing with these issues, where military power
alone simply cannot produce success, and can even be counterproductive. America's success in coping
with the new transnational threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will depend on a
deeper understanding of the role of soft power and developing a better balance of hard and soft power
in foreign policy.
Scenario 4 is Competitiveness
The U.S. is ceding tech leadership—our space program is dying. The timeframe is now.
Dominic Gates, Seattle Times aerospace reporter, 6/12/11, “Boeing's Albaugh worries about 'intellectual
disarmament' of U.S.”, The Seattle Times,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015304417_albaughside13.html
Jim Albaugh is worried about the future of American technological supremacy in the world. "The
biggest fear I have is what I call the intellectual disarmament of this country," said the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes chief, who is also this year's chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association,
the trade group for U.S. defense, space and aviation companies. "We still are the leader in aerospace,"
he added. "Are we going to be the leader in aerospace in another 20 years?" Albaugh is troubled that
the nation's lead in aerospace, the fruit of Cold War military and space-race projects, will be allowed to
wither through lack of government funding of new challenges. In a wide-ranging interview in advance
of the global aviation gathering at the Paris Air Show, he ticked off a list of broad national problems
that transcend Boeing: • Brain drain of talented immigrants: "The best and brightest used to come to
the United States and stay," Albaugh said. "Now, the best and brightest come to the United States, get
trained, and leave, and go back and compete against us." • Defense cuts: "There is no industrial base
policy in the Department of Defense other than market forces," he said. "Right now, the Boeing
Company is the only company in the United States that has a design team working on a new airplane.
There are no [all-new] airplanes being developed for the Department of Defense probably for the first
time in 100 years." • Competition from China: "The law of large numbers would dictate that they are
going to have more smart people than we are going to have. And their government has identified
aerospace as an industry that they've targeted," Albaugh said. "The question is, can they be innovative
and can they handle the complex systems integration?" When Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited
China in January, the Chinese military made a very public test flight of its previously secret J-20
Stealth fighter. "A lot of people saw that as a military threat," Albaugh said. "I didn't. I saw it more as
an economic threat. They will sell that airplane around the world and will take away a lot of the market
that's been enjoyed by U.S. defense contractors." • NASA cuts and private space ventures: "They are
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
15
Document1
DDW 2011
1
trying to commercialize space. ... Getting the reliability requires a lot of redundancy, which requires a
lot of cost," Albaugh said. "I think it's going to be a money pit for a lot of them." He lamented the U.S.
government's withdrawal from space exploration as the space-shuttle program winds down: "My
prediction is that the Chinese will walk on the moon before we launch an American into orbit again in
a U.S. spacecraft."
SPS development prompts industrial spin-off tech and attracts private capital
Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December
2009, “Development of Space-Based Solar Power”, Intech,
http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen
Summary Space-Based Solar Power is a huge project. It might be considered comparable in scale to
the national railroads, highway system, or electrification project rather than the Manhattan or Apollo
endeavors. However, unlike such purely national projects, this project also has components that are
analogous to the development of the high volume international civil aviation system. Such a large
endeavor includes significant international and environmental implications. As such it would require a
corresponding amount of political will to realize its benefits. Most of America’s spending in space
does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP will create new markets and produce new
products. Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not
just to sell to themselves, but to sell to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of
dollars. The energy market is trillions of dollars and will generate substantial new wealth for our nation
and our world. Investments to develop SBSP have significant economic spin-offs. They open up or
enable the other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced
telecommunications, and use of off-world resources. After the fundamental technological risks have
been defined, shifting SBSP from a research and development project to a financial and production
program is needed. Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality,
including the creation of low cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in
space. The opportunity to export energy as the first marketable commodity from space will motivate
commercial sector solutions to the challenges. The delivered commodity can be used for base load
terrestrial electrical power, wide area broadcast power, carbon-neutral synthetic fuels production,
military tactical support or as an in-space satellite energy utility.
SPS development ensures continued American tech and scientific competitiveness
NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the
newly formed Defense Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space‐ Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic
Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US
intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the
Gathering Storm report by providing a true “Manhattan or Apollo project for energy.” In absolute scale
and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo
projects which established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and
competitive lead. The committee expressed it was “deeply concerned that the scientific and
technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many
other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐
paying jobs. It would require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the
underlying aims of the American Competitiveness Initiative.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
16
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Technological competitiveness is key to American hegemony
Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Is America Losing Its
Edge?,” November/December 2004, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-itsedge.html?mode=print
Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most
serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in
research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T)
personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation
of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by
scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly
becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and
managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly
eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications
software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers,
biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of
manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of
research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the
United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological
innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from
developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than
everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States
must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Independently, loss of US competitiveness causes global crisis
Erik Jones, Staff Writer for Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, PhD of IR and Professor of European
Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 7-21, 2010, “A Great Fall”, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy Vol 52.
Issue 4
The Cohen and DeLong argument is declinism for a new century, grounded in now-popular notions
of soft power. Although they emphasise money, their concern is norms and values, not guns and
butter. When countries have money they have earned in a sustainable manner over a long period of
time – not by pulling resources out of the ground, but through innovation and industry –
they can influence others to adopt their own preferred way of organising things without making a
conscious effort. The United States did not just export democracy, it also exported social mobility,
efficiency and a host of other social norms that now seem self-evident, but were not always
so. Now,however, what used to be distinctly American culture has gone global and the United States is
no longer in control. Because they are the principal creditors of US profligacy, the Chinese and others
are able to assert a countervailing influence; they can bind American power and perhaps also project
values of their own. The problem with this arrangement is not that the United States is poorer and less
attractive as a result. The loss of US money and its implications for global influence has already
happened. Rather, the problem is that the transition from one position to another is making the world
economy as a whole unstable. The United States cannot live beyond its means forever and so must
inevitably lose the confidence of its creditors. As we have just experienced, bad things happen when
that confidence breaks down. Even though the crisis appears to be over, there is no guarantee it will not
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
17
Document1
DDW 2011
1
flare up again. Cohen and DeLong end on a low note. The Humpty Dumpty of American global
dominance cannot be put back together again. Even if it could, it would not last: ‘After all, Humpty
was an egg’ (p. !+%). It is tempting to dismiss this as an exercise in exaggerated pessimism. As Joseph
Nye wrote in response to Paul Kennedy, the United States is Bound to Lead once we understand the
nature of American power.4 Nevertheless, Cohen and DeLong’s argument makes for a compelling
narrative, not least because it draws on the same notion of power that Nye uses and because it contains,
like Scarfarce, so many memorable lines. The power of belief Cohen and DeLong’s compelling
version of the declinist argument has potentially important implications for the stability of the global
economic system. When they talk about America’s creditors having confidence in the US
government’s ability to live up to its financial commitments, they touch on an aspect of global
hegemony that has gained increasing currency in modern economics. The elements of the story can be
read off the contents page of George Akerlof and Robert Shiller’s recent Animal Spirits (reviewed in
the June–July &$$" issue of Survival5). When we try to assess the stability of the global economic
system, we need to think in terms of psychological variables like confidence, fairness, bad faith and the
money illusion. Other countries will only buy into an American-centred global order if they believe the
US government is willing and able to underwrite the system, if they can have an equitable chance to
pursue their own self-interest, if they believe that other powerful actors will not violate the rules of the
game and so take advantage of them, and if there is some currency that can be used to connect trade
and capital flows. This is not a new argument in the field of international political economy. Charles
Kindleberger sketched the requirements for hegemonic stability in his !"#, study of the Great
Depression.6 The difference is that Kindleberger focused on the structural characteristics of the
hegemon – meaning the ability to underwrite the system by acting as an open market for distressed
goods, to enforce the rules impartially, to provide moral leadership, and to act as a lender of last resort.
By contrast, Akerlof and Shiller underscore the importance of perceptions held by other actors.
Whatever the objective merits of the United States, if other major actors lack confidence in America’s
ability to maintain open markets, if they believe that the global economic system is rigged against
them, if they perceive other actors like China or Germany to be taking advantage of the system, or if
they lose confidence in the dollar as the ultimate vehicle for international payments, they may begin to
behave irrationally, with sudden and systemic implications. They may panic and trigger a global crisis.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
18
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Contention 3 is Energy
Scenario 1 is Oil
Oil shocks will start by 2012 – newest geological data prove
Chris Martenson, PhD, economic researcher & futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion, “Why
Time Is Short Now That We're Past Peak Oil”, 5/27/11, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/whytime-is-short-now-that-were-past-peak-oil-2011-5//jchen
The Next Oil Shock
The only thing that could prevent another oil shock from happening before the end of 2012 would be
another major economic contraction. The emerging oil data continues to tell a tale of ever-tightening
supplies that will soon be exceeded by rising global demand. This time, we will not be able to blame
speculators for the steep prices we experience; instead, we will have nothing to blame but geology.
Back in 2009, I wrote a pair of reports in which I calculated that we’d see another price spike in oil by
2010 or 2011, based on some assumptions about global GDP growth rates, rates of decline in existing
oil fields, and new projects set to come online. Given the recent price spike in oil (Brent crude over
$126, now at $115) and recent oil supply data, those predictions turned out to be quite solid (for
reference, oil was trading in the low $60s at the time). One part I whiffed on was in my prediction that
the world community would have embraced the idea of Peak Oil by now and begun adjusting
accordingly, but that’s not really true except in a few cases (e.g. Sweden). Perhaps things are being
differently and more seriously considered behind closed doors, but out in public the dominant story
line concerns reinvigorating consumer demand, not a looming liquid fuel crisis. How the major
economies can continue proceeding with a business-as-usual mindset given the oil data is really quite a
mystery to me, but that’s just how things happen to be at the moment. At any rate, with Brent crude oil
having lofted over $100/bbl at the beginning of February and remained above that big, round number
for four months now, we are already in the middle of a price shock. It may not be a perfect repeat of
the circumstances of the 2008 oil shock, but it's close enough that the risk of an economic contraction,
at least for the weaker economies, is not unthinkable here. Japan, now in recession and 100%
dependent on oil imports, comes to mind. Looking at the new data and reading even minimally
between the lines of recent International Energy Agency (IEA) statements, I am now ready to move
my ‘Peak Oil is a statistically unavoidable fact’ event to sometime in 2012, which tightens my
prediction from the prior range of 2012-2013. Upon this recognition, the next shock will drive oil to
new heights that are currently unimaginable for most. First, $200/bbl will be breached, then $300, and
then more. And these are in current dollar terms; any additional dollar weakness will simply be
additive to the actual quoted price. By this I mean that if oil were to trade at $200 but the dollar lost
one half of its value along the way, then oil would be priced at $400.
Transitioning before the crunch in 10 years is crucial
Mark Williamson, 2010, “May the power be with you”, POWERSPACE
So, do space power propo- nents think a point will arise when terrestrial power supplies become so inadequate
that SSP is a necessity?
According to Nansen, we areseeingtheevidencealready. “It is pretty clear, from several regional
markets, that the world is at or very near peak oil production”, he says. “This means that the price will
continue to climb in spurts and starts, invariably ever higher”. With electricity demand and
atmosphericpollution growing in a sort of ‘unholy alliance’, he expects a “serious realisation of the
problems to sink in within the next 10 to 20 years”. John Mankins is more forthright: “If we wait to
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
19
Document1
DDW 2011
1
develop revolutionary new energy sources such as SSP until the existing terrestrial power supply
reaches a tipping point, it may already be too late. The time to light the next candle is before the first
one goes out – not after you’re sitting in the dark!
Solar technology leads to global energy independence—removes the need for foreign oil
NSS, National Space Society, October 2007, “Space Solar Power Limitless clean energy from space”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers
energy from sunlight in space and transmitsit wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our
energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in theright direction,
but solve . Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth
with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times
greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, makingspace solar
power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's
output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others
combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. Thistechnology on a larger
scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo),
can supply nearlyall the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels
for our transportation system. While electricity powers fewvehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve
into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and
fuelcells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation
but only if we can generate the enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help
to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to generate the
electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any
future electric transportationsystem. While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor,
space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other energy sources. Advantages of
Space Solar Power (also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP) Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and
coal plants,space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space
solar power does not compete for or depend uponincreasingly scarce fresh water resources. Unlike bioethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farmland or
depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel
provider. Unlike nuclear power plants,space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which
needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar andwind power plants,
space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of
cloud cover, daylight,or wind speed. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not provide
easy targets for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, spacesolar power does not require
environmentally problematic mining operations. Space solar power willprovide true energy
independence for the nations that develop it, eliminating a major source of national competition for
limited Earth-based energy resources. Space solar power will not require dependence on unstable or
hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs , enabling us to expend resources in other ways.
Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world , and its energy can be converted
for local needs such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there areno
electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar
power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace expertise to expand
employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
20
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation
system that is required for its deployment. This , in turn, will also bring the resources of the solar
system within economic reach.
Continued oil dependence leads to global war
Ron Bengston, compilation of articles from: U.S. News & World Report, The Saudi Connection, Friedman
(Pulitzer Prize winning columnist), New York Times, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The
Detroit Economic Club, and Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security, 2008,
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com
A powerful idea is spreading through America. It is a call to this generation to take action and decide the
course of history by declaring and fighting for American Energy Independence. Following the 1973 Arab
oil embargo, the idea of energy independence captured the imagination of the American people. Then
during the 1980's, increased automobile fuel efficiency and new oil discoveries created a surplus of oil on
the world market, and America’s enthusiasm for energy independence faded into memory. Now, more than
thirty years after the oil embargo, re-awakened by the terrorist attack on 9/11 and war in the Middle East,
the idea of American energy independence has returned with a vengeance, becoming a powerful force
shaping the political views of a new generation of Americans. Oil is no longer viewed as just another
commodity. In the minds and hearts of the American people, oil has become associated with terrorism,
political corruption, corporate greed, and global warming. The 1973 Arab oil embargo interrupted the flow
of oil causing severe gasoline shortages and long lines at gas stations. The embargo exposed America's
growing oil dependence and gave the American people their first warning of the price they would pay for
continued dependence on imported oil. The 1979 Iranian revolution interrupted the flow of oil again — this
was the second warning, signaling the urgent need for American Energy Independence. The 1991 Persian
Gulf War was a military intervention to stop one dictator from taking control of Middle East oil — this was
the third and most severe warning. Failure to make energy independence the nation’s highest priority after
the Gulf War demonstrated that the United States did not have the political will to free itself from
dependence on foreign oil. September 11, 2001 was a preview of America's future – one possible future.
America stands at a crossroad, a choice between two very different futures. One choice leads to increased
dependence on foreign oil and a future dominated by terrorism and war. The other choice leads to
American energy independence and a world economy that is no longer desperate for oil. Today, the world
consumes over 80 million barrels of oil every day (over 30 billion barrels per year); the USA alone
consumes over 20 million barrels per day (over 7 billion barrels per year). At $100 per barrel, the global
petroleum industry is a three trillion dollar a year business. Development of alternative energy to free the
world from oil dependence will create a seismic shift within the economic foundation of the world. Oil is a
natural source of energy, but it is not the only source of energy. With the help of new technology,
America’s energy needs can be obtained from sources other than petroleum. American technology has put a
man on the moon, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on
Mars. It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also develop
environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America from oil dependence. It is time
for America to lead the development of new energy technology that will free the USA and the entire world
from dependence on oil. Freedom from oil dependence will cut-off the flow of oil money to the Middle
East and put an end to the financial support of militant Islam. The global expansion of militant Islam is
financed by Middle East oil wealth. In the U.S. oil means gasoline. Every time you fill your gas tank, some
of the money will find its way into the hands of Islamic extremists who are planning the next terrorist
attack. Future wars could be prevented if everyone who has taken a stand against the war in Iraq would turn
their passion toward the goal of American Energy Independence. Standing against war is not enough –
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
21
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Standing together for Energy Independence will create a positive political force and a shared national
dream. Is there anyone who still cannot see the connection between the flow of oil money into the Middle
East and the flow of terrorism out of the Middle East? “The meteoric rise of oil revenues in the 20th
century meant a new era for Islam; oil revenues were the catalyst that converted passive resentment into
Islamic Terrorism...” Nexus—OIL and AL Qaeda By Frank H. Denton, Ph.D, U.S. Foreign Service
(Retired). “The rise of terrorism by militant Islam against the United States and the West coincided with the
rise in oil prices of 1979-80 and the subsequent transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the West to
Muslim countries.” – Max Singer, senior fellow, The Hudson Institute. How billions in oil money spawned
a global terror network: “Starting in the late 1980s—after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the
Soviet war in Afghanistan—Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for
the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training
camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members. The charities were part of an extraordinary $70
billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the
foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support
networks for the jihad movement...” The Saudi Connection By David E. Kaplan U.S.News & World Report
“Exactly how much the Saudis have spent to spread Wahhabism is unclear.” David D. Aufhauser, a former
Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee that estimates went north of $75 billion.
“The total spent annually is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion,” he said. Wahhabism is a fundamentalist
Islamic movement that has its roots in the extreme Islamic Takfiri ideology, which is a religious belief that
encourages its followers to use violence as a means to achieve their goals. The war against Islamic
terrorism cannot be won without cutting off the flow of oil money to the Middle East Thomas
Friedman The New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist “No matter what happens
in Iraq, we cannot dry up the swamps of authoritarianism and violent Islamism in the Middle East without
also drying up our consumption of oil—thereby bringing down the price of crude oil. A democratization
policy in the Middle East without a different energy policy at home is a waste of time, money and, most
important, the lives of our young people. We need a president “At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the
country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of
oil. For the very resource that has fueled our way of life over the last hundred years now threatens to
destroy it if our generation does not act now and act boldly. We know what the dangers are here. We know
that our oil addiction is jeopardizing our national security—that we fuel our energy needs by sending $800
million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world. We know
that oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the
Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq.” U.S. Senator Barack Obama Speech on Energy Policy:
Watch the Video or Read the Text May 07, 2007 The Detroit Economic Club “Al Qaeda must revel in the
irony that America is effectively helping to fund both sides of the war.... As we sacrifice blood and
treasure, some of our gas dollars flow to the fanatics who build the bombs, hatch the plots, and carry out
attacks on our soldiers and citizens.... The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East helps sustain the
conditions on which terrorists prey.” U.S. Senator John McCain Speech on Energy Policy: Watch the
Video or Read the Text April 23, 2007 Center for Strategic and International Studies Energy: The Most
Important Issue of 2008 — Speech given by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on December 18, 2007 at
the Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election. “Today, I would state
unequivocally, that energy security and the economic and environmental issues closely associated with it
should be the most important topics of the 2008 Presidential election. I say this deliberately,
notwithstanding the existence of extremely important immediate concerns such as the war in Iraq and the
performance of the American economy, as well as persistent public policy struggles that have confronted us
for decades, such as deficit reduction, health care, and social security. I say this even in the context of my
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
22
Document1
DDW 2011
1
own long standing evangelism related to non-proliferation and arms reduction, issues which I believe have
not diminished in importance. “Three factors lead me to the conclusion that energy is the most vital topic of
this Presidential election: “First, energy is the issue with the widest gulf between what is required to make
our nation secure and what is likely to be achieved through the inertia of existing programs and
Congressional proposals. As such, it is the issue on which meaningful progress most depends on the great
intangible in American public policymaking – the application of dramatic, visionary, and sustained
Presidential leadership. “Congress and private enterprise can make evolutionary energy advancements, but
revolutionary national progress in the energy field probably is dependent on presidential action. Our energy
dependence is perpetuated by a lack of national will and focus. Only the President has the visibility to
elevate a cause to national status, and only the President can leverage the buying power, regulatory
authority, and legislative leadership of an administration behind solving a problem that is highly conducive
to political procrastination and partisanship. “Second, transformational energy policies are likely to be a
requirement for achieving our economic and social aspirations here at home. In an era when exploding
global demand for energy creates high prices and fears of scarcity, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to
underperform. Our ability to address social security, health care, education, and overall budget problems
will be heavily encumbered over both the short and the long run if we do not mitigate our energy import
dependence. Almost any scenario for recession will be deepened by high energy costs. Moreover, many of
the most severe recession scenarios involve sustained energy disruptions due to terrorism, war, embargo, or
natural disaster. “Third, energy is the underlying condition that exacerbates almost every major foreign
policy issue. We pressure Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur, but we find that the Sudanese government is
insulated by oil revenue and oil supply relationships. We pressure Iran to stop its uranium enrichment
activities, yet key nations are hesitant to endanger their access to Iran’s oil and natural gas. We try to foster
global respect for civil society and human rights, yet oil revenues flowing to authoritarian governments are
often diverted to corrupt or repressive purposes. We fight terrorism, yet some of the hundreds of billions of
dollars we spend each year on oil imports are diverted to terrorists. We give foreign assistance to lift people
out of poverty, yet energy-poor countries are further impoverished by expensive energy import bills. We
seek options that would allow for military disengagement in Iraq and the wider Middle East, yet our way of
life depends on a steady stream of oil from that region. American national security will be at risk as long as
we are heavily dependent on imported energy The final 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates, John McCain
and Barack Obama, have voiced their support for energy independence. For this reason, American voters
will choose a pro-energy independence candidate for President in 2008. However, voters should understand
that Republicans and Democrats define energy independence differently. While some Republicans reject
the idea of energy independence, most Republicans acknowledge and accept the need for energy security;
indeed, many Republicans are passionate about it. Republican candidates who advocate energy
independence are talking about economic and global energy security. When Republican candidates speak
of energy independence they are campaigning for expanding oil production in Alaska and opening the oil
fields off the coast of California (an oil resource potentially larger than Iraq). Republicans want all of
America's natural resources available for energy production, including all federal lands that hold oil, natural
gas, coal and oil shale deposits. The estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale located
in the United States is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Republicans also
support the development of technology to produce coal-to-liquid transportation fuels—an American
resource that is greater than all of the oil in the Middle East. On the other hand, when Democrats speak of
energy independence they are usually talking about independence from any and all fossil fuels as well as
independence from nuclear energy. Democrats tend to play down or deny the threat of oil financed Islamic
militancy, preferring instead to focus on the threat of Global Warming. It is important to acknowledge that
energy independence and global warming are separate issues. American voters need to understand the
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
23
Document1
DDW 2011
1
relative priority. Global Warming is a sustainability issue that must be solved as the world progresses
toward complete global modernization. In contrast, global oil dependence is an immediate threat, a clear
and present danger. Metaphorically speaking, the threat of greenhouse gas emissions is like the threat of
cancer from prolonged cigarette smoking; In contrast, the threat of oil financed terrorism is like a coiled
rattlesnake immediately on the path in front of a day-dreaming hiker. OPEC (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries) produces about 40% of the world’s oil today, which translates to OPEC getting 40
cents on every dollar paid for oil anywhere in the world. Current OPEC members are Algeria, Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. All are Islamic countries
except Venezuela which has partnered with Iran. In 2007, over 700 billion dollars flowed into OPEC from
oil hungry countries around the world. How much of that money was given to support the worldwide
advance of Islamic terrorism? With rising oil prices, OPEC revenue is expected to exceed one trillion
dollars in 2008. It doesn’t matter where oil comes from. If the oil comes from a well in Wyoming,
California, Texas, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or the North Sea it doesn’t make any difference because oil is a
global commodity. The price is the same for everyone in the world. Demand anywhere increases demand
everywhere. So it is always true that OPEC gets 40 cents on every dollar paid for oil anywhere in the
world. It averages out to that fact. Islamic terrorism, as a global threat to civilization, cannot sustain itself
without the massive oil revenue that finances it. (That does not mean their feelings and beliefs will not
sustain, it just means they will have limited influence without the oil wealth.) Islamic militancy is
emboldened by the perception of power and dominance that Islam derives from the world’s dependence on
oil — oil that the world must get from Arab countries. Eliminate world oil dependence and the Islamic
extremists will be deflated psychologically. Ronald Reagan is credited for defeating Communism without
firing a shot; by economically isolating and suffocating the Soviet Union, while at the same time enticing
their leaders and people toward freedom. In a similar way, initiating action toward achieving global
independence from petroleum (as a source of energy) will lead to the defeat of Islamic terrorism.
Scenario 2 is Warming
SPS is the ideal clean energy to solve warming – minimal pollution and resource use
Garretson, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in India, previously the Chief of Future
Science and Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs,
09 (Peter A., “Sky’s No Limit: Space-Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo-US Strategic
Partnership?”, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf)
While no energy source is entirely benign, the SBSP concept has significant things to recommend it for
the environmentally conscious and those wanting to develop green energy sources. An ideal energy
source will not add to global warming, produce no greenhouse gasses, have short energy payback time,
require little in the way of land, require no water for cooling and have no adverse effects on living
things. Space solar power comes very close to this ideal. Almost all of the inefficiency in the system is
in the space segment and waste heat is rejected to deep space instead of the biosphere.14 SBSP is,
therefore, not expected to impact the atmosphere. The amount of heat contributed by transmission loss
through the atmosphere and reconversion at the 19 receiver-end is significantly less than an equivalent
thermal (fossil fuel), nuclear power plant, or terrestrial solar plant, which rejects significantly more
heat to the biosphere on a per unit (per megawatt) basis.15 The efficiency of a Rectenna is above 80
per cent (rejects less than 20 per cent to the biosphere), whereas for the same power into a grid, a
concentrating solar plant (thermal) is perhaps 15 per cent efficient (rejecting 85 (per cent) while a
fossil fuel plan is likely to be less than 40 per cent efficient (rejecting 60 per cent to the biosphere).
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
24
Document1
DDW 2011
1
The high efficiency of the receivers also means that unlike thermal and nuclear power plants, there is
no need for active cooling and so no need to tie the location of the receiver to large amounts of cooling
water, with the accompanying environmental problems of dumping large amounts of waste heat into
rivers or coastal areas.
ONLY SPS supplies the power needed for a sustainable energy transition
James M. Snead, P.E., is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) a
past chair of the AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee, and the founder and president of the
Spacefaring Institute LLC, 5/4/2009, “The vital need for America to develop space solar power”, The Space
Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1
A key element of a well-reasoned US energy policy is to maintain an adequate surplus of dispatchable
electrical power generation capacity. Intelligent control of consumer electrical power use to moderate
peak demand and improved transmission and distribution systems to more broadly share sustainable
generation capacity will certainly help, but 250 million additional Americans and 5 billion additional
electrical power consumers worldwide by 2100 will need substantially more assured generation
capacity. Three possible energy sources that could achieve sufficient generation capacity to close the
2100 shortfall are methane hydrates, advanced nuclear energy, and SSP. The key planning
consideration is: Which of these are now able to enter engineering development and be integrated into
an actionable sustainable energy transition plan? Methane hydrate is a combination of methane and
water ice where a methane molecule is trapped within water ice crystals. The unique conditions
necessary for forming these hydrates exist at the low temperatures and elevated pressures under water,
under permafrost, and under cold rock formations. Some experts estimate that the undersea methane
hydrate resources are immense and may be able to meet world energy needs for a century or more.
Why not plan to use methane hydrates? The issues are the technical feasibility of recovering methane
at industrial-scale levels (tens to hundreds of billions BOE per year) and doing so with acceptable
environmental impact. While research into practical industrial-scale levels of recovery with acceptable
environmental impact is underway, acceptable production solutions have not yet emerged. As a result,
a rational US energy plan cannot yet include methane hydrates as a solution ready to be implemented
to avoid future energy scarcity. Most people would agree that an advanced nuclear generator scalable
from tens of megawatts to a few gigawatts, with acceptable environmental impact and adequate
security, is a desirable long-term sustainable energy solution. Whether this will be an improved form
of enriched uranium nuclear fission; a different fission fuel cycle, such as thorium; or, the more
advanced fusion energy is not yet known. Research into all of these options is proceeding with
significant research advancements being achieved. However, until commercialized reactor designs are
demonstrated and any environmental and security issues associated with their fueling, operation, and
waste disposal are technically and politically resolved, a rational US energy plan cannot yet include
advanced nuclear energy as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. We are
left with SSP. Unless the US federal government is willing to forego addressing the very real
possibility of energy scarcity in dispatchable electrical power generation, SSP is the one renewable
energy solution capable of beginning engineering development and, as such, being incorporated into
such a rational sustainable energy transition plan. Hence, beginning the engineering development of
SSP now becomes a necessity. Planning and executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the
development of SSP will jump-start America on the path to acquiring the mastery of industrial space
operations we need to become a true spacefaring nation. Of course, rapid advancements in advanced
nuclear energy or methane hydrate recovery or the emergence of a new industrial-scale sustainable
energy source may change the current circumstances favoring the start of the development of SSP. But
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
25
Document1
DDW 2011
1
not knowing how long affordable easy energy supplies will remain available and not knowing to what
extent terrestrial nuclear fission and renewable energy production can be practically and politically
expanded, reasonableness dictates that the serious engineering development of SSP be started now.
And, we’re nearing the point of no return—holding the line on current emissions while transitioning to
solar power key to check feedback cycles
David Biello, award winning journalist and associate editor for Scientific American, 9/9/10, Scientific
American, “How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Plants
Today?”, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossilfuel-infrastructure{jchen}
Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change,
according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we
can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit
warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for
international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a new
analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding more fossil-fuel
infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural
gas—every day. A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how
much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected
lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the
atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions". That assumes life spans of roughly 40
years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and
overestimates, respectively, given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up
in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model
predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees
C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present levels and 150 ppm
higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations. Still, we are rapidly approaching a point of no
return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of
Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more
CO2-emitting devices will be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into
account all the enabling infrastructure—such as highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute
inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars. And
since 2000 the world has added 416 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, 449 gigawatts of natural gas–
fired power plants and even 47.5 gigawatts of oil-fired power plants, according to the study's figures.
China alone is already responsible for more than a third of the global "committed emissions," including
adding 2,000 cars a week to the streets of Beijing as well as 322 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants
built since 2000. The U.S.—the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, among major
countries—has continued a transition to less CO2-intensive energy use that started in the early 20th
century. Natural gas—which emits 40 percent less CO2 than coal when burned—now dominates new
power plants (nearly 188 gigawatts added since 2000) along with wind (roughly 28 gigawatts added), a
trend broadly similar to other developed nations such as Japan or Germany. But the U.S. still generates
half of its electricity via coal burning—and what replaces those power plants over the next several
decades will play a huge role in determining the ultimate degree of global climate change. Coalburning poses other threats as well, including the toxic coal ash that can spill from the impoundments
where it is kept; other polluting emissions that cause acid rain and smog; and the soot that causes and
estimated 13,200 extra deaths and nearly 218,000 asthma attacks per year, according to a report from
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
26
Document1
DDW 2011
1
the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. "Unfortunately, persistently elevated levels of fine
particle pollution are common across wide swaths of the country," reveals the 2010 report, released
September 9. "Most of these pollutants originate from combustion sources such as power plants, diesel
trucks, buses and cars." Of course, those are the same culprits contributing the bulk of greenhouse gas
emissions. Yet "programs to scale up 'carbon neutral' energy are moving slowly at best," notes
physicist Martin Hoffert of New York University in a perspective on the research also published in
Science on September 10. "The difficulties posed by generating even [one terawatt] of carbon-neutral
power led the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley and colleagues to call it the 'terawatt challenge'."
That is because all carbon-free sources of energy combined provide a little more than two of the 15
terawatts that power modern society—the bulk of that from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. At
least 10 terawatts each from nuclear; coal with carbon capture and storage; and renewables, such as
solar and wind, would be required by mid-century to eliminate CO2 emissions from energy use. As
Caldeira and his colleagues wrote: "Satisfying growing demand for energy without producing CO2
emissions will require truly extraordinary development and deployment of carbon-free sources of
energy, perhaps 30 [terawatts] by 2050."
Substantial U.S. action will guarantee spillover
Trevor Houser, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics; Shashank Mohan,
research analyst with the Rhodium Group; --AND-- Robert Heilmayr, research analyst at the World Resources
Institute, 09
[“A Green Global Recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International
Coordination,” http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/houser0309.pdf]
The G-20 group of developed and developing countries has emerged as the lead forum for orchestrating an
international response to the economic crisis. At their meeting last November, G-20 leaders pledged to work
together to combat the global recession through coordinated fiscal stimulus. Washington is not alone in looking
to meet long-term energy and environmental goals while bolstering short-term economic growth. Japan and
South Korea have both trumpeted their stimulus plans as “Green New Deals,” China has earmarked much of its
$586 billion in spending for energy and environmental projects, and the United Kingdom and Germany have
followed suit.14 The G-20 will meet again in April to compare notes on the recovery effort and take stock of
each country’s plan of attack. Leaders will be looking to coordinate their respective stimulus packages to ensure
the greatest economic bang for the buck. Given that this same group of countries will be tackling climate
change later in the year—either in a small grouping like the Major Economies Process, or through the UN-led
negotiations in Copenhagen—they would be wise to assess the cumulative effect of these efforts on global
carbon dioxide emissions and work together to ensure that various green stimulus efforts complement each
other as well as longterm emissions reduction goals. Discussion of the energy and environmental components of
national recovery efforts provides three benefits: 1. Investments by one country in an emerging low-carbon
technology reduce the cost of that technology for everyone. Coordinating government-driven R&D and
governmentfunded demonstration projects can maximize the energy and environmental benefits of every public
dollar spent. 2.Efficiency investments that reduce energy demand in one country impact energy prices around
the world and thus 14. Michael Casey, “UN welcomes Korea, Japan green stimulus plans,” Associated Press,
January 22, 2009; Li Jing, “NDRC: 350b yuan to pour into environment industry,” China Daily, November 27,
2008, available at www. chinadaily.com.cn (accessed on February 2, 2009). the cost-benefit analysis used by
national policymakers when evaluating domestic programs. 3. The cumulative effects of green recovery
programs on national emissions will shape international climate negotiations and the type of commitments that
are made as part of a multilateral climate agreement.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
27
Document1
DDW 2011
1
<<<<<new card – slowing warming key to solve extinction>>>>>>
And, there’s no question about warming—it’s real and anthropogenic
Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics @ Potsdam University, Member of the German Advisory Council on
Climate Change, 2008 (Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, ed. Ernesto Zedillo, Prof. IR @ Yale, p. 4249)
It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts. The
first is as follows: global climate is warming. This is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist
Michael Crichton), so we deal with it only briefly. The two leading compilations of data measured with
thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of
different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures, they both show a
consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8°C since the late nineteenth century. Temperatures over
the past ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available. The year 1998 sticks
out well above the longterm trend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that year (the last El Nino so
far and one of the strongest on record). These events are examples of the largest natural climate variations on
multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean, generally cause positive anomalies in global mean
temperature. It is remarkable that the year 2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred
that year. (A bizarre curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that several prominent "climate skeptics" recently
used the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words, "Indeed,
the absence of any record breakers during the past seven years is statistical evidence that temperatures are not
increasing.")33 In addition to the surface measurements, the more recent portion of the global warming trend
(since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is not straightforward to derive a reliable surface
temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just
near the surface), including the stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous'
due to the short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of
day, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these satellite data show trends that are fully
consistent with surface measurements and model simulations." If no reliable temperature measurements
existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as
glaciologist Lonnie Thompson puts it) ~are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from
the position of the terminal moraines heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat
all over the world during the past century. There are precious few exceptions, and they are associated with a
strong increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in
field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As glaciers respond sensitively to temperature changes,
data on the extent of glaciers have been used to reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over
the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Cores drilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is
unprecedented at least throughout the Holocene-the past 10,000 years. Another powerful sign of warming,
visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent
since satellite observations began in 1979. While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth century,
much discussion particularly in the popular media has focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is
in a longer-term context. While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the
question of causation. Scientifically, how unusual recent warming is-say, compared to the past millennium-in
itself contains little information about its cause. Even a highly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for
example, an exceptional increase in solar activity). And even a warming within the bounds of past natural
variations could have a predominantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the question of causation shortly, after
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
28
Document1
DDW 2011
1
briefly visiting the evidence for past natural climate variations. Records from the time before systematic
temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals,
and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local temperatures in some way, but they may be
influenced by other parameters as well (for example, precipitation), they may have a seasonal bias (for example,
the growth season for tree rings), and high-quality long records are difficult to obtain and therefore few in
number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still substantial uncertainty in the evolution of past global
or hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value
for our purposes,' as regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many regional
causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The first quantitative reconstruction for the
Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an error estimation, was presented by
Mann, Bradley, and Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one of the major new findings
since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The analysis suggests that, despite the large error bars,
twentieth-century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unprecedented during the past
millennium. This result, presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some extent
in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick-shaped curve became a symbol
for the IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the credibility
of the IPCC. Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even if the
scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into question the very cautious conclusion drawn by
the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the Northern
Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest of
any century during the past 1,000 years." This conclusion has since been supported further by every single one
of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6). Second, by far the most serious
scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mistake. 40 The prominent
paper of von Storch and others, which claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes systematically underestimated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect implementation of the
reconstruction procedure."41 With correct implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the
one used by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third,
whether their reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis underestimated past
natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a lesser
concern about the consequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger
climate sensitivity. While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to the climate sensitivity
estimates discussed herein or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of Mann,
Hughes, and Bradley or any other proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto
Protocol" had been called into question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in
1997, before the reconstruction in question even existed. The overheated public debate on this topic has, at
least, helped to attract more researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its methodology has
advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been presented in recent years. While the
science has moved forward, the first seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley has held up
remarkably well, with its main features reproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require
substantial amounts of new proxy data, rather than further refinement of the statistical techniques pioneered by
Mann, Hughes, and Bradley. Developing these data sets will require time and substantial effort. It is time to
address the final statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic. A large
number of studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally called the
"attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this is an
interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 percent.” The first and crucial piece of evidence
is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
29
Document1
DDW 2011
1
radiation balance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed here, the
rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the
observed 0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6°C of warming since preindustrial times for medium
climate sensitivity (3"C). With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming is
O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the
amount of aerosol' forcing is still very' uncertain-but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be
little doubt that the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on
aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more
warming than has been observed (leaving room for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The
second important piece of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation. In the scientific literature,
no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposed to explain the observed global warming. Other possible
causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not
show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured
directly from satellites and shows the well-known eleven-year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various
estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers, solar cycle length, the geomagnetic
AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate that solar activity probably increased
somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous centuries, different authors
agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last sixty-five years. Therefore, this cannot
explain the warming, and neither can any of the other factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only,
leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling in the second half of the twentieth century (for an
example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is
downward. The only way out would be either some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend
that arises by chance from an unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be
completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely. No evidence in the observed record, proxy data,
or current models suggest that such internal variability could cause a sustained trend of global warming of the
observed magnitude. As discussed twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years, (or
even 2,000 years, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of
large internal fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic
activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And indeed, it
would be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of
energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat around different parts of the climate
system-for example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in
the ocean. This mechanism implies that the ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms. For past
decades, as discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the ocean heat content increasing, which rules
out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is
increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. ' A
completely different approach to attribution is to analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in
so-called fingerprint studies, which associate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is
plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by
greenhouse gases. For example, a characteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's
surface and that, unlike solar variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night. Such
studies have used different data sets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different
statistical methods. They consistently conclude that the observed spatial pattern of warming can only be
explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be considered, highly likely' that the observed warming is
indeed predominantly due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases. ' This paper discussed the
evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate,
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
30
Document1
DDW 2011
1
finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points
to a CO2 effect on climate of 3C ± 1.59C global-warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic
IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment
Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to 3°C ± 1.0C) This is based on consistent results
from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence-of any computer models, the same result would
still hold based on physics and on data from climate history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent
evidence, the chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is
accepted, then it follows logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to
further warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to
various emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous
range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these
computations: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other greenhouse gases
and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here,
although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing.
Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar
share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an optimistic assumption; some models
indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink
under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in the more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation)
scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even
for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely
unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far as the data show, we would have to go back about 3
million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for
the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time.
The last major global warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000
years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 °C per century. 52 The
expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms
of sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets), extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and
ecosystem loss. The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and
discussed what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured and
well-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most of the observed
warming of the past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would be
expected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative explanation for this
warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together., the very strong evidence accumulated
from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually every climatologist
around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global
warming is a reality with which we need to deal.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
31
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Contention Four is Solvency
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
32
Document1
DDW 2011
1
Funding isn’t enough - government R&D is key to successful SPS
George Friedman, is an American political scientist and author. He is the founder, chief intelligence officer,
financial overseer, and CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor, 2011 “The Next Decade: Where
We’ve Been and Where We’re
Going”,http://books.google.com/books?id=y5plTzPTw8YC&pg=PA235&dq=Space+based+solar+power&hl=e
n&ei=99cDTq3bHIfEgAfTypSODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v
=onepage&q=Space%20based%20solar%20power&f=false, Date accessed June 23, 2011
At the same time we must prepare for long-term increases in energy generation from nonhydrocarbon
sources-sources that are cheaper and located in areas that the United States will not need to control by
send-ing in armies. In my view, this is space-based solar power. Therefore, what should be under way
and what is under way is private-sector development of inexpensive booster rockets. Mitsubishi has
invested inspace-based solar power to the tune of about $21 billion. Eutope's EAB is also investing,
and California`s Pacific Gas and Electric has signed a con-tract to purchase solar energy from space by
2016, although I think ful-fillment of that contract on that schedule is unlikely. However, whether the
source is space-based solar power or some other technology, the president must make certain that
development along several axes is under way and that the potential for building them is realistic.
Enormous amounts of increased energy are needed, and the likely source of the technology, based on
history, is the U.S. Department of Defense. Thus the government will absorb the cost of early development and private investment will reap the rewards. The We are in a period in which the state is more
powerful than the mar-ket, and in which the state has more resources. Markets are superb at
exploiting existing science and early technology, but they are not nearly as good in basic
research. From aircraft to nuclear power to moon Hightsto the Internet to global positioning satellites,
the state is much better at investing in long-term innovation. Government is inefficient, but that
inefficiency and the ability to absorb the cost of inefficiency are at the heart of basic research. When
we look at the projects we need to undertake in the coming decade, the organization most likely to
execute them successfully is the Department of Defense. There is nothing particularly new in this
intertwining of technology, geopolitics, and economic well-being. The Philistines dominated the
Levantine coast because they were great at making armor. To connect and control their empire, the
Roman army built roads and bridges that are still in use. During a war aimed at global domination, the
German military created the foundation of modern rocketry; in countering, the British came up with
radar. Lending powers and those contending for power constantly find themselves under military and
economic pressure. They respond to it by inventing extraordinary new technologies. The United States
is obviously that sort of power. It is currently under economic pressure but declining military pressure.
Such a time is not usually when the United States undertakes dramatic new ventures. The government
is heavily Funding one area we have discussed, finding cures for degenerative diseases. The
Department of Defense is funding a great deal of research into robotics. But the fundamental problem,
energy, has not had its due. For this decade, the choices are pedestrian. The danger is that the president
will fritter away his authority on proj-ects such as conservation, wind power, and terrestrial solar
power, which can’t yield the magnitude of results required. The problem with natural gas in particular
is that it is pedestrian. But like so much of what will take place in this decade, accepting the ordinary
and obvious is called for Hrs t-followed by great dreams quietly expressed.
The USfg is key to aerospace competition - export controls and mergers have weakened the private sector
ICAF, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, a senior service school providing graduate level educationto
sernior members of the US armed forces, Spring 2007, “The Final Report: The Space Industry” Industrial
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
33
Document1
DDW 2011
1
College of the Armed Forces, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475093&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The U.S. government has long understood that access to space and space capabilities are essential to
U.S. economic prosperity and national security. U.S. space policy from 1962 to 2006 served to ensure
national leadership in space and governance of space activities, including science, exploration, and
international cooperation. The current Administration has issued five space-specific policies to provide
goals and objectives for the U.S. Space Program. In addition to the National Space Policy, these
policies are Space Exploration; Commercial Remote Sensing; Space Transportation; and Space-Based
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. Each policy endeavors to maintain U.S. space supremacy,
reserving the right to defend assets in space, and to continue to exploit space for national security and
economic prosperity. 9 America’s success in space is dependent on government involvement,
motivation, and inspiration. It is significant that the Bush Administration has taken the time and
effort to update all of the U.S. space policies. The consolidation of the major space industry players
and a general down-turn in the commercial space market demand, coupled with export restrictions, has
left the U.S. space industry reliant on the government for revenue and technology development.
Federal development is key to spur the private sector
MORRING 07, Frank: Senior Space Technology Editor, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report
[“NSSO backs space solar power,”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.xml]
As a clean source of energy that would be independent of foreign supplies in the strife-torn Middle East
and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could ease America's longstanding strategic energy vulnerability,
according to the "interim assessment" released at a press conference and on the Web site
spacesolarpower.wordpress.com. And the U.S. military could meet tactical energy needs for forwarddeployed forces with a demonstration system, eliminating the need for a long logistical tail to deliver fuel
for terrestrial generators while reducing risk for eventual large-scale commercial development of the
technology, the report says. "The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," said Marine
Corps Lt. Col. Paul E. Damphousse of the NSSO, in presenting his office's report. That could change if the
Pentagon were to act as an anchor tenant for a demonstration SSP system, paying above-market rates for
power generated with a collection plant in geostationary orbit beaming power to U.S. forces abroad or in
the continental U.S., according to Charles Miller, CEO of Constellation Services International and director
of the Space Frontier Foundation. By buying down the risk with a demonstration at the tactical level, the
U.S. government could spark a new industry able to meet not just U.S. energy needs, but those of its allies
and the developing world as well. The technology essentially exists, and needs only to be matured. A risk
buy-down by government could make that happen, 4
experiments on materials that might be used in building the large structures needed to collect sunlight in
meaningful amounts. The Internet-based group of experts who prepared the report for the NSSO
recommended that the U.S. government organize itself to tackle the problem of developing SSP; use its
resources to "retire a major portion of the technical risk for business development; establish tax and other
policies to encourage private development of SSP, and "become an early demonstrator/adopter/customer"
of SSP to spur its development. That, in turn, could spur development of space launch and other industries.
Damphousse said a functioning reusable launch vehicle - preferably single-stage-to-orbit - probably would
be required to develop a full-scale SSP infrastructure in geostationary orbit. That, in turn, could enable
utilization of the moon and exploration of Mars under NASA's vision for space exploration.
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
34
Document1
DDW 2011
1
No perception of military threat –it’s an undesirable weapon
NSSO, Report to the National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm//ZY
When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a space- based
solar power (SBSP) satellite, people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful weapon?”
Depending on their bias that could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to
enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to space. But the NSSO is not interested in
space- based solar power as a weapon. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments
capabilities. Its motivation for study- ing SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a reasonable cost
any- where in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of infrastructure needed to
support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become
increas- ingly costly. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in
much less- expensive options. For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear
warheads should it choose to use them to destroy large enemy targets. SBSP is not suitable for
attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that reaches the ground is less
than a quarter of noon-sun- light; a worker could safely walk in the center of the beam. The physics of
microwave trans- mission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam
focusing above a pre-determined maximum inten- sity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting
beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot
signal lock ever be lost or disrupted. SBSP would not be a precision weapon. Today’s militaries are
looking for more precise and lower collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam
from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot indi- vidual targets—even if the intensity were
sufficient to cause harm. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing technical
expertise in its military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict
between great powers over energy scarcity, lessens the need to inter- vene in failed states which cannot
afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and
averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change. Solving the long-term energy
scar- city problem is too vital to the world’s future to have it derailed by a miscon- ception that space
solar power might somehow be used as a weapon. That is why it is so important to educate people
about this technol- ogy and to continue to conduct the research in an open environment.
Solar Power Satellites are sustainable, cheap, and technologically feasible
Lior, Noam Lior, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Philadelphia, PA, April 2011 “Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis”,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931, Date accessed June 24, 2011
We have analyzed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity
production in solar space power plants using current technology. While space solar power is still way
too expensive for launches from the Earth, there are several technological possibilities to reduce this
price. For a large scale application of orbital power stations both environmental impact and costs can
be significantly reduced. The first option is to build and employ reusable space vehicles for launching
the satellites, instead of rockets, which is the main recommendation by NASA, and the second option
is to build the satellites and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon). An old NASA estimate shows that this
would be economical for as few as 30 orbital satellites with 300 GWe of total power [17]. The costs
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
35
Document1
DDW 2011
1
could be even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and then uses its
produced energy to lift itself into a higher GEO orbit or even to the Moon [35]. If the satellites and
rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that:- The environmental impact of
the orbital solar power plants would become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant
except perhaps nuclear fusion. Measured by CO2 emissions, it would be about 0.5 kg per W of useful
power, and this number would even decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The
production cost of the orbital solar power plants could also become significantly lower than for any
Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. It is estimated as about US $1 per W of useful
power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The social impact of
cheap and clean energy from space is more difficult to estimate, because space power satellites seem to
be connected to a significant loss of jobs. It is however difficult to estimate the benefits of a large
amount of cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost
jobs, and we estimate that about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1 MW of installed useful
power. One could therefore expect a net positive effect of solar power satellites on sustainability.
These effects seem to be the most positive, if thermal power satellites are used, which are built in a
robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit. The concept presented in this paper
has some significant advantages over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production
on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of energy,
however even in the best case scenario it can’t become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power
concept can become operational in less than a decade and produce large amounts of energy in two
decades. It is also important that the price as well as environmental impact of solar orbital power are
expected to decrease with scale. In addition to expected increase in employment this makes solar
orbital power an important alternative to other sustainable energy sources.
Earth orbit, and it would take many thousands of years before the SPS's orbit could possibly decay to
cause atmospheric entry. Notably, large scale space development using asteroid-derived fuel
propellants will insure that dead satellites in low orbit do not crash to Earth, even old satellites
Obama will push alt energy inevitably
Geman 11
[Ben Geman, Writer for “The Hill”, 7/6/11, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/169941-obamacongress-lacks-urgency-on-energy-bill, Caplan]
President Obama on Wednesday knocked Capitol Hill inaction on legislation to curb oil use and called
on lawmakers to send him a “robust” plan. House Republicans – with limited Democratic backing –
have passed several bills to speed up and expand offshore drilling, and Senate GOP lawmakers have
called for similar measures. But Obama criticized what he called a lack of focus on weaning the nation
off oil. “Unfortunately we have not seen a sense of urgency coming out of Congress over the last
several months on this issue. Most of the rhetoric has been about, ‘let’s produce more,’” Obama said
during the White House’s “Twitter Town Hall” event. “Well, we can produce more, and I am
committed to that, but the fact is we only have 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, we use 25
percent of the world’s oil. We can’t drill our way out of this problem,” Obama said at the White House
social media event. Obama touted increased fuel economy standards and other steps the administration
has taken using its existing authorities. But the White House is also seeking Capitol Hill action on
several measures, even though a major energy bill faces tough odds in a divided Congress.
Administration energy goals include $7,500 rebates for purchasing electric vehicles. More broadly, a
top White House energy adviser recently suggested that legislation aimed at spurring deployment of
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
36
Document1
DDW 2011
1
electric cars could form the basis for a bipartisan energy compromise. “I’d like to see robust legislation
in Congress that actually took some steps to reduce oil dependency,” Obama said, although he did not
provide specifics. He said oil will remain a major energy source for some time even with a “full
throttle” push for clean energy, but added that reducing reliance will have major benefits. “If we had a
goal, or we are just reducing our dependence on oil each year in a staggered set of steps, it would save
consumers in their pocketbook, it would make our businesses more efficient and less subject to the
whims of the spot oil market, it would make us less vulnerable to the kinds of disruptions that have
occurred because of what happened in the Middle East this spring, and it would drastically cut down
on our carbon resources,” Obama said. The White House is also pushing for expanded green energy
R&D funding, and a “clean energy standard” that would mandate a major increase in low-carbon
power supplies from utilities (a measure that faces especially steep hurdles).
Last printed 2/8/2016 9:40:00 AM
37