116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
***Rare Earth Aff***
______________________________________ .................................................................................................................................. 1
***Rare Earth Aff***........................................................................................................................................................ 1
______________________________________ .................................................................................................................................. 4
**1AC** ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Inherency(1/2) ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Inherency (2/2) ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Plan....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
REE Mining 1AC- Warming (1/2) ............................................................................................................................... 8
REE Mining 1AC- Warming (2/2) ............................................................................................................................... 9
REE Mining 1AC- Econ .................................................................................................................................................. 10
REE Mining 1AC- Solvency (1/3) .............................................................................................................................. 11
REE Mining 1AC- Solvency (2/3) .............................................................................................................................. 12
REE Mining 1AC- Solvency (3/3) .............................................................................................................................. 13
______________________________________ ................................................................................................................................ 14
**Warming** ................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Green Jobs Warming Add-On (1/2) ........................................................................................................................ 15
Green Jobs Warming Add-On (2/2) ........................................................................................................................ 16
AT: Technology alone cant solve global warming alone. ................................................................................ 17
AT: Global warming does not lead to extinction ................................................................................................ 18
AT: REEs are not needed to develop green energy technology ..................................................................... 19
AT: Warming Not Anthropogenic ............................................................................................................................ 20
______________________________________ ................................................................................................................................ 21
**Economy** ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
XT: Plan Solves Economy ............................................................................................................................................ 22
AT: Rare earths won’t cause a trade war (1/2) .................................................................................................. 23
AT: Rare earths won’t cause a trade war (2/2) .................................................................................................. 24
AT: Trade war won’t cause real war ....................................................................................................................... 25
______________________________________ ................................................................................................................................ 26
**Add-Ons** .................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
1
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Hegemony Add-On (1/5) ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Hegemony Add-On (2/5) ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Hegemony Add-On (3/5) ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Hegemony Add-On (3/5) ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Hegemony Add-On (3/5) ............................................................................................................................................ 31
Asteroid Add-on (1/2) ................................................................................................................................................. 32
Asteroid Add-on (2/2) ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Asteroid Impact Calc (1/2) ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Asteroid Impact Calc (2/2) ........................................................................................................................................ 35
XT: Asteroid Impact (1/3) .......................................................................................................................................... 36
XT: Asteroid Impact (2/3) .......................................................................................................................................... 37
XT: Asteroid Impact (3/3) .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Colonization Add-on ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
XT: Colonization Impact (1/3) .................................................................................................................................. 40
XT: Colonization Impact (2/3) .................................................................................................................................. 41
XT: Colonization Impact (3/3) .................................................................................................................................. 42
Red Spread Add-on ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
Enviro/Systemic Violence Add-on........................................................................................................................... 44
XT: Enviro Solvency ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
______________________________________ ................................................................................................................................ 46
**Solvency** .................................................................................................................................................................... 46
XT: REEs Are On The Moon ........................................................................................................................................ 47
AT: No Transportation................................................................................................................................................. 48
AT: Tech Not There (1/3) ........................................................................................................................................... 49
AT: Tech Not There (2/3) ........................................................................................................................................... 50
AT: Tech Not There (3/3) ........................................................................................................................................... 51
AT: China won’t cut off our supply of REES. ......................................................................................................... 52
AT: China Increasing Supply...................................................................................................................................... 53
______________________________________ ................................................................................................................................ 56
**AT: Off-Case** ............................................................................................................................................................. 56
AT: Spending DA ............................................................................................................................................................ 57
AT: Private Sector CP (1/3)........................................................................................................................................ 58
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
2
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Private Sector CP (2/3)........................................................................................................................................ 59
AT: Private Sector CP (3/3)........................................................................................................................................ 60
AT: Mine Earth CP (1/2) .............................................................................................................................................. 61
AT: Mine Earth CP (2/2) .............................................................................................................................................. 62
XT: Plan Solves Mining ................................................................................................................................................ 63
XT: Solvency Defecit ..................................................................................................................................................... 64
XT: Earth Mining Bad for Enviro (1/2) .................................................................................................................. 65
XT: Earth Mining Bad for Enviro (2/2) .................................................................................................................. 66
AT: Relations DA/Consult CP (1/2) ......................................................................................................................... 67
AT: Relations DA/Consult CP (2/2)......................................................................................................................... 68
AT: Nanocomposite Magnets CP ............................................................................................................................... 69
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
3
116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
**1AC**
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
4
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Inherency(1/2)
Contention One: Inherency
Attempts to break Chinese rare earth monopoly have failed – and China is already beginning to raise
prices and tighten supply
Bradsher, 11 (Keith, writer for NYT, 5/2/11, “Supplies Squeezed, Rare Earth Prices Surge”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/03rare.html, 6/23/11, JPW)
Rare earth prices are reaching rarefied heights. World prices have doubled in the last four months for rare earths —
metallic elements needed for many of the most sophisticated civilian and military technologies,
whether smartphones or smart bombs. And this year’s increases come atop price gains of as much as
fourfold during 2010. The reason is basic economics: demand continues to outstrip efforts to expand supplies
and break China’s chokehold on the market. Neodymium, a rare earth necessary for a range of products including
headphones and hybrid electric cars, now fetches more than $283 a kilogram ($129 a pound) on the spot market. A year ago
it sold for about $42 a kilogram ($19 a pound). Samarium, crucial to the manufacture of missiles, has climbed to more than
$146 a kilogram, up from $18.50 a year earlier. While the price inflation is a concern to manufacturers, consumers in many
cases will barely notice the soaring cost of rare earths. Even though the materials are crucial to the performance of everyday
equipment like automotive catalytic converters and laptop computer display screens, rare earths typically are used only in
trace quantities. One exception is the Toyota Prius hybrid car, whose manufacture uses a kilogram of neodymium. Toyota
has been raising prices for the Prius, but has cited demand for the car and economic conditions. While acknowledging that
rising prices for raw materials in general have affected the company’s overall financial results, Toyota has declined to
provide a breakdown of the role of rare earths. (Production problems stemming from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami
have also crimped supplies of Prius cars, which are made only in Japan.) The high prices for rare earths reflect turmoil in
the global industry that mines and refines them. China, which controls more than 95 percent of the market, has further
restricted exports so as to conserve supplies for its own high-tech and green energy industries. That is despite the
World Trade Organization’s ban on most export restrictions. Meanwhile, an ambitious effort to open the
world’s largest rare earth refinery in Malaysia, which had seemed certain to begin operating by this autumn, is
tied up over regulatory reviews of the disposal plans for thousands of tons of low-level radioactive
waste the plant would produce annually. Public opposition to the refinery is evident in the weekly
protest demonstrations now being held. At the same time, Japanese companies are finding it harder than
originally hoped to recycle rare earths from electronics and to begin rare earth mining and refining in Vietnam. industry
that mines and refines them has long been characterized by small, entrepreneurial companies. Lately, though, soaring prices
have contributed to industry consolidation. Last month, for example, Solvay, a big Belgian chemical-industrial corporation
announced that it would pay $4.8 billion to acquire Rhodia of France, a technological leader in making complex chemicals
based on rare earths. That same day, April 4, Molycorp, the only American company currently producing rare earths, said it
had paid $89 million for a more than 90 percent stake in Silmet of Estonia, a much smaller company that is Rhodia’s only
European rival in rare earth processing. In Malaysia, where the giant rare earth refinery is under construction near the
eastern port of Kuantan, regulators are delaying approval for an operating permit amid public concern about naturally
occurring low-level radioactive contamination of the rare earth ore, which will be mined in Australia. Raja Dato Abdul
Aziz bin Raja Adnan, the director general of the Malaysian Atomic Energy Licensing Board, said the board had asked the
Lynas Corporation of Australia, which is building the refinery, to provide additional documentation before accepting its
application for an initial operating permit. It will take up to six months to review the application, Raja Adnan said, and
Lynas will not be allowed to bring any raw material to the plant until a permit is issued. But Nicholas Curtis, Lynas’s
executive chairman, said that he believed the company could obtain the necessary approvals before September and that his
company was sticking to its plan to begin feeding Australian ore into the Malaysian refinery’s kilns by the end of that
month. The Malaysian government also announced last week that it would appoint a panel of international experts to
review the safety of Lynas’s plans. The company said it welcomed the move. But Fuziah Salleh, an opposition legislator
who represents downtown Kuantan and has been leading weekly protests, is mistrustful. “The people’s concerns are that the
independent panel will be formed by the government to prove that they are right,” she wrote in an (continues…)
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
5
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Inherency (2/2)
e-mail message. Toyota Tsusho, a materials purchasing unit of the Toyota Group, has separately encountered complex local
regulations as it seeks to open rare earth mining and processing operations in Vietnam. The project was announced last
October during a Chinese embargo on rare earth shipments to Japan. Takeshi Mutsuura, a spokesman, said that Toyota
Tsusho now hoped to reach a contract in Vietnam this summer and start production in early 2013. As recently as last
autumn, there were also ambitious hopes in Japan to recycle rare earths from electronics waste. Dowa Holdings tried then to
come up with ways to separate rare earths at a recycling factory in northwest Japan but found the task significantly more
difficult than recycling other, more widely available precious metals. The recycling factory is now recovering 19 other
metals instead, including cobalt and lithium. All of this has left the world even more dependent on China. The Chinese
government last autumn showed a willingness to use that near monopoly as a trade weapon, halting shipments to Japan
from late September to mid-November, during a territorial dispute over islands in the East China Sea. Although Beijing has
officially denied that it imposed a Japanese embargo last fall, China’s own trade data released since then show that its
shipments to Japan suddenly fell to zero in October for rare earth metals, and to nearly zero for rare earth oxides — which
are more processed chemical compounds Although rare earths are crucial to the supply chains of some of the world’s
biggest manufacturers, the . At the beginning of this year China reduced its rare earth export quotas to all countries, while
raising export taxes on some rare earths to 25 percent, from 15 percent previously. Since April 1, China has also raised
taxes on rare earth mining companies to the equivalent of $8 for each kilogram of refined product; rare earths were
previously taxed like many other nonferrous minerals in China, at less than 50 cents a kilogram. One of the
biggest questions hanging over the rare earths industry is whether the United States, the European Union and Japan will file
a World Trade Organization case against China, challenging its export quotas and duties. James Bacchus, a former
chairman of the W.T.O. appeals tribunal in Geneva, said that Chinese trade data shows a virtually complete halt in
shipments to Japan last autumn could be cited to buttress any W.T.O. filing by rare earth-importing countries. China denies
violating the W.T.O. ban on export restrictions, saying that it qualified for an exception to the ban for environmental
protection and conservation of natural resources. But China has done little to restrict its own industries’ consumption of
rare earths, usually a prerequisite for invoking an environmental defense.
China will be a net importer of REEs by 2015
CommodityOnline, 3/10/11, “China may become importer of rare earth metals: Molycorp”,
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/China-may-become-importer-of-rare-earth-metals-Molycorp-37090-3-1.html
China may become a net importer of some rare earth elements by 2015, based on the growth in clean technology ,
one rare
earths developer said Wednesday. China currently produces 97% of rare earth metals, which are used
in clean technology projects such as hybrid and electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines. "We
are watching their production curve," said Jim Sims, director of public affairs at U.S.-based Molycorp. Sims spoke at a
session about rare metals and the electric car at the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada's conference in
Toronto. Their production might not be as much as believed, he said, adding that in the first half of 2011, China's export
quota will continue its seven-year downward trend. Sims quoted the results of a survey conducted by Metals-Pages.com,
which said 59% of respondents believe the Asian country will turn into a net importer. Further, Sims said that senior
Chinese officials have reportedly said "pointedly" that they are not ruling that out. Sims noted that China has huge growth
in the wind turbine sector and even with the growth of car sales in China, production and use of electric bikes are growing
swiftly, too. Hybrid and electric vehicles come to mind when discussing clean technology and rare metals, and
Sims noted that about 12 kilograms of various rare metals are used in these vehicles. Projecting demand for these
vehicles and other clean-technology devices is difficult in part because of how quickly some will depend on supply of the
various metals used, said Gareth Hatch, founding principal of Technology Metals Research. Hatch said in December, the
U.S. Department of Energy released a 166-page research paper called "Critical Materials Strategy" which in part estimated
the impact of market share and material intensity – how much used for a particular technology - for several rare earth
metals. The DOE looked at the potential impact of high and low market penetration. The DOE reviewed several
technology types from advanced batteries, thin-film semiconductors – which are mostly used in solar panels – and
phosphors, which are used in LCD and plasma displays and newer light bulbs. Hatch said the DOE looked at what the
supply of 14 various metals would be by 2015 and by 2020. The most critical metal, in terms of high use in clean energy
and supply, in the next five years is dysprosium. Others include europium, indium, neodymium, terbium and yttrium. In the
short term, lithium is not considered critical based on the projected use and supply, but in the next 5-10 years, it moves into
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
6
116108808
DDW 2011
1
the "near-critical" stage.
Plan
Plan: The USFG should fund the development of its rare earth mining capability beyond the earth’s
mesosphere.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
7
116108808
DDW 2011
1
REE Mining 1AC- Warming (1/2)
Contention Two: Warming
Lack of rare earth elements, also known as REEs, is the Achilles heel of Obama’s green energy agenda.
Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, 10/19
Rare Earth Metals Become Rarer William A. Jacobson is Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of
the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. He is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984
graduate of Harvard Law School. At Harvard he was Senior Editor of the Harvard International Law Journal
and Director of Litigation for the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project. Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at
9:20pm <http://legalinsurrection.com/2010/10/rare-earth-metals-become-rarer/>//DoeS
Last January, and again in late September, I wrote that the Achilles heel of the Obama green energy agenda —
which involves a stifling of carbon-based energy use through taxation and regulation in favor of “green” energy sources —
failed to take into account that green energy technology depended heavily on “rare earth” minerals mined almost
exclusively in China. Once again, this near monopoly is coming home to roost, as China has announced an
across-the-board cut back in rare earth exports. As reported by The New York Times: China, which
has been blocking shipments of crucial minerals to Japan for the last month, has now quietly halted
shipments of those materials to the United States and Europe, three industry officials said on Tuesday.
The Chinese action, involving rare earth minerals that are crucial to manufacturing many advanced
products, seems certain to further intensify already rising trade and currency tensions with the West.
Until recently, China typically sought quick and quiet accommodations on trade issues. But the
interruption in rare earth supplies is the latest sign from Beijing that Chinese leaders are willing to use
their growing economic muscle. As I stated before, Obama merely is trading our dependence on foreign oil — as
to which there are numerous suppliers — for dependence on a single foreign source of green technology raw materials.
Fossil fuel dependence is responsible for global warming.
O’Driscoll and Vergano 7
Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude Updated 3/1/2007 10:04 PM ET By Patrick O'Driscoll
(national correspondent, Denver bureau chief at USA TODAY, reporter at The Denver Post, Cover Story writer
at USA TODAY) and Dan Vergano (member at National Association of Science Writers Fellow at Nieman
Foundation for Journalism at Harvard Fellow at Nieman Foundation for Journalism USA TODAY)
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-01-30-ipcc-report_x.htm>//DoeS
A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude that humankind's reliance on fossil fuels — coal,
fuel oil and natural gas — is to blame for global warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which
it is based. The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence
happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former
director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey. "The big message that will
come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities," says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to
define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty,"
meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says.
His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into
the new assessment. Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release
carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier
heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime.
"Most of the carbon dioxide still would just be sitting there, staring at us for the next century,"
Mahlman says.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
8
116108808
DDW 2011
1
REE Mining 1AC- Warming (2/2)
Renewable energy alone can solve global warming
Zervos & Coequyt 2007
Arthouros Zervos, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) John Coequyt, Climate & Energy Unit,
Greenpeace USA Increasing Renewable Energy in U.S. Can Solve Global Warming January 24, 2007
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/increasing-renewable-energy-in-u-s-cansolve-global-warming-47208>//DoeS
Landmark analysis released by Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and other climate and
energy advocates shows that the United States can indeed address global warming without relying on nuclear power or socalled "clean coal" -- as some in the ongoing energy debate claim. The new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for
Solving Global Warming" details a worldwide energy scenario where nearly 80% of U.S. electricity can be produced by
renewable energy sources; where carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced 50% globally and 72% in the U.S. without
resorting to an increase in dangerous nuclear power or new coal technologies; and where America's oil use can be cut by
more than 50% by 2050 by using much more efficient cars and trucks (potentially plug-in hybrids), increased use of
biofuels and a greater reliance on electricity for transportation. The 92-page report, commissioned by the German
Aerospace Center, used input on all technologies of the renewable energy industry, including wind turbines, solar
photovoltaic panels, biomass power plants, solar thermal collectors, and biofuels, all of which "are rapidly becoming
mainstream." "The world cannot afford to stick to the conventional energy development path, relying on fossil fuels,
nuclear, and other outdated technologies. Energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy must play leading roles in
the world's energy future." -- Arthouros Zervos of the European Renewable Energy Council and John Coequyt of
Greenpeace USA Introduction from the Report The good news first. Renewable energy, combined with energy
efficiency, can meet half of the world's energy needs by 2050. This new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint
for Solving Global Warming," shows that it is not only economically feasible, but also economically
desirable, to cut U.S. CO2 emissions by almost 75% within the next 43 years. These reductions can be
achieved without nuclear power, and while virtually ending U.S. dependence on coal. Contrary to
popular opinion, a massive uptake of renewable energy and efficiency improvements alone can
solve our global warming problem. All that is missing is the right policy support from the
President and Congress. The bad news is that time is running out. The overwhelming consensus of scientific
opinion is that the global climate is changing and that this change is caused in large part by human activities; if left
unchecked, it will have disastrous consequences for Earth's ecosystems and societies. Furthermore, there is solid scientific
evidence that we must act now. This is reflected in the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), a collaborative effort involving more than 1,000 scientists. Its next report, due for release early this year, is
expected to make the case for urgent action even stronger. In the United States there is a groundswell of activity at the local
and state levels. Many mayors, governors, and public and business leaders are doing their part to address climate change.
But they can only do so much; action is needed at the federal level. Now is the time for a national, science-based cap on
greenhouse gas emissions.
Extinction
Cummins and Allen 10—*Int’l. Dir. – Organic Consumers Association - Policy Advisor – Organic Consumers
Association (Ronnie and Will, Climate Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century, 14 February 2010,
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6, AMiles)
The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that
the world needs to reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid
climate chaos, crop failures, endless wars, melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we
radically reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently
at 390 parts per million and rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide
pollution, or else survival for the present and future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen,
business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures means that the carrying capacity
of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario, billions will die of thirst, cold, heat,
disease, war, and starvation.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
9
116108808
DDW 2011
1
REE Mining 1AC- Econ
Contention Three: Trade War
China’s monopoly on rare earths leads to trade wars
Ensinger 11 (Dustin, 3/28/11, “China’s Restrictions of Rare Earth Exports Causes Price to Skyrocket”,
http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/china%E2%80%99s-restriction-rare-earth-exports-causes-priceskyrocket, 6/23/11, JPW)
China has used its monopoly on rare earth metals in the past to bully economic partners . In October, it was revealed
that the government was restricting exports of the metals to both the U.S. and Japan. Many believe the
U.S. was targeted because of an investigation launched by the U.S. examining Chinese subsidies in
clean energy technology. The country has backed off on restriction of all exports, but it is controlling the supply,
exporting less and causing the price to rise to unseen heights . In July, the price of a ton of just one of the 17
metals averaged $14,405. Last month, that number skyrocketed to $109,036. There is some evidence
that the Chinese have been cutting exports of the metals since 2006. Some believe that with China playing
hardball on rare earth metals it could lead to intense trade wars. “The rare earth metal dispute is the first time Chinese
sanctions have generated a significant level of countermoves from major trading partners to weaken China's economic
leverage over them. This suggests that China's new strategy could lead to trade wars in a way that earlier economic
responses never did,” said Jongryn Mo.
Trade war is the biggest internal link to US-China war
Landy, 07 (Ben, Director of Research and Strategy at the Atlantic Media Company, served in various research
and project management positions at the Brookings Institution and Center for Strategic and International
Studies, two leading public policy think tanks in Washington DC, 4/3/07,
http://chinaredux.com/2007/04/03/protectionism-and-war/#comments)
The greatest threat for the 21st century is that these economic flare-ups between the US and China will not be contained,
but might spill over into the realm of military aggression between these two world powers. Economic conflict breeds
military conflict. The stakes of trade override the ideological power of the Taiwan issue. China’s ability to
continue growing at a rapid rate takes precedence, since there can be no sovereignty for China without economic growth.
The United States’ role as the world’s superpower is dependent on its ability to lead economically . As many of you will
know from reading this blog, I do not believe that war between the US and China is imminent, or a
foregone conclusion in the future. I certainly do not hope for war. But I have little doubt that protectionist
policies, on both sides, greatly increase the likelihood of conflict – far more than increases in military budgets and antisatellite tests.
That’s extinction
Lee Hunkovic, Professor at the American Military University, 2009, http://www.lampmethod.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf
A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world
war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including
Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in
the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China
were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive
expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff
and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict,
there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan
and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore,
other countries will not be considered in this study.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
10
116108808
DDW 2011
1
REE Mining 1AC- Solvency (1/3)
Contention Four: Solvency
A USFG stockpile of rare earth materials would solve economic and military problems
Humphries 10 (Marc, Analyst in Energy Policy for the Congressional Research Service, 9/10/10, “Rare Earth
Elements: The Global Supply Chain”, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41347.pdf, 6/23/11, JPW)
Establishing a government-run economic stockpile and/or private-sector stockpiles that would contain supplies of
specific REE broadly needed for “green initiatives” and defense applications is a policy advocated by some in industry and
government. This may be a prudent investment. Generally, stockpiles and stockpile releases could have an impact on
prices and supply but would also ensure supplies of REE materials (oxides, metals, etc.) during times of normal supply
bottlenecks. An economic stockpile could be costly and risky, as prices and technology may change the
composition of REEs that are needed in the economy. According to USGS, 34 DOD along with USGS is
examining which of the REEs might be necessary in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS). In the recent past, NDS
materials were stored for wartime use based on a three-year war scenario. Some of the rare earth
elements contained in the National Defense Stockpile were sold off by 1998. However, rare earth
elements were never classified as strategic minerals. 35 DOD had stockpiled some yttrium but has
since sold it off, and none of the REEs have been classified as strategic materials. A critical question
for stockpile development would be: What materials along the supply chain should be stockpiled? For
example, should the stockpile contain rare earth oxides or alloyed magnets which contain the REEs, or
some combination of products? The National Research Council (NRC) has produced an in-depth report on minerals
critical to the U.S. economy and offers its analysis as described here: “... most critical minerals are both essential in use
(difficult to substitute for) and prone to supply restrictions.” 36 While the NRC report is based on several
availability criteria used to rank minerals for criticality (geological, technical, environmental and
social, political, and economic), REEs were determined to be critical materials assessed at a high supply risk and the
possibility of severe impacts if supplies were restricted. Some of the REE applications are viewed as more important than
others and some are at greater risk than others, namely the Heavy Rare Earth Elements (HREEs), as substitutes are
unavailable or not as effective. 37
Precedent indicates a movement towards asteroid mining could influence China to relax export controls
Bova 10 (Ben, 11/28/10, novelist who wrote “Mars Life” and columnist for the Naples News, “Rare earth
elements are in the news”, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/27/ben-bova-nov-28-2010-rare-earthelements-are-news/, 6/24/11, JPW)
Mining rare earths from asteroids would be enormously expensive, at first. But the effort could help to start a transition
toward developing space industries. In time, we could see many industrial operations running in space, using
virtually free solar energy, while our world becomes cleaner and greener: a residential zone, with
industry moving off our planet. Would a move in this direction influence the Chinese government to relax its grip on
rare-earth exports? There is a precedent for this sort of thing. In the 1980s, when former President Ronald Reagan proposed
the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka “Star Wars”) it started a chain of events that led eventually to the fall of the
Soviet Union. We didn’t go ahead with SDI — indeed, we still do not have a credible defense against ballistic
missiles. But the possibility that the U.S. might develop missile defenses helped to crack the Soviet Union apart. The
possibility of mining rare earths from asteroids might help influence China, too.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
11
116108808
DDW 2011
1
REE Mining 1AC- Solvency (2/3)
A single asteroid can have more rare-earth metal than has ever been mined in the course of human
history
Geere 10 (Duncan, writer for Wired magazine, 7/15/10, “Making space exploration pay with asteroid mining”,
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/15/asteroid-mining, 6/23/11, JPW)
Asteroids happen to be particularly rich in platinum group metals -- ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium,
iridium, and platinum. These elements are extremely rare on Earth, and most of the world's known
deposits come from sites of asteroid impact. They're so rare that prices for a few grams can be in the
thousands of pounds. However, they're also crucial ingredients for electronics. They're very stable,
resistant to chemical attack, and cope with high temperatures, making them perfect for use in circuitry.
Asteroids that have already been surveyed have been shown to contain vast amounts of these metals. One average 500metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of metal -- more than has ever been mined in the course
of human history. Near-Earth asteroids are likely first targets for mining, due to the ease of getting to them, and getting the
materials back to earth. Increasing the supply of platinum group metals on earth by sending up specialist mining spacecraft
could have two benefits. Firstly, it'd allow the cost of electronics production to go down. More raw material should push
down the market price. Secondly, it'd offer a motive for space travel beyond "the pursuit of knowledge". While pursuit
of knowledge is a noble goal, it's proved increasing difficult to fund since the days of the space race in
the 1960s. Introducing capitalism, corporations and stockholders in that process might seem like an anathema to some
space enthusiasts, but it may be necessary to fund the huge amount of space exploration that still needs to be done . In
history, great voyages of exploration have rarely been done solely with the goal of furthering
knowledge. Columbus discovered America while trying to find a easier, cheaper way of shipping spice from the East
to the West, following the fall of Constantinople. The vast expanse of the interior of America was
mapped by gold-rushers, seeking their fortune. Similarly, Antarctica was discovered by explorers seeking new
sources of seal meat, and much of northern Canada and its lakes were charted by fur traders and those
hoping to save time crossing the Pacific from Europe by avoiding having to round Cape Horn in South
America. So to those despairing about the recent cutting of space budgets across the world, invest your
savings in asteroid mining. If history is any guide, then once that industry takes off, a whole new frontier will open up for
humanity.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
12
116108808
DDW 2011
1
REE Mining 1AC- Solvency (3/3)
Tech is available now
Crandall et. al, Crandall founded Abundant Planet in 2005. Shortly thereafter, he entered the MBA program at California
Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo, to study the economic and commercial feasibility of extraterrestrial resource development. He
graduated from the program in 2008, Gorman is Associate Professor of Finance at California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo, where he
has been recognized as the most outstanding faculty member in the finance department every year, since 2003. He received a B.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from Washington State University, an MBA in Finance from Western Washington University, and a Ph.D in
Finance from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Peter Howard is a senior scientist at Exelixis, Inc., in
South San Francisco. He received his B.S. in Genetics from the University of California, Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in Molecular
Genetics from the University of California, San Diego, Frans von der Dunk is a Professor of Space Law in the College of Law at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He recently hosted a conference on potentially hazardous near-Earth objects, offered a video
commentary on space junk, and discussed several key topics in space law on David Livingston’s Space Show, Martin Elvis is a Senior
Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He has been affiliated with the Chandra X-ray Observatory,
NASA’s flagship mission for X-ray astronomy, since the 1980s, Dante Lauretta is an Associate Professor of Planetary Sciences at the
University of Arizona, and Founder and Director of the Southwest Meteorite Center, Jordi Puig-Suari is a Professor of Aerospace
Engineering at California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo. He received a B.S. and an M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical
Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Astronautics, all from Purdue University , 2010, 6/23/11, JPW
First mineral samples: June 2010 The return of the Hayabusa (mission animation; mission overview),
bringing mineral samples from near-Earth asteroid (NEA) Itokawa, marks the onset of The Age of Asteroid Mining:
Extraterrestrial resource development has begun. Hayabusa faced and overcame many challenges . It successfully
returned to Earth on 13 June 2010, plummeting through the atmosphere in a fiery display, and is now
scheduled to appear in its own movie. Just as a silken thread, tied to a stone and thrown across a deep
gorge, makes it possible to deploy a string, a rope, and eventually a load bearing bridge, the knowledge
base that has been created by the JAXA team of engineers will inform all future efforts to mine asteroid mineral wealth .
They will forever be the first to have completed the loop: From Earth to asteroid and back. Business
opportunities Future NEA sample-return missions are planed by the engineers at JAXA (Hayabusa 2),
as well as several other groups in the European Space Agency and at NASA. (NASA’s Dawn
spacecraft, launched in September 2007, aims for two main belt asteroids.) Missions to analyze, monitor,
respond to, and, if necessary, move potentially hazardous NEAs (PHAs), such as Apophis, have also been planned.
One such mission is projected to cost less than $20 million. The Hayabusa mission to Itokawa cost $170 million . To date,
over 7,000 NEAs have been identified. Of these, 15% are easier to reach than the moon . New telescopes, such as
Pan-STARRS and the LSST (generating “terabytes of data/night”), are expected to detect half a
million more (500,000) over the next 15 years. This will significantly increase awareness of both Earth-impact
risks and business opportunities. Why mine asteroids? Why mine asteroids? To get rich. To increase humanity’s
real wealth. To industrialize the inner solar system, and eventually build off-planet habitats. Many
asteroids are rich in industrial-use metals. The platinum-group metals (PGMs) are particularly attractive due to their high
cost, limited terrestrial availability (South Africa supplies 75% of the world’s platinum and over 80% of its
rhodium; Russia supplies most of the rest, 14% of the platinum and 12% of the rhodium), and their
relative abundance in certain classes of asteroids. A single, 500 m NEA, of a common type, contains tens of billions of
dollars worth of PGMs, as well as tons of iron, nickel and other useful materials.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
13
116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
**Warming**
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
14
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Green Jobs Warming Add-On (1/2)
Green technology creates six times more jobs than status quo energy jobs.
BlueGreen Alliance 2009
Green Technologies Will Revitalize Manufacturing Blue Green Alliance, The BlueGreen Alliance is a
national, strategic partnership between labor unions and environmental organizations 11/2009
<http://www.iseek.org/news/fw/fw7361FutureWork.html>//DoeS
A report by the Blue Green Alliance, Building a Clean Energy Assembly Line outlines policies to
create clean energy jobs. According to the report, renewable energy technologies provide three to six
times as many jobs as equivalent investments in fossil fuels when manufacturing, installation,
operation and maintenance jobs are taken into account. "Clean energy can revitalize U.S.
manufacturing, and Ohio companies will lead the way in building the technology of the 21st century,"
Brown said. "Clean energy technology utilizes many of the same components manufactured for the
auto industry. Done right, clean energy policy will create new demand for Ohio manufacturing. By utilizing our state's skilled workforce and
longstanding auto component supply chain, we can make Ohio the Silicon Valley of Clean Energy Manufacturing." The analysis builds on a report earlier
850,000 manufacturing jobs could be
created across the United States, and more than 42,000 existing manufacturers could experience growth based on a demand for parts, with the
enactment of a federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) of 25 percent by 2025. Scaling up renewable energy will pay big job
dividends in the industrial Midwest. Of the states with the potential to create the most renewable
energy jobs, six of 10 are in the Midwest, including Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin
and Michigan. Four heartland states will be the big winners in wind technology manufacturing from
increased renewable energy development. Of the states with the potential to create the most jobs from
the manufacture of component parts for wind turbines, four of five are in the Midwest: Illinois, Ohio,
Wisconsin and Indiana. California and Texas alone stand to create more than 155,000 jobs making the
parts needed to produce wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy. More than 42,000 existing
manufacturers could experience growth based on increased demand for component parts needed to
produce clean energy. "Renewable energy, and the green jobs that come along with it, are key to our
economic growth," said Michael Langford, National President of the Utility Workers Union of
America. Central to these recommendations is enacting a federal RES, robust allocation of allowances
to promote renewable electricity deployment, state-level feed-in tariffs, an Energy Efficiency Resource
Standard and extending the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit. With regard to market
reforms, recommendations include passing comprehensive federal legislation that caps carbon
emissions economy-wide and addresses regional disparities and carbon leakage, and includes an
emphasis on domestic manufacturing.
this year by BGA and the Renewable Energy Policy Project that estimated more than
The transition to green energy will spark massive green job creation.
Roberts, Staff Writer at Grist.com, 2008
The Truth About Green Jobs When they're coming, who will get them, and how to prevent their outsourcing. By
David Roberts <http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/11/truth-about-green-jobs>//DoeS
Proponents of fossil fuels tout job creation, but the truth is there aren't many jobs in dirty energy, and that number is
declining. To wit: Over the last two decades, coal output in the US has grown by a third, while the number of jobs in the
coal industry has fallen by half. According to economist John A. "Skip" Laitner of the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, for every $1 million of revenue in energy-related sectors, fewer than two jobs are created, compared to
seven jobs per $1 million earned elsewhere. Thus, shifting investment away from conventional energy can't help but create
more jobs, particularly during the transition to a green economy, when construction, efficiency, and other labor-intensive
industries will be scaling up.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
15
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Green Jobs Warming Add-On (2/2)
Green jobs can save the economy by increasing consumer confidence.
Caplan 2009
Aric Caplan is President of Caplan Communications. O'Dwyer's PR Report February 1, 2009
<http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/3049361.html>[lexis]//DoeS
By curbing emissions and investing in green jobs, energy security, and placing "smart growth" at the
center of an economic recovery plan, a New Energy Economy can counter the estimated 2.6 million
jobs lost in 2008. Of course, to achieve a sensible recovery, it's vital that our corporate and political
leaders work together to generate "green jobs" in all sectors of the economy. Doing so will create the
basis for stable, long term economic growth, increase consumer confidence and effectively start to
restore our environment by slowing global warming. Likewise, we must eliminate dirty fuels. Outdated
polluting technologies, such as coal-fired power plants, off-shore drilling and environmentally
destructive practices like mountain-top removal and coal ash dumping, must finally become a thing of
the past. America's cities and communities can no longer be asked to tolerate energy models that poison our air and water and spread dangerous
metals and toxins into our soil and rivers. What exactly does a "green job" or "green industry" look like? Recently Caplan Communications had the
opportunity to work with Environmental Entrepreneurs, a new generation of business leaders who act passionately about the environment and have built
cogent examples to green the American workforce.
Tedd Saunders is the Co-Owner of The Four Diamond Lenox Hotel and Comfort Inn & Suites Boston/Airport as well as President of EcoLogical
Solutions Inc. Saunders has pioneered some of the most acclaimed environmental standards anywhere in the hospitality industry through a dedication to
clean energy and sustainable practices. His and other E2 members' leadership has brought about clean tech capital investments in biofuels, more hybrids
and plug-in electric cars, wind energy and other clean energy. E2 foresees a surge in job growth and investments through a national commitment to
alternative energy. They are among a few groups to advance an economic growth message despite the current financial crisis. E2 has also supplied an
informed, independent business voice on the New Energy Economy by cultivating relationships with the media .
According to Stephen
Cowell, the visionary CEO of Conservation Services Group and President of the Northeast Energy
Efficiency Council in Boston, "energy efficiency is the new oil." Holly Kaufman, CEO of Environment
& Enterprise Strategies, advises clients how to integrate green standards, act socially responsible and
boost profitability. John Cheney of MMA Renewable Ventures, the largest financier of solar panels in
the U.S., has seen auto manufacturing technology expand beyond metal stamping and auto-glass plants
to produce solar energy panels for heating water and meeting rising demands for residential power in
some of America's largest cities. Paul Zorner, President and Chief Executive Officer at Hawaii BioEnergy, is focused on energy security
and creating more local jobs to achieve a carbon neutral environment. Zorner is also a Venture Partner with Finistere Partners in San Diego, and serves as
the Chairman of Kuehnle AgroSystems (Hawaii) whose focus is to generate power from new sources including algae to support the production of auto,
marine and aviation fuels. Our nation is at the threshold of employing more than three million workers and enhancing consumer confidence. The Natural
Resources Defense Council says it is time to repower, refuel and rebuild America through green economic recovery. Furthermore, the world's esteemed
scientists could soon gauge a major reduction in global warming pollutants as America frees itself from its reliance on foreign oil.
I recall the adage during the U.S. steel industry collapse of the 1970s and 1980s: it's a recession when
your neighbor loses his job but it's a depression when you lose your own. While millions of Americans
have recently suffered major hardships, others persevere working part-time or are regretfully under
employed. America's working families are central to our country's long-term prosperity. Skilled labor
has been the underpinning of America's workforce for generations. The Michigan Building Trades
Council's Patrick Devlin says "green collar" jobs are the leading edge and indicate how to advance
America's construction and manufacturing workforce.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
16
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Technology alone cant solve global warming alone.
1.Actually, Recently Greenpeace USA and other groups have stated that at the current moment; have
said that we can meet half the world’s energy needs by 2050. Extend Zervos & Coequyt 2007
2. We have the tehnology available now to prevent global warming for the next five decades.
Steven Shultz, Director of Engineering Communications at Princeton University, August 12, 2004,
Princeton University Press Release, “Technology Already Exists To Stabilize Global Warming”,
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0812-carbon.htm.
Existing technologies could stop the escalation of global warming for 50 years and work on
implementing them can begin immediately, according to an analysis by Princeton University
scientists. The scientists identified 15 technologies — from wind, solar and nuclear energy to
conservation techniques — that are ripe for large-scale use and showed that each could solve a
significant portion of the problem. Their analysis, published in the Aug. 13 issue of Science,
indicates that many combinations of these 15 technologies could prevent global emissions of
greenhouse gasses from rising for the next five decades. China won’t cut off our supply Domes
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
17
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Global warming does not lead to extinction
1. Scientists are stressing the need to reduce greenhouse gas, one of the greatest contributors to global
warming, by as much as 90%. If this is not accomplished by 2050, climate chaos, crop failures, endless
wars, and an increase in ocean levels from polar icecap melting is imminent. Earth’s population will be
reduced from the now almost 7 billion to 1 billion by 2100 through large-scale wars and starvation.
Extend the Cummins and Allen 10 argument about “Extinction”.
2. Global warming will likely cause widespread extinction by 2050.
James Gorman, Editor of Science Times for The New York Times and previous editor of Circuits, “Scientists
Predict Widespread Extinction by Global Warming”, New York Times, January 8, 2004
An international group of 19 scientists, analyzing research around the globe, has concluded that a warming
climate will rival habitat destruction in prompting widespread extinctions in this century. By 2050, the scientists
say, if current warming trends continue, 15 to 37 percent of the 1,103 species they studied will be doomed. They did
not extend their prediction to all species worldwide, but they said that the sample was large enough to
show that climate change could be disastrous. In addition to current efforts to create parks and
reserves, they added, efforts to decrease global warming will be necessary to reduce rates of extinction.
3. Predictions of global extinction comparable to that of the dinosaurs based on climate change.
Hindustan Times, A part of HTSyndication.com, “Wheels already turning on Earth's sixth mass extinction”,
December 28, 2009
According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle, the study of the fossil and archaeological record
over the past 30 million years by UC (University of California) Berkeley and Penn State University
researchers shows that between 15 and 42 percent of the mammals in North America disappeared after humans
arrived. That means North American mammals are well on the way - perhaps as much as half way - to a
level of extinction comparable to other epic die-offs, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Anthony Barnosky, a UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and co-author of the study, said
that the most dramatic human-caused impacts on the ecosystem have occurred in the last century. "We
are seeing a lot of geographic range reductions that are of a greater magnitude than we would expect,
and we are seeing loss of subspecies and even a few species," Barnosky said. "So it looks like we are
going into another one of these extinction events," he added. The analysis by Barnosky, research
associate Marc Carrasco and Penn State's Russell Graham compares the extinctions of mammals in
North America after humans arrived 13,000 years ago to the five mass extinctions on Earth over the
past 450 million years. The least severe of those extinctions wiped out the dinosaurs 68 million years ago and
killed off 75 percent of the species on the planet. Although humans clearly did not have anything to do with the
previous extinctions, many scientists are afraid that global warming and other environmental problems caused by the
ever-increasing human population could have similarly catastrophic consequences.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
18
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: REEs are not needed to develop green energy technology
1. The lack of Rare Earth Elements (REE) is the only thing that’s keeping the United States from
developing greener alternative energy sources. Several portions of green energy technology rely on a
steady supply of REEs. When the U.S. mines a steady supply of REEs, it can then continue developing
more advanced green technologies. Extend the Jacobson 2010 argument.
2. REE shortages are preventing the adoption of other energy alternatives.
Green Technology Solutions (GTSO), influential American scientific group, Business Wire.com “GTSO:
Scientists’ Report Calls for New Sources of Rare Earths to Avoid Shortages”, February 23, 2011
A report released last week by two influential American scientific groups supports Green Technology
Solutions' (OTCBB:GTSO) assertion that green and renewable-energy technologies are threatened by potential
rare-earth supply shortages. According to the report released on Friday by the American Physical Society
and the Materials Research Society, products such as batteries, solar cells and advanced electric motors are
dependent on critical metals and other elements that are threatened by major shortages. The threat to supplies comes
not only from geopolitics, as with leading producer China's restricting exports of rare earth elements,
the report said. More fundamentally, it said, global production of many vital materials is simply not
keeping pace with demand. Shortages of rare earths and other critical elements could keep mass adoption of clean
energy alternatives out of reach.
3. The incorporation of REEs in wind turbines and solar panels would significantly improve costefficiency
Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Fellow of the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, New Straits Times, “Rare earths key to
future technologies”, May 30, 2011
Admittedly, replacing fossils is not the only way to arrest global warming. Improving energy efficiency is also
needed. In countries where energy costs are high, energy efficiency has improved. However, in countries where
the cost of energy is still low because of subsidies, there has not been much change. Phasing out fuel subsidies
has not been easy. There are two major stumbling blocks in the development of solar and wind energy. Prohibitive costs remain
a major challenge. The other concerns the need to have effective technology for energy storage. This is to take care of the
large energy swings in both solar and wind. Much research has gone into the development of more efficient
energy conversion and storage technologies. To date, the ideal battery has yet to be found. Scientists believe
new materials with the right magnetic and electrical properties will be key. Many studies have uncovered the
unique attributes of rare earth elements for applications in magnets, batteries, superconductors and lasers. These are
all critically important in the development of renewables. For example, the incorporation of rare earth elements in the
electromagnets used in wind turbines would significantly increase the conversion of wind into electricity.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
19
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Warming Not Anthropogenic
1. Fossil fuel dependence is the greatest contributor to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has agreed that the reliance of humans on the burning of fossil fuels has created
and will continue to create a concern that faces many scientists worldwide. No other factor is as great a
contributor to the heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires, and higher energy bills as
the burning of fossil fuels by humans is. Extend the O’Driscoll and Vergano 7 argument.
2. Recent human developments cause global warming.
Neville Nicholls, National President of AMOS, and an Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow at
Monash University, Editor of Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Lead Author or Coordinating
Lead Author on several IPCC assessments, 2007
Is global warming a man-made phenomenon or simply the natural evolution of our planet? Warming in
the past 100 years is mainly due to increases in greenhouse gases from human activity, especially the use of fossil
fuels. The climate and Earth's temperature varies naturally also, but the increases in greenhouse gases are a
strong influence on the climate. Why are there such divergent opinions in the scientific community about
global warming? Most atmospheric scientists agree about the reality of the greenhouse effect and that
increases in greenhouse gases lead to warming. There is still uncertainty about how much warming will result
from continuing greenhouse gas emissions. This uncertainty leads to quite broad ranges of predictions
about how much warming there might be by the end of the century. These range from about 1C to 4C.
How has global warming caused a hole in the ozone layer? The hole is caused by chemical processes linked to
human activities and the release of gases used for refrigeration and in aerosol cans. These gases contribute a little to
the increased greenhouse effect, but the destruction of the ozone layer is mainly a separate question to
global warming.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
20
116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
**Economy**
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
21
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Plan Solves Economy
Lunar mining stimulates the global economy on an unprecedented level
Michael D. Campbel, et al. Campbell is well-known nationally and internationally
for his work as a technical leader, program manager, consultant and
lecturer in hydrogeology, mining, and associated environmental and
geotechnical fields. 6/9/09 “Developing Industrial Minerals, Nuclear Minerals and Commodities of
Interest via Off-World Exploration and Mining”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/80067campbell/ndx_campbell.pdf
The potential rewards in terms of developing new mineral resources with large-scale, off-world mining
operations would contribute to the world economy on an unprecedented level making the immense industrial investment
worthwhile (after Schmitt, 2006). Identifying and mining nickel, cobalt, and a variety of other commodities
that are in short supply on Earth, or those that could be mined, produced, and delivered more cheaply in space than
on Earth could contribute to and drive the world‟s technology and associated economy to a scale never before
contemplated. This is based, of course, on the assumption that the economics are favorable. Large multi-
national, quasi-governmental industrial groups are likely to develop over the next few decades to
handle projects of such magnitude, if they haven‟t already begun to assemble. In the beginning, the
economics would likely be underwritten by governmental support, perhaps by a group of governments
cooperating in funding and technology but followed later by some governments funding programs to
accommodate their own particular self-interests
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
22
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Rare earths won’t cause a trade war (1/2)
1. Extend that China’s hardball policies with Rare earth will uniquely lead to a trade war because of
their monopoly, raising prices and restrictions on export; that is Ensinger 11
2. Chinese monopoly gives them ability to start and win a trade war
Flanagan 10 (Ed, staff writer for MSNBC.com, 10/20/10, “Chinese ban on export of crucial minerals expands
to US”, http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/20/5323924-chinese-ban-on-export-of-crucialminerals-expands-to-us, 6/24/11, JPW)
Whether or not the ban on exports to the U.S. is true, the fact that China could use its dominance of the world’s supply of
the raw materials to project its power has raised alarm bells. At one time, the United States was self-sufficient in its
extraction and manufacturing of rare earth metals, but ceded much of that production to China during the 1990s. A recent
study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed the shift to Chinese dominance of the industry in chilling
terms. “The United States previously performed all stages of the rare earth material supply chain, but now most rare earth
materials processing is performed in China, giving it a dominant position that could affect worldwide supply and prices,”
the GAO report read. There are fears that China is now beginning to use their dominance of the industry as a blunt
diplomatic instrument. Just last month, Japan was slapped with a similar rare earth ban after the high-profile detainment of
a Chinese fishing boat captain. China has denied that it banned shipments of rare earth minerals to Japan. But it seems a de
facto ban is in place since China has subjected rare earth shipments destined to Japan to a battery of pre-shipment checks
that has grinded shipments to a halt at Chinese customs offices. Paul Krugman, the New York Times op-ed columnist,
called attention to the incident with Japan earlier this week, writing that he found the incident “deeply disturbing” for what
it says about both the U.S. and China. “On one side, the affair highlights the fecklessness of U.S. policy makers, who did
nothing while an unreliable regime acquired a stranglehold on key materials. On the other side, the incident shows a
Chinese government that is dangerously trigger-happy, willing to wage economic warfare on the slightest provocation.” He
wrote that China’s control of the industry has resulted in “a monopoly position exceeding the wildest dreams of Middle
Eastern oil-fueled tyrants.” Trade war? The alleged export ban appears to be just the latest salvo in an escalating trade war
between the U.S. and China. Chinese custom officials reportedly began imposing restrictions on the export of the minerals
on Monday morning, just hours after Zhang Guobao, a senior Chinese economic official, declared the U.S. “cannot win this
trade fight,” during an unusual news conference on Sunday. Zhang, vice chairman of China’s National Development and
Reform Commission, was chastising the U.S. for an announcement that the United States Trade Representative’s office
would investigate whether or not Chinese subsidies of manufacturers of green technology such as wind turbines, solar
energy products and fuel-efficient vehicles is in violation of international trade rules. The dispute could escalate to the U.S.
filing formal charges against China with the WTO. Though the rare earth minerals ban and Zhang’s statement cannot be
definitively linked, the announcement follows a pattern where China has used economic means to punish nations that have
pursued policies deemed anti-Chinese by Beijing.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
23
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Rare earths won’t cause a trade war (2/2)
3. Trade war could happen at any time because of Chinese monopoly
Stepek 10 (John, columnist for MSN, 10/25/10, “Why rare earth elements could ignite a global trade war”,
http://money.uk.msn.com/investing/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155083207, 6/24/11, JPW)
Why is this issue coming to a head now? This story has been rumbling away under the radar for some time . China has
imposed
taxes on rare earth exports since late 2006. And in July, it announced that it would slice exports of the materials
by 72% for the second half of this year. As a result, prices of rare earths have rocketed. One measure of nine major
rare earth elements put together by investment bank Nomura reckons that prices have virtually tripled in
the last three months. However, what's really brought the matter to a head recently has been a spat between Japan and China over a
group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that both countries lay claim to. Known as the Senkaku to the Japanese, and the
Daioyu to the Chinese, these rocks are strategically significant for similar reasons to the Falkland Islands - there's the possibility of oil
and gas reserves near them. The latest ruckus kicked off early last month when a Chinese fisherman crashed his trawler into a
couple of Japanese coastguard vessels. The Japanese duly detained the trawler captain and his crew .
China's reaction
was a lot more aggressive than Japan had expected, but the turning point came in late September when
the Chinese threatened economic retaliation. China's supply of (REEs) rare earth elements to Japan mysteriously
halted, though China still insists this was a coincidence. Despite the release of the trawler captain,
Japanese companies still complain that they aren't getting their rare earths. Now other countries that rely on
China's rare earth supplies are understandably getting jittery. Germany has threatened to raise the issue with the G20, after some
companies complained of being pressured to invest in China if they want to secure supplies. And the US has launched an investigation
into whether China is violating World Trade Organisation rules with its clean energy policies, which includes export quotas on rare
earths. What's the result? All this is finally spurring countries to search for new sources of rare earths and there are a number of mining
companies that should benefit. Most are listed overseas - the larger names in the sector include Australia's Lynas Corp and Californiabased Molycorp, both of which are aiming to boost production by the end of 2012. If you're an intrepid investor and fancy staking a bit of
money in the sector, dig around and you'll be able to find some other potential plays, which most big stockbrokers should be able to
access for you. Do be aware that many of these stocks have already risen quite strongly and also they are at the riskier end of the
investing spectrum - small mining stocks are not the sort of companies to bet your pension on, which is why in this case I'll leave it to
you to track down the stocks and make up your own mind. And it's important to understand that this won't be a problem forever. For
example, Japan and Korea are talking to governments in Vietnam, India and Mongolia to hunt down alternative sources of rare earths.
These mines will all take time to bring to production - three to five years at least. The Industrial Mineral Company of Australia reckons
it'll be 2014 before supply and demand balance out again. But we aren't going to run out. However, that still leaves plenty of time for
some nasty fallings-out over the supply of the metals. The US Government Accountability Office warned back in April that the
military was vulnerable due to the lack of domestic rare earth supplies. It warns that it could take 15 years to rebuild a US
manufacturing supply chain, because China makes virtually all the metals refined from rare earths. The
trouble is relations between China and the US are already rather frayed. The countries have recently had trade spats over
items as insignificant as chicken and tyres. And with US unemployment still at nearly 10% and not showing much sign of
improving, pressure will only grow on US politicians to attack easy targets such as China's policy of holding its currency
down against the dollar. If it turns out that the US military starts having problems getting hold of the materials it needs
because of Chinese export tariffs, the danger of a damaging 1930s-style global trade war can only grow.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
24
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Trade war won’t cause real war
1. Extend that Economic conflict breeds military conflict and current policies greatly increase the
likelihood of conflict that is Landy 07
2. Trade war leads to real war
Liu 05 (Henry, Asia Times Online writer, 8/20/05, “Trade wars can lead to shooting wars”,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH20Dj01.html, 6/23/11, JPW)
US geopolitical hostility toward China will manifest itself first in trade friction, which will lead to a
mutually recriminatory trade war between the two major economies that will attract opportunistic trade
realignments among the traditional allies of the United States. US multinational corporations, unable to
steer US domestic policies, will increasingly trade with China through their foreign subsidiaries, leaving the US
economy with even fewer jobs, and a condition that will further exacerbate anti-China popular sentiments that translate into
more anti-free-trade policies generally and anti-China policies specifically. The resultant global economic depression from
a trade war between the world’s two largest economies will in turn heighten further mutual recriminations . An external
curb from the US of Chinese export trade will accelerate a redirection of Chinese growth momentum
inward, increasing Chinese power, including military power, while further encouraging anti-US sentiment in Chinese
policy circles. This in turn will validate US apprehension of a China threat, increasing the prospect for armed conflict. A
war between the US and China can have no winners, particularly on the political front. Even if the US were to
prevail militarily through its technological superiority, the political cost of military victory would be so severe
that the US as it currently exists would not be recognizable after the conflict and the original geopolitical aim behind the
conflict would remain elusive, as the Vietnam War and the Iraq war have demonstrated. By comparison, the
Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, destructive as they have been to the US social fabric, are mere minor
scrimmages compared with a war with China.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
25
116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
**Add-Ons**
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
26
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Hegemony Add-On (1/5)
Rare earths are key to the US military. China could shut down the military in months
Jennifer Barry Editor at Global Asset Strategist 10/22/2010 Financial Sense “China's Rare Earth Revenge”
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jennifer-barry/china-rare-earth-revenge
Although the US is not a major manufacturer of high tech consumer products containing REEs, the military is dependent on
(REEs) them. As modern weapons from smart bombs to tanks require these metals, the ability of America to wage war
depends on a steady supply of rare earths. The US was not always dependent on the continued goodwill of foreign countries
for critical materials. The National Stockpile was established after World War II to assure that essential elements would be
available in case of an emergency. In the 1990s, the US Department of Defense (DOD) decided that 99% of the stockpile
was “surplus” and the vast majority was sold. Although China has dominated the rare earth market since the mid-1990s, the
US government was unconcerned about Chinese control of these elements for many years. Only in April 2009, did the
DOD and Congress finally place a freeze on the sale of some materials, and decide to conserve a minimum of a one year
supply for others. While the US House of Representatives has passed a bill to promote locating and exploiting rare earth
resources, I wonder if this action is too little too late. Not only are these metals necessary for weapons, but for “green”
technology that attempts to lessen dependence on foreign oil, supplied mostly by countries unfriendly to the US. While the
Mountain Pass mine in California was allowed to reopen, and Congress may subsidize more rare earth resource
development, it takes 7 to 15 years to move from a promising deposit to a producing ore body. With inadequate domestic
stockpiles, China could shut down America’s military offensives in a matter of months.
The demand for rare earth material is only going to increase, and with that, the prices. Obtaining rareearth materials from sources other than China will be crucial in the next few years.
Seeking Alpha; stock market blog; November 4, 2008
Domestic demand in the U.S., as well as the demand for REM globally, remained strong in 2007, and have continued so in
2008. This has been true both for mixed rare earth compounds and the metals and their alloys. According to the USGS:
"The trend is for a continued increase in the use of rare earths in many applications, especially automotive catalytic
converters, permanent magnets, and rechargeable batteries." The prices of most REM rose in 2007, and with the exception
of neodymium and praseodymium (both metal and oxides) and terbium (oxide), the prices of most REM (metals and
oxides) have either remained the same, or continued to rise in 2008. With such strong domestic demand for REM in China,
there are now controls on production and exports (tariffs and quotas). And in some places, because of environmental
concerns, among other things, there are both mining restrictions and mining quotas. According to Roskill's 2007 report on
the economics of rare earths and yttrium, this has "brought fundamental change to the global industry, taking it from
oversupply to demand shortages." Indeed, in its report, Roskill envisaged that, with demand growth for rare earths forecast
at 8-11% per annum, and should China's strict control persist, there will be a significant need for "new non-Chinese
capacity in the next 3 to 4 years."
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
27
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Hegemony Add-On (2/5)
Rising domestic demand will cause China to become a net importer of rare earths – alternate sources are
critical hard power
Sophie Beach, freelance journalist living in Berkeley, California. She previously served as senior research associate for Asia at the
Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based press freedom organization. She received her master's degree from the School of
International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Her writing about China has been published in the Los Angeles Times, the
Asian Wall Street Journal, the South China Morning Post, The Nation magazine, and other publications, 3/15 /11,
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2011/03/china-soon-may-need-to-import-rare-earths-on-demand-mining-official-says/
Despite the fact that China now controls about 95% of global supply of rare earth elements, the country may need to import
the minerals to meet rising domestic demand, Bloomberg reports: “China may eventually need to import the materials,”
Liu, the deputy secretary for Baotou Rare Earth High-Tech Industrial Development Zone Committee said today in an
interview after speaking at the International Rare Earth Summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There’s a “strong possibility of
importing heavy rare earths” in the next three to four years, he said through an interpreter. Domestic Chinese demand for
rare earths has increased as much as 200 percent in the last 12 months, with almost half of that increase coming since the
start of the year, Liu said. Rare earths are a group of 17 elements; the mines in the Baotou region produce so-called light
rare-earths including lanthanum, cerium and samarium. Heavy rare-earth production, concentrated in the south of China,
includes the elements dysprosium, gadolinium and terbium. The Chinese government slashed export quotas by 72 percent
in the second half of last year for the elements that have uses ranging from high-end magnets in U.S. weapons to catalysts
in petroleum refining. The country has committed to a 35 percent cut in the first half of 2011 from the level a year earlier.
Export quotas for the second half of 2011 may be announced only in July, Liu said.
Hard power is key to heg
Holmes ’09 (Kim, Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation and author of Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st
Century (2008), “Sustaining American Leadership with Military Power”,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Sustaining-American-Leadership-with-Military-Power, June 1, 2009, Accessed
June 28, 2010) DM
The consequences of hard-power atrophy will be a direct deterioration of America's diplomatic clout. This is already on
display in the western Pacific Ocean, where America's ability to hedge against the growing ambitions of a rising China is
being called into question by some of our key Asian allies. Recently, Australia released a defense White Paper that is
concerned primarily with the potential decline of U.S. military primacy and the implications that this decline would have
for Australian security and stability in the Asia-Pacific. These developments are anything but reassuring. The ability of the
United States to reassure friends, deter competitors, coerce belligerent states, and defeat enemies does not rest on the
strength of our political leaders' commitment to diplomacy; it rests on the foundation of a powerful military. Only by
retaining a "big stick" can the United States succeed in advancing its diplomatic priorities. Only by building a full-spectrum
military force can America reassure its many friends and allies and count on their future support.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
28
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Hegemony Add-On (3/5)
US hegemony solves all problems
Thayer 06 Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University
[Bradley, In Defense of Primacy, The National Interest, December (lexis)]
A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power--the diplomatic,
economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United
States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of
primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher
Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a
diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military
commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would
have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests.
But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic
mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its
allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the
dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power
capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities
and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the
case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves
around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action-but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the
benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the
U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world,
that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected.
Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in
Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these
fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand
strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics.
Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history
shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments
or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to
retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom,
predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there
is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United
States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on
engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from
America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself.
This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted,
U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer
space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a
consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States'
conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.2 This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A
remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is
that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but
because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater
influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal
arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five),
and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet
Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect-has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and
international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded
states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the (continued…)
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
29
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Hegemony Add-On (3/5)
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI ). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be
stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of
Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling
Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by
the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China,
Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the
United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently
resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power.
But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if
necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting
communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies
would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power
benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of
the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not
intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain
or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of
international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime,
increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to
think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and
need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The
Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order
created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've
got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the
United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the
world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were
historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated
relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and
Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are
not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great
power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of
liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted
on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the
American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically,
the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed
they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence
with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the
United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an
effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for
Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy
in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps
democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has
brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election,
even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military
power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin
America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style
democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and
Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states
around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically
liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital
and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all
states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the
benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes
efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the (continued…)
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
30
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Hegemony Add-On (3/5)
defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess.
Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service
diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India.
Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third
World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4
As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to
the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not
only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of
positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most
of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the
world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought,
volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need . On the day after Christmas in 2004, a
tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was
the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and
Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the
bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the
communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United
States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any
other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a
favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive
views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three
million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to
bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might
expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since
9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support
for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the
wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military
conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is
a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
31
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Asteroid Add-on (1/2)
Asteroid mining technology can be used to divert asteroid impacts
MJ Sonter, head of Asteroid Enterprises, “The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Mining the Near-Earth
Asteroids”, 10/2/98,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_technical_and_economic_feasibility_of_mining_the_near_earth_asteri
ods.shtml
The technology needed to avert comet or asteroid impact is similar to that needed to recover the essentially unlimited
resources contained in these bodies. Thus it is desirable to develop asteroidal resources, both to achieve wanted outcomes
(namely space industrialisation, species security, and long term prosperity) and to build the capacity to avert
disaster.
Asteroid impact is inevitable – it’s only a question of when
VERSCHUUR 1996 (Gerrit, Adjunct Prof of Physics at U of Memphis, Impact: the Threat of Comets and
Asteroids, p. 158)
In the past few years, the comet impact scenario has taken on a life of its own and the danger of asteroids has been added to the comet count. In the context of heightened interest in the threat, reassuring
predictions have been offered about the likelihood of a civilization-destroying impact in the years to come. Without exception, the scientists who have recently offered odds have been careful in making
any statement . They have acted in a "responsible" manner and left us with a feeling that the threat is not worth worrying about. This is not to criticize their earnest efforts, only to point out that estimates
it hardly matters whether the chance of being wiped out next
century is 1 in 10,000 , for example, or that the likelihood of a civilization-destroying impact is once in a million years.
That's like betting on a horse race. The only thing that is certain is that a horse will win . What matters is the larger picture
that begins to force itself into our imagination; comet or asteroid impacts are inevitable . The next one may not wipe us
out inthe coming century, or even in the century after that, but sooner or later it will happen . It could happen next year . I think
have been attempted for centuries. The way I look at the business of offering odds is that
that what matters is how we react to this knowledge. That, in the long run, is what will make a difference to our planet and its inhabitants. It is not the
impact itself that may be immediately relevant; it is how we react to the idea of an impact that may change the course of human history. I am afraid that
we will deal with this potentially mind-expanding discovery in the way we deal with most issues that relate to matters of great consequence; we will
ignore it until the crisis is upon us. The problem may be that the consequences of a comet catastrophe are so horrendous that it is
easiest to confront it through denial . In the end, though, it may be this limitation of human nature that will determine our
fate .
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
32
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Asteroid Add-on (2/2)
Extinction
McGUIRE 2002 (Bill, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and is one of Britain's leading
volcanologists, A Guide to the End of the World, p. 159-168)
The Tunguska events pale into insignificance when compared to what happened off the coast of Mexico's Yucatan
Peninsula 65 million years earlier. Here a 10-kilometre asteroid or comet—its exact nature is uncertain—crashed into the
sea and changed our world forever . Within microseconds, an unimaginable explosion released as much energy as
billions of Hiroshima bombs detonated simultaneously , creating a titanic fireball hotter than the Sun that vaporized the
ocean and excavated a crater 180 kilometres across in the crust beneath. Shock waves blasted upwards, tearing the
atmosphere apart and expelling over a hundred trillion tonnes of molten rock into space, later to fall across the globe .
Almost immediately an area bigger than Europe would have been flattened and scoured of virtually all life , while
massive earthquakes rocked the planet. The atmosphere would have howled and screamed as hypercanes five times
morepowerful than the strongest hurricane ripped the landscape apart , joining forces with huge tsunamis to batter coastlines
many thousandsof kilometresdistant. Even worse was to follow. As the rock blasted into space began to rain down across the entire planet so the heat
generated by its re-entry into the atmosphere irradiated thesurface, roasting animals alive as effectively as an oven grill, and starting great conflagrations
that laid waste the world's forests and grasslands and turned fully a quarter of all living material to ashes . Even once the atmosphere and oceans
hadsettled down, the crust had stopped shuddering, and the bombardment of debris from space had ceased, more was to come. In the following weeks,
smoke and dust in theatmosphere blotted out the Sun and brought temperatures plunging by as much as 15 degrees
Celsius. In the growing gloomand bitter cold the surviving plant life wilted and died while those herbivorous dinosaurs
that remained slowly starved. global wildfires and acidrain from the huge quantities of sulphur injected into the
atmosphere from rocks at the site of the impact poured into the oceans , wiping out three-quarters of all marine life.
After years of freezing conditions the gloom following the so-called Chicxulub impact would eventually have lifted, only
toreveal a terrible Sun blazing through the tatters of an ozone layer torn apart by the chemical action of nitrousoxides
concocted in the impact fireball: an ultraviolet spring hard on the heels of the cosmic winter that fried many of the
remaining species struggling precariously to hang on to life. So enormously was the natural balance of the Earth upset that according to some it might have taken
hundreds of thousands of years for the post-Chicxulub Earth to return to what passes for normal. When it did the age of the great reptiles was finally over, leaving the field to the primitive mammals—our
distant ancestors—andopening an evolutionary trail that culminated in the rise and rise of the human race. But could we go the same way1?To assess the chances, let me look a little more closely at the
destructive power of animpact event. At Tunguska, destruction of the forests resulted partly from the great heat generated by the explosion, but mainly from the blast wave that literally pushed the trees over
and flattened themagainst the ground. The strength of this blast wave depends upon what is called the peak overpressure, that is the difference between ambient pressure and the pressure of the blastwave. In
order to causesevere destruction thisnccds to exceed 4. pounds per square inch, an overpressure that results in wind speeds that arc over twice the force of those found in a typical hurricane. Even though tiny
compared with, say, the land area of London, the enormous overpressures generated by a 50-metre object exploding low overhead would cause damage comparable with the detonation of a very large nuclear
device,obliterating almost everything within the city's orbital motorway. Increase the size of the impactor and things get very much worse. An asteroid just 250 metres across would be sufficiently massive
topenetrate the atmosphere; blasting a crater 5 kilometres across and devastating an area of around 10,000 square kilometres— that is about the size of the English county of Kent. Raise the size of
theasteroid again, to 650 metres, and the area of devastation increases to ioo;ooo square kilometres—about the size of the US state of South Carolina. Terrible as this all sounds, however, even this would
beinsufficient to affect the entire planet. In order to do this, an impactor has to be at least 1 kilometre across, if it is one of the speedier comets, or 1.5 kilometres in diameter if it is one of the slower asteroids.
A collision with one of these objects would generate a blast equivalent to 100.000 million tonnes of TNT , which would obliterate an area500 kilometres across say the size of England—and kill perhaps
tens of millions of people, depending upon the location of the impact. The real problems for the rest of the world would start soon after asdust in the atmosphere began to darken the skies and reduce the level
of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. By comparison with the huge Chicxulub impact it is certain that this would result in adramatic lowering of global temperatures but there is no consensus on just how
bad this would be. The chances are, however, that an impact of this size would result in appalling weather conditions andcrop failures at least as severe as those of the 'Year Without a Summer'; 'which
followed the 1815 eruption of Indonesia's Tambora volcano. As mentioned in the last chapter, with evendeveloped countries ho lding sufficient food to feed their populations for only a month or so, largescale crop failures across the planet would undoubtedly have serious implications . Rationing, at the very least, is likely to be die result, with a worst casescenario seeing widespread disruption of the
social and economic fabric of developed nations. In the developing world, where subsistence farming remains very much the norm, wide-spread failure of the harvests could be expected to translate rapidly
into famine on a biblicalscale Some researchers forecast that as many as a quarter of the world's population could succumb to a deteriorating climate following animpact in the 1 —1.5 kilometre size range.
the issue is not how many people will die but whether the human race will
survive . One estimate proposes that theimpact of an object just 4- kilometres across will inject sufficient quantities of dust
and debris into theatmosphere to reduce light levels below those required for photosynthesis . Because we still don't know
how many threatening objects there areout there nor whether they come in bursts, it is almost impossible to say when the
Earth will be struck by an asteroid or comet that will bring to an end the world as we know it. Impact events on the scaleof
the Chicxulub dinosaur-killer only occur every several tens of millions of years, so in any single year the chances of such
an impact arc tiny. Any optimism is , however, tempered by the fact that — should the Shiva hypothesis be true— the
next swarm of Oort Cloud comets could even now be speeding towards the inner solar system . Failing this, we may have
only another thousand years to wait until the return of the dense part of the Taurid Complex and another asteroidal assault.
Anything bigger and photosynthesis stops completely. Once thishappens
Even if itturns out that there is no coherence in the timing of impact events, there is statistically no reason why we cannot be hit next year by anundiscovered Earth-Crossing Asteroid or by a long-period
comet that has never before visited the inner solarsystem . Small impactors on the Tunguska scale struck Brazil in 1931 and Greenland in 1097, and will continue to pound the Earth every few decades.
Because their destructive footprint is tiny compared to the surface area of the Earth, however, it would be very bad luck if one of these hit an urban area, and most will fall in the sea. Although this might
seem a good thing, a larger object strikingthe ocean would be very bad news indeed. A 500-metre rock landing in the Pacific Basin, for example, would generate gigantic tsunamis that would obliterate just
about every coastal city in the hemisphere within 20 hours or so. The chances of this happening arc actually quite high—about 1 per cent in the next 100 years—and the death toll could well top half a
billion. Estimates of the frequencies of impactsin the 1 kilometre size bracket range from 100,000 to 333,000 years, but the youngest impact crater produced by an object of this size is almost a million years
old. Of course, there could have been severallarge impacts since, which cither occurred in the sea or have not yet been located on land. Fair enough you might say, the threat is clearly out there, but is there
collide with the Earth before 2100 . Realistically, however, this is not very likely as the
probabilities involved arc not much greater than 1 in 10,000— although bear in mind that these arc pretty good odds. If this
was the probability of winning the lottery then my local agent would be getting considerably more of my business .
anything on thehorizon? Actually, there is . Some 13 asteroids —mostly quite small— could feasibly
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
33
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Asteroid Impact Calc (1/2)
It’s the only scenario for extinction
McGUIRE 2002 (Bill, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and is one of Britain's leading
volcanologists, A Guide to the End of the World, p. 173-174)
Probably the only piece of good news that can be taken away from my brief look at the end of the world as we know it is
that although this is going to happen — and soon— the survival of our race seems to be assured , for now at least. Leaving
aside the possibility of a major comet or asteroid impact on a scale of the dinosaur-killer 65 million years ago— which
only happen every few hundred million years— it is highly unlikely that anything else is going to wipe out every single
last one of us —all 6 billion plus— in the foreseeable future . Even thereplacement of the world with which we have
become so familiar with one of sweltering heat or bitter cold might not seem as scary for those of our descendants likely to
be in the thick of things. After all, we are a remarkably adaptable species, and can change to match new circumstances
with some aplomb. Familiar 'worlds' have certainly ended many times before, as no doubt a centenarian born and raised
while Queen Victoriasat on the throne of the United Kingdom, and who lived to sec man land on the moon, would testify.
The danger is, however, that the world of our children and those thatfollow will be a world of struggle and strife with little
prospect of, and perhaps little enthusiasm for, progress as the Victorians viewed it. Indeed, it would not be entirely
surprising if, at some future time, as the great coastal cities sink beneath the waves or below sheets of ice, the general
consensus did not hold that there had been quite enoughprogress thank you—at least for a while. While I have tried in these
pages to extrapolate current trends and ideas to tease out and examine somewhat depressing scenarios forthe future of our
planet and our race, I am sure that, to some extent at least, you would be justified in accusing me of a failure of the
imagination. After all, I have rarely lookedahead beyond a few tens of thousands of years, and yet our Sun will still be
bathing our planet in its life-giving warmth for another 5 billion years or more. Who knows, overthat incomprehensible
length of time, what Homo sapiens and the species that evolve from us will do and become. Our species and those that
follow may beknocked back time and time again in the short term, but provided we learn to nurture our environment rather
than exploit it, both here onEarth—before the Sun eventually swallows it up—and later, perhaps, in the solar system and
the galaxy and beyond, then we have the time to do and bealmost anything . Maybe now is the right time to start.
Nothing outweighs it – the neg succumbs to the illusion of invulnerability – vote aff to preserve the longterm survival of our species
VERSCHUUR 1996 (Gerrit, Adjunct Prof of Physics at U of Memphis, Impact: the Threat of Comets and
Asteroids, p. 216)
There is an even more subtle reason why we are unlikely to take collective and significant action to assure the longtermsurvival of our species . It manifests as the psychological syndrome known as the "illusion of invulnerability."
Individuals cannot believe that they will personally succumb in the next catastrophe. This syndrome is at play in those who
livehappily in earthquake zones, in floodplains, or on the sides of active volcanoes . The existence of the syndrome poses a
paradox. If we are concerned about the long-term survival of civilization, we must overcome our genetic predisposition
todeal only with the immediate future . Dealing with short-term issues is natural in all animals, and represents the practical
way in which to survive from day to day. However, this predisposition is not conducive to assuring a long-term existence .
Perhaps that is what is at issue. We have learned much about the natural universe in recent years, and the mind's eye has
only just developed the ability to scan millions of years of time. Yet that seems to be no morethan an intellectual exercise
with little practical use. Perhaps the evolution of our species may yet depend on whether we can succeedin making very
long term plans and carrying them out for the benefit of life on earth. Scientific discovery has brought us to the point where
we confront the awesome probability that collision with an earth-crossing object will bring an end to civilization. It is no
longer a question of whether a massive impact will occur in the future; it is only a matter of when. Even if we think it will
be a thousand years from now, the point of raising the issue is to ask ourselves what we plan to do about it. It may be time
to think in terms of thousands of years into the future . I am assuming that we care that our species will be around for a long
time, and that this question is worth thinking about.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
34
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Asteroid Impact Calc (2/2)
Standard risk analysis doesn’t apply to an asteroid collision – evaluate magnitude over probability and
timeframe
POSNER 2004 (Richard, US Court of Appeals judge and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law
School, Catastrophe: Risk and Response 249-250)
Even if our insouciant reaction to small probabilities of great losses is accepted as an authentic basis
forestimating the value of life in most such situations, the reaction may not generalize to ones in which
the loss ,should it materialize, would be the near or total extinction of the human race. If the annual
probability of an asteroidcollision that would kill 6 billion people is only 1 in 75 million, the expected number of deaths
worldwide is only 80 per year, which may not seem a large enough number to justify the expense of an effective defense
against anasteroid collision. (This of course ignores smaller but still lethal collisions; but read on.) But if
there is a minute chance that the entire humanrace, both current and future, would be wiped out, together with all or most of
the world’s animal population, we (the ambiguous “we” of policy analysis, but there it may represent
dominant public opinion) may think that something should be done toeliminate or reduce the risk, slight as it is,
beyond what a standard cost-benefit analysis would imply; may be willing,if the risk and the possible responses are
explained carefully, to incur some cost in higher taxes or otherwise to reduce the risk.
Any solvency deficit means an aff vote – we only have to screw up once for extinction to occur
BARBEE 2009 (4/1, Brent W., BS, Aerospace Engineering degree from UT Austin; MS in Engineering from
the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas, Austin
specializing in Astrodynamics and Spacecraft Mission Design, currently working as an Aerospace Engineer
andPlanetary Defense Scientist with the Emergent Space Technologies company in Greenbelt, Maryland,
teaches graduate Astrodynamics in the Department of AerospaceEngineering at The University of Maryland,
College Park, “Planetary Defense”,http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational//apjs/2009/1tri09/barbeeeng.htm)//DT
It is generally accepted that statistics and probability theory is the best way to handle partial information problems.
Gamblers and insurance companies employ it extensively. However, one of the underlying premises is that it
is acceptableto be wrong sometimes . If a gambler makes a bad play, the hope is that the gambler has made more good
plays than bad ones and still comes out ahead. Thishowever is not applicable to planetary defense against NEOs. Being
wrong just once may prove fatal to millions of people or to our entire species. If we trust our statistical estimates of the
NEO population and our perceivedcollision probabilities too much, we risk horrific damage or even extinction . This is
how we must define the limit forhow useful probability theory is in the decision-making process for
defense against NEOs.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
35
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Asteroid Impact (1/3)
Asteroid impacts and consequential events are a huge threat
Ward and Asphaug 99 (Steven and Erik, Institute of Tectonics, University of California, Santa Cruz, “Asteroid Impact
Tsunami: A Probabilistic Hazard Assessment,” Icarus, 1999, http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~ward/papers/W+A.pdf)
As do many natural disasters, impacts by asteroids pose less of a threat directly than they do by consequential
events. The number of Earth’s inhabitants that might be touched directly by asteroid explosion and cratering, pales to those
potentially affected indirectly by obscuration of sunlight, global wildfires, polluting sedimentation, and noxious loading
of the atmosphere (see Toon et al. 1995). Because two-thirds of the objects that strike Earth impact in
water, yet another consequential threat that can be transmitted great distances are tsunami spawned by the
collapse of pelagic impact cavities (Gault and Sonnett 1982; Roddy et al. 1987; Hills et al. 1994;
Nemtchinov et al. 1996; Crawford and Mader 1998). As we shall see, impact tsunami hazard can reach
perceptible levels on historical, even human, time scales.
Asteroids could be mined using the same tech we use to mine the moon
Coledan 04 (Stefano, aerospace writer and correspondent for the New York Times, “Mining The Moon,”
12/7/04, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056)
Asteroids - Scientists believe these leftovers of the solar system's formation, floating between the orbits
of Jupiter and Mars, may contain rare elements and water. Mining these rocks, some as big as mountains,
will be neither easy nor cheap. Using technologies previously developed to extract precious materials from the
moon or Mars could make asteroids an attractive target, especially for a permanent human colony on the red
planet. Astronauts would first practice rendezvous with asteroids. Then, after studying them, crews
would return with mining equipment. Excavated ore could be trucked to a martian outpost.
Tech used to mine asteroids can also be used to deflect them – an asteroid mining program can only make
the Earth safer
Space Studies Institute, no date, http://ssi.org/reading/papers/asteroid-deflection/
SSI funded studies of asteroid detection, asteroid tracking, and mining of asteroids. We also studied the concept of
assembling a mass driver engine in orbit, sending it to an Earth-approaching asteroid, and then using the mass driver to
modify the asteroid’s orbit. This research was conducted with the goal of guiding the asteroid into a High Earth Orbit where
it could be mined for its minerals. But such a technological capability, once developed, has obvious applications should we
ever need to divert an asteroid from an Earth-intercepting course. For a long while, the conventional wisdom on this issue
was that one would use nuclear explosives for this purpose. But according to a paper published in the June 4th, 1998 issue
of Nature, this may not be as easy as previously thought. It points out that many asteroids are multi-lobed. A nuclear
detonation might be largely absorbed by one lobe, with little course deflection resulting in the whole. The paper theorizes
that the average asteroid may not be so much like a solid rock as an aggregate of fragments loosely held together by fine
dust. If this “flying gravel pile” theory is correct, a nuclear detonation might pulverize an approaching asteroid, converting
one big problem into many little ones. A mass driver engine, by contrast, could provide the low, steady, continuous thrust
needed to change an asteroid’s course gradually, using the asteroid’s own material for reaction mass. The ability to modify
an asteroid’s course via mass driver certainly promises to usher in a new era where space resources are freely available for
construction projects in High Earth Orbit, and holds out promise for obtaining resources in a way which is not damaging to
the environment of Earth. But it is just barely conceivable that this same technology might also help to avert a catastrophe
of major proportions. In any event, a major program of asteroid mining can only make the Earth safer as the centuries pass.
As it happens, those asteroids which cross the orbit of the Earth (and thus pose the greatest hazard) are also the ones most
economically attractive for space-resource use. It is good that humanity is becoming more aware of the threat posed by
Earth-crossing asteroids. But at the same time we should also become more aware of their vast economic potential.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
36
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Asteroid Impact (2/3)
Asteroid impacts are lethal and detrimental to the human population.
John S. Lewis; Professor of Planetary Sciences at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, Codirector of the
NASA/University of Arizona Space Engineering Research Center, and Commissioner of the Arizona State
Space Commission; 1999; Comet and Asteroid Impact Hazards on a Populated Earth
[O]n the century time scale, firestorm ignition and direct blast damage by rare, strong, deeply penetrating bodies are the
most common threats to human life, with average fatality rates of about 250 people per year. ... On a 1000-year scale, the
most severe single event, which is usually a 10 to 100 megaton Tunguska-type airburst, accounts for most of the
total fatalities. On longer time scales, regional impact-triggered tsunamis become the most dangerous
events. ...The exact impactor threshold size for global effects remains poorly determined. [...]
Perhaps most interesting is the implication that the large majority of lethal events (not of the number of
fatalities) are caused by bodies that are so small, so faint, and so numerous that the cost of the effort required to find,
track, predict, and intercept them exceeds the cost of the damage incurred by ignoring them .
The US must spend more money on discovering where asteroids are, because we cannot currently predict
all of the dangerous ones heading towards Earth.
SPACE.com Staff; Scientific Journalists: “team of experienced reporters, editors and video producers explore
the latest discoveries, missions, trends and futuristic ideas, interviewing expert sources and offering up deep and
broad analysis”; 22 January 2010; Space.com
The United States must do more to safeguard the Earth against destruction by an asteroid than merely prepping nuclear
missiles, a new report has found. The 134-page report, released Friday by the National Academy of
Sciences, states that the $4 million spent by the United States to identify all potentially dangerous asteroids near Earth
is not enough to do the job mandated by Congress in 2005. NASA is in dire need of more funding to meet the challenge,
and less than $1 million is currently set aside to research ways to counter space rocks that do endanger the Earth, “measures
like developing the spacecraft and technology to deflect incoming asteroids,” the report states. An early draft of the
report, entitled “Defending the Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard-Mitigation Strategies,”
was released in August 2009. The final report, written by a committee of expert scientists, says NASA is
ill-equipped to catalogue 90 percent of the nearby asteroids that are 460 feet (140 meters) across or larger as directed by
Congress.
Asteroids are a serious threat to the human population, causing many fatalities.
SPACE.com Staff; Scientific Journalists: “team of experienced reporters, editors and video producers explore
the latest discoveries, missions, trends and futuristic ideas, interviewing expert sources and offering up deep and
broad analysis”; 22 January 2010; Space.com
Recent meteor bursts over the United States have also highlighted the potential danger of even smaller asteroids, so
NASA should also try to find as many of those objects which range between 30 and 50 meters in size
as possible, the report’s committee found. Even small space rocks pose a threat to people and property on Earth.
On Monday, a small, half-pound meteorite crashed through the roof of a doctor’s office in Virginia, punched through a
wall and upper floor before slamming into pieces when it hit a concrete floor at a speed that may have hit 200 mph. No
injuries were reported, but the doctor’s office was populated at the time.
According to the report, current long-term projections estimate that there could be up to 100 fatalities a year
caused by space rock impacts, though admittedly the chances of such rare hits are remote.
Still, this presents the classic problem of the conflict between extremely important and extremely rare,
the report stated. The committee considers work on this problem as insurance, with the premiums
devoted wholly towards preventing the tragedy.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
37
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Asteroid Impact (3/3)
The scientific community is now putting the issue of asteroids as a top priority, signaling its importance
and danger.
Rusty Schweickart; Chairman of B612 Foundation; September 2, 2004; open letter to Near Earth Objects
(NEO) Community from Erice, hosted on spaceref.com; URL:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13847
First, however, are listed the attendees for the Cosmic Objects plenary session and PMP discussions.
While some arrived late and some left early, all took part in the bulk of the discussions. Alberto
Cellino and Mario Di Martino - Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino Walter Huebner and Ray
Goldstein - Southwest Research Institute San Antonio Clark Chapman - Southwest Research Institute
Boulder Don Yeomans and Ali Safaeinili - NASA/JPL Alan Harris - DLR Institute for Planetary
Exploration Hajime Yano - Department of Planetary Sciences ISAS/JAXA Rusty Schweickart - B612
Foundation 1. The ICAIH The primary output from the PMP discussions, stimulated by a direct request for a
specific initiative by the Chairman of the conference, Dr. Antonino Zichichi, was a proposal to create,
under the World Federation of Scientists at Erice, an International Center for Asteroid Impact Hazards. This
Center, envisioned as a permanent entity largely dedicated to the development and implementation of international policies
related to NEO issues, is outlined in the attachment to this open letter. The attachment is an excerpt from
the complete document comprising the general resolution and the detailed implementation statement
for the issue of highest priority. The lower priority responsibilities were treated very lightly given our
limited time and are not included here. Everyone present felt very strongly that this proposal expressed a genuine
need and could, if implemented make a substantial contribution to the development of coordinated international response in
anticipation of a NEO impact. What was not at all clear, and remains so, is whether or not Prof. Zichichi
and the World Federation of Scientists are willing or able to actually create such a Center.
Nevertheless, as a result of the Erice meeting and the encouragement of Prof. Zichichi, the proposal for
and the definition of an institutional entity to address critical international policy issues associated with future NEO impacts
now exists. I felt that it was important to advise you of this development.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
38
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Colonization Add-on
Moon mining critical to human survival and colonizing the solar system
Moon Daily, November 18, 2010, “Mining On The Moon Is A Not-So-Distant Possibility,”
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Mining_On_The_Moon_Is_A_Not_So_Distant_Possibility_999.html
While lunar mining might some day be economically feasible for countries and companies, a Missouri
University of Science and Technology researcher believes strongly that mining in space is essential to the
very survival of our species. "Humanity eventually needs to live in more than just one place, other than the Earth," says
Dr. Leslie Gertsch, an associate professor of geological engineering at Missouri S and T. According to
Gertsch, moon dirt contains a surprising amount of vital compounds, including water and maybe even "rare-earth
elements" like lithium (think lithium-ion batteries).Gertsch became fascinated with the moon while
watching Apollo astronauts collecting lunar rocks on a black and white television in her family's Ohio
farm house. Last year, she was paying close attention when NASA blasted a hole in the moon's
surface, where more water than expected was discovered. In addition to water, the moon has hydrogen,
aluminum and iron. Gertsch says the leading theory these days is that the moon was actually part of the Earth at one
time - that it formed in the aftermath of a collision between the Earth and a massive foreign object. So it stands to reason
that the moon has some natural resources in common with the Earth. Best practices for mining on the moon and
beyond are still being developed, of course, and that's a big part of Gertsch's research. She knows space
mining would be essential to colonizing the solar system. Explorers would need to create fuel and breathing gasses as they
traveled, instead of hauling heavy supplies with them from Earth. "We could launch from the moon to go to Mars , for
instance, at a lower cost," says Gertsch, who notes that asteroids and comets are also good candidates
for space mining activities.
Extinction is inevitable if we don’t get off the rock
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free
from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and
our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States
can lead, protect, and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a
country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny
worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan
presents an emotional argument that our species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a
spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned
spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already
identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In
Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human
presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans
will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and
space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and
part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that
mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we
can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
39
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Colonization Impact (1/3)
Lunar base could be used to ensure the survival of civilization
Robert Shapiro, Department of Chemistry, New York University, 2009, Space Policy (25), A new rationale for
returning to the Moon? Protecting civilization with a sanctuary, p. 1
The Alliance to Rescue Civilization (ARC) group advocates the establishment of a permanent staffed base on the Moon for
the purpose of preserving the scientific and cultural documents and objects that support our civilization [1]. We believe that
a unique opportunity has arisen to link two worthy causes that have emerged in the recent past; each of which might
flounder if allowed to proceed separately.1) The past decades have seen an explosion in the production of scientific data
and cultural material. By force of necessity they are being stored in digital form. Older materials are also being converted to
digital form, allowing much of humanity access to a treasure of science and art that can readily be explored and utilized.
However, this new storage medium is more fragile than paper, both because of its inherent nature and of its greater
vulnerability to local disasters and global catastrophes. If our cultural heritage were substantially damaged or lost, our
civilization could not function, and humanity would be reduced to a barbaric state. A measure of protection could be gained
by the construction of facilities which would preserve our heritage, and assist in the reconstruction of society after a
catastrophe.2) A generation ago human beings walked on the Moon. The Apollo program may have resulted as a byproduct of competition between nations in the Cold War, but it produced media coverage and images that were
inspirational. However, no further purpose emerged from that presence to stimulate the imagination of the public, and no
further human expeditions beyond Earth orbit have been launched since that time. Several years ago President George Bush
announced the Vision for Space Exploration [2], which involved a return of humans to the Moon. Economically emerging
nations have also indicated an interest in lunar exploration. But the reasons provided have not really justified the expenses
involved. In the absence of a transcendent purpose, the prospects for human expansion into space remain uncertain. We
believe however that the construction of a substantial lunar base as part of a program to ensure the survival of human
civilization on Earth is a goal that would link and justify purposes (1) and (2). This would literally be a marriage made in
heaven.
All of civilization’s data could be lost
Eligar Sadeh, Astronconsulting International, 2009, 25, Space Policy Challenges Facing the Barack Obama
Administration, p. 3
A number of possible events could cause widespread loss of life and property damage. They include dedicated
cyberterrorism, nuclear wars, asteroid and comet impacts, plagues, supervolcanic eruptions, climate change leading to
widespread famine, and civil disturbances arising from economic collapse. A detailed description of such catastrophes lies
beyond the scope of this article but may be found in recent books [12,13] and on the website of the Lifeboat Foundation
[14]. As a result of such catastrophes power grids and the computer-based systems that rely on them would be destroyed.
We would lose the heritage that our civilization has acquired through enormous effort over past centuries. Humanity would
be reduced to a medieval condition, or worse. To insure us against this event we need to place a copy of our vital materials
well out of harm’s way in a suitable sanctuary. I believe the Moon could provide such a sanctuary and in Section 6 I shall
show why a lunar location may be ideal for this purpose. The maintenance of a lunar data store will require a considerable
group of curators, software and hardware experts. They will need a support staff of engineers, plumbers, cooks, physicians,
and other service personnel to keep the facility in repair and maintain the amenities of daily life. As the sanctuary may have
to be self-sustaining for decades under some circumstances, it will need either a large food storage capacity or the ability to
produce its own. It will also need to supply its own energy, and manufacture the goods that it requires. In other words, we
will want to create a functional fragment of our civilization in a secure location. This will not be a conventional settlement,
however, but will more resemble a scientific base: staff will be rotated regularly so that work in the facility would involve a
tour of service, rather than a change of life. The stored data in this sanctuary will duplicate the material in the working
centers that are already in use in the many functions of our society, and will be updated periodically as new data is created.
Unlike the working centers the sanctuary will not be accessed routinely, in order to protect it from viruses and to avoid
proprietary questions of ownership. Its storage capacity cannot be infinite, so hard choices will be needed as to which items
are essential to the maintenance of civilization, or worthy of preservation for the future for their artistic, historical or other
cultural value. This is not necessarily a disadvantage, as it will motivate the scientific and cultural communities, including
almost all academic disciplines, to evaluate their possessions. The discussions and controversies that will arise will call
attention to the superb achievements of our civilization, which are often overlooked in the popular media.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
40
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Colonization Impact (2/3)
A copy of biological back-up data could be housed on the moon so that humanity could be re-constituted
Eligar Sadeh, Astronconsulting International, 2009, 25, Space Policy Challenges Facing the Barack Obama
Administration, p. 3-4
One resource that cannot (yet) be preserved in digital form are the biological species that sustain us. The Norwegian
government has independently taken a step in direction of species preservation by establishing a seed bank on the arctic
outcrop of Svalbard. A cold storage vault has been constructed to hold seeds for 1.5 million strains of humanity’s most
important agricultural crops. This facility will backup a number of independent collections, to protection their contents
from the type of destruction that recently took place in Iraq and Afghanistan [15].Storing animal species in a frozen form
capable of resurrection will be a more difficult task [16] but one that is not beyond the skills of future biotechnology. In one
estimate a temperature of 80� K was deemed ideal for such storage. Terrestrial sites do not satisfy the requirements, but
such temperatures can attained in shadowed areas of lunar polar craters [17].In the case of a global catastrophe, in which a
large fraction of the human population has been lost, and the survivors are suffering and disorganized, it is not immediately
obvious to see how the existence of an intact copy of our cultural record and of preserved species on the Moon would be of
help. However, the Phoenix Project report of the International Space University provides detailed suggestions about the
manner in which a lunar sanctuary could aid recovery after a global catastrophe [18].Advance preparations would be
needed on Earth, as a form of civil defense against catastrophes. A widely distributed series of repositories would be
constructed, equipped with preserved foods, medical supplies and other emergency items needed by a population in
distress. Such repositories could even be the first resource in the case of local disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes,
if more immediate rescue was unavailable. But, in addition, they would provide radio equipment, simple computers and
tutorials designed to allow untrained individuals to establish rudimentary communication with the lunar sanctuary. The
equipment would be sustained by solar, wind, or even human power. The base could provide data and advice concerning
longer-term survival needs, such as information about other survivors and places where larger depots of food could be
found. When some measure of stability had returned, information about rudimentary agriculture and the possibility of
restoring electrical power would be furnished. In some cases, advisors could return in person to aid in the recovery of
civilization. The ultimate aim would be to restore a fully functional civilization on Earth, with all of the resources that were
available before the catastrophe. An even more extreme case can be anticipated, involving the total or near-total destruction
of the human population on Earth. Whatever the nature of the sterilizing catastrophe, after a few decades, or at worst,
centuries, our planet would return to a state of habitability. Atmospheric ash and dust will settle, radioactivity will decay,
and pathogens will lose virility or expire for lack of a suitable host. Earth would again become the most suitable place of
residence in our Solar System for the bulk of humanity. The lunar base would then have the responsibility of repopulating
the planet. For this reason, a sexual balance and a significant presence of younger people in the population in the sanctuary
would be advisable. The cost of constructing and maintaining such a sanctuary would be many billions of dollars, though
the expenses would be spread over many years. Further, an expensive support organization will also be needed back on
Earth, to establish the repositories, manage them in tranquil times and activate them as needed. Costs could be cut
considerably if the sanc- tuary were located on Earth. Why then place it on the Moon?6. The advantages of the Moon A
truly secure facility should be unaffected by wars, plagues, drastic climate change and the other global catastrophes listed
above. It should be remote, yet readily available for direct communication with most of Earth. Sites such as the South Pole
(where a scientific base already exists) would meet many, though not all, of the requirements. A polar sanctuary could be
used as an interim location, but the lunar site has psychological advantages which may determine whether a catastrophesurvival project is launched at all. Throughout history, the Moon has been a prominent and evocative symbol in the night
sky. Our landings there in the Apollo project inspired a generation, but the lack of any dramatic purpose, once we were
there, has deterred further human missions for decades. Its appearance as a stable, airless, bleak place inspired little interest
from the general public, yet those same qualities make it highly suitable for the grandest purpose of all; to insure human
survival. The lunar subsurface temperature (232�K at the equator) should provide a sufficient cooling reservoir for
computers, and even colder locations exist for biological storage [19]. Further, many other uses are compatible with the
presence of a rescue sanctuary. Astronomy would gain by the construction of a lunar observatory. There would be huge
benefits to the study of lunar geology and the history of the Solar System. The Moon could act as a staging ground for the
exploration of other worlds, Mars in particular. Opportunities for commercial development would open up in power
generation, mining for helium-3 and other materials, and in space tourism. Above all, the construction of a lunar base
dedicated to human survival would provide a unifying purpose to a space movement which, while drawing enthusiastic
support from a large part of humanity, has none the less floundered over the last generation for lack of a clearly articulated
goal. As we have noted, these efforts will be costly. However, the construction of a permanently staffed lunar facility
appears to be an integral part of the Vision for Space Exploration [1]. Sites near the lunar South Pole that are under
consideration by NASA, such as the rim of Shackleton crater and the plateau at the top of (continues…)
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
41
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Colonization Impact (3/3)
Malepert Mountain [20], would also seem appro- priate for the lunar facility. Given this head start, the cost of adapting the
base to accommodate the survival sanctuary would be greatly reduced. In addition, the governments of some developing
nations also now have lunar ambitions and would perhaps share the costs. In the past governments have not been reliable in
sustaining long-term projects, however, and the overall management of the purpose of securing the future of our species
might better be placed with a private, international organization supported by private philanthropy.Our current prosperity
(in comparison to the state of humanity through most of its history) is built upon the achievements of technology. The
preservation of this foundation of knowledge must surely rank near the top of causes to be supported, particularly by
individuals and corporations whose wealth has come from its applications. If presented appropriately, the preservation of
our civilization and species may be seen as the most worthy of all philanthropic purposes. A gift providing even a small
fraction of the ultimate cost would be enough to set the project in motion. Initial efforts could concentrate on archiving,
constructing an organizational infrastructure and designing an appropriate facility. Above all, an educational effort to bring
the project into public awareness would be needed, as an understanding of its goals and participation at the community
level in placing the repositories is essential. As funds accumulated over the years, the more massive task of construction
could get underway.The completed facility, in addition to securing the existence of a human future, would represent a
symbol of the direction in which we must point if we are to survive the ultimate death of our own planet: outward into the
vastly larger universe. The Moon again proves to be an appropriate symbol, as it keeps one face permanently toward the
Earth and the other toward outer space. I can suggest a slogan for this very long-term enterprise: Humanity Forever
Moon base is the easiest one to establish
Hal G.P. Colebatch a lawyer and author, has lectured in International Law and International Relations at Notre
Dame University and Edith Cowan University in Western Australia and worked on the staff of two Australian
Federal Ministers. April 26, 2010, The American Spectator, “Space Is Lost”
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/space-is-lost
Establishing a proper base on the moon would be a huge and challenging undertaking. Establishing a base
somewhere else -- Mars or the asteroids -- would be many times more difficult, expensive, and dangerous. This is
not to say it couldn't, or shouldn't, be done eventually -- it certainly should and inevitably someone is
going to do it eventually -- but to bypass the moon, a case of running before one can walk, is simply bizarre.
If the U.S.'s goal really is "for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended
periods of time," the moon is the obvious place to learn how to do it.
Moon is a ready-made space station
Hal G.P. Colebatch a lawyer and author, has lectured in International Law and International Relations at Notre
Dame University and Edith Cowan University in Western Australia and worked on the staff of two Australian
Federal Ministers. April 26, 2010, The American Spectator, “Space Is Lost”
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/space-is-lost
In fact, the moon is a ready-made space station. Its low gravity means large spacecraft can be assembled there relatively easily
for longer voyages. As a major bonus large quantities of water have recently been found there -- a heavy and
incompressible substance difficult to transport into space: you can't save weight or space in a space-ship's stores
by carrying compressed or dehydrated water. The mere fact of working in vacuum might well establish a whole set of
new industries and technologies. It is simply impossible to know what benefits and innovations a moon-base would
bring, but it is safe to say that, like the space program itself, they would be substantial.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
42
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Red Spread Add-on
China is using its monopoly on REEs to spread communism to smaller democracies.
Walker 2/18
What Does Red China Intend With Its Rare Earth Monopoly? Written by Bruce Walker- a published author in print and in electronic media since
1990. He is a regular contributor to NewsByUs, Conservative Truth, American Daily, Enter Stage Right, Intellectual Conservative, Web
Commentary, and Men's News Daily. Friday, 18 February 2011 09:18 <http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu33/6368-what-does-red-china-intend-with-its-rare-earth-monopoly>//DoeS
Communist China supplies the world with more than 95 percent of the rare earth minerals, resources which are increasingly
vital to advanced technology. In September 2009, China announced that it would reduce its production of these minerals to 35,000 tons,
with the stated reason being to conserve scare resources and to protect the environment. In July 2010, China reduced the quota of
rare earth minerals for export by 72 percent. In September 2010, the communist government halted shipments of critical
rare earth minerals to Japan and the next month also halted shipments to the United States and Europe. This was widely
viewed as a victory for economic nationalists within the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. A report Tuesday in China
Daily, the government newspaper of the nation, predicted a decline of up to 30 percent in rare earth export quotas in 2012; however, the commerce
ministry called the report "totally groundless and purely false," adding, "China will continue to export rare earth to the world, and at the same time, in
order to conserve exhaustible resources and maintain sustainable development, China will also continue imposing relevant restrictions on mining,
manufacture and export of rare earths.” Since 2005 China has been reducing the export quota of rare earth minerals as well as imposing steep export taxes
on them. And, unless one doubts the Japanese and believes the official Chinese reports, China had imposed an embargo on Japan. Wang Baodong of the
Chinese Embassy in the United States denied that his country was trying to gain a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, noting: “With [a] stricter export
mechanism gradually in place, outbound shipments to other countries might understandably begin to feel the effect, but I don’t see any link between
China’s reasonable rare earth export control policy and the irrational U.S. decisions of [a] protectionist nature to investigate China’s clean energy
industries.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not convinced by Chinese assurances. Jeremie Waterman, who handles Chinese relations for the chamber,
made the following observation about a suspension of exports of rare earth minerals by China: “If it’s true, it’s disturbing to say the least.” The
Economist has also questioned the communist government’s motives, noting, “Slashing exports of rare-earth metals … is all about
moving Chinese manufacturers up the supply chain, so they can sell valuable finished goods to the world rather than lowly raw
materials.” In February 2011, China seems to be confirming the fears of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Economist, and others. Its cabinet
announced that China would impose tighter controls on rare earth producers and also restrict output in a five-year development strategy. The
announcement also promised that China would “reasonably set annual quotas for production and export,” although the government did not elaborate. The
government website also said that China would “establish healthy development of earth industry with appropriated development, orderly production, high
utilization and technological advancement.” This "communist planning" by China, which controls more than 95 percent of the
world’s production of rare earth minerals, is troubling. Perhaps at least as troubling is the fact that China seems to be stockpiling
these minerals, which it could easily sell for a healthy profit in the international market. How dangerous could this be to the economic
health of the United States and other economies highly dependent upon technology? If China pushes hard, the problem could quickly become
serious. Although there is no doubt that over time and at some expense these minerals could be produced in other parts of the world, the interruption of
supplies could bring some industrial processes to a standstill. Congress is considering setting up a stockpile of rare earth minerals similar to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. These rare earth minerals are not “rare” in the sense that the elements are found only at a few locations in the planet’s crust. For
example, cerium, a “rare earth mineral,” is the 25th most abundant element on the planet with 68 parts per million, roughly equivalent to the prevalence of
copper in the earth's surface. The rare earth minerals are simply not found in high concentrations, so that their extraction requires more intensive effort
than that of minerals such as iron, tin, or silver. Until the 1950s, much of the rare earth mineral production occurred in India and Brazil, not China, with
significant production also in places such as California and South Africa. So why does Communist China have a practical monopoly on rare earth
production these days? Their monopoly is the result of several converging factors. China has a huge landmass, so there are plenty of these rare earth
minerals about. The country also has masses of labor to mine rare earth minerals relatively cheaply. And though environmental concerns have depressed
production in Western nations, such concerns do not trouble the Chinese nearly as much. Finally, as is so often the case in human history, a resource once
thought to have no great value has quickly become vital and expensive. This fast rise in economic value, however, can easily lead to a bust over time (as
anyone familiar with the oil industry knows). "King Cotton" in the American South was once a very important global resource. In the 19th century India
rubber for a while was quite valuable. (This value transformed cities deep in the Amazon.) Uranium became much more valuable after the fission bombs
were dropped on Japan. Petroleum replaced whale oil, which had been used for a number of different purposes and was once prized. Lithium is a very
important resource these days, primarily because of its use in long-lasting batteries. China, may, however, be seeking more than just an
economic monopoly in rare earth minerals with the profits from that brief monopoly (because other sources will develop as soon as
practicable around the world, if China charges much above market value for long) . These rare earth minerals are vital in defense
production. The Soviets attempted to use their domestic resources of strategic materials such as chromium, manganese,
cobalt, and platinum-group metals and then sought to destabilize and produce client Marxist regimes in those other nations
that possessed these strategic metals. One of those nations was Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, which moved from a free,
democratic country with a democratically-elected black bishop as its leader to a Marxist dictatorship with poverty and oppression.
Another of those nations was the Union of South Africa, which had a treasure trove of vital minerals, and so was squarely in the
crosshairs of the Soviet Union. Does Communist China have the same plans as Soviet Russia? It is hard to imagine that China is
strongly driven by environmental concerns. The Chinese are selling these rare earth minerals at a tidy profit and the alarms that
Beijing is creating will, over time, result in more producing nations. The possibility that Communist China has more sinister motives
cannot be ruled out.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
43
116108808
DDW 2011
1
Enviro/Systemic Violence Add-on
Chinese mining is destroying the environment and killing locals. A shift to mining that doesn’t damage
the environment would solve.
Bradsher 9
By KEITH BRADSHER, New York Times, Published: December 25, 2009 Bradsher is the Hong Kong bureau
chief of The New York Times, covering Asian business, economic, political and science news; won the Asia
Society’s Osborn Elliott Award and the Overseas Press Club’s Malcolm Forbes Award in 2010, for coverage of
clean energy in China.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/business/global/26rare.html?pagewanted=1>//DoeS
Miners scrape off the topsoil and shovel golden-flecked clay into dirt pits, using acids to extract the
rare earths. The acids ultimately wash into streams and rivers, destroying rice paddies and fish farms
and tainting water supplies. On a recent rainy afternoon, Zeng Guohui, a 41-year-old laborer, walked
to an abandoned mine where he used to shovel ore, and pointed out still-barren expanses of dirt and
mud. The mine exhausted the local deposit of heavy rare earths in three years, but a decade after the
mine closed, no one has tried to revive the downstream rice fields. Small mines producing heavy rare
earths like dysprosium and terbium still operate on nearby hills. “There are constant protests because it
damages the farmland — people are always demanding compensation,” Mr. Zeng said.“In many
places, the mining is abused,” said Wang Caifeng, the top rare-earths industry regulator at the Ministry
of Industry and Information Technology in China. “This has caused great harm to the ecology and
environment.” There are 17 rare-earth elements — some of which, despite the name, are not particularly rare — but two heavy rare earths,
dysprosium and terbium, are in especially short supply, mainly because they have emerged as the miracle ingredients of green energy products. Tiny
quantities of dysprosium can make magnets in electric motors lighter by 90 percent, while terbium can help cut the electricity usage of lights by 80
percent. Dysprosium prices have climbed nearly sevenfold since 2003, to $53 a pound. Terbium prices quadrupled from 2003 to 2008, peaking at $407 a
pound, before slumping in the global economic crisis to $205 a pound. China mines more than 99 percent of the world’s dysprosium and terbium. Most of
China’s production comes from about 200 mines here in northern Guangdong and in neighboring Jiangxi Province. China is also the world’s dominant
producer of lighter rare earth elements, valuable to a wide range of industries. But these are in less short supply, and the mining is more regulated. Half the
heavy rare earth mines have licenses and the other half are illegal, industry executives said. But even the legal mines, like the one where Mr. Zeng worked,
often pose environmental hazards. A close-knit group of mainland Chinese gangs with a capacity for murder dominates much of the mining and has ties to
local officials, said Stephen G. Vickers, the former head of criminal intelligence for the Hong Kong police who is now the chief executive of International
Risk, a global security company. Mr. Zeng defended the industry, saying that he had cousins who owned rare-earth mines and were legitimate
businessmen who paid compensation to farmers.The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued a draft plan last April to halt all exports of
heavy rare earths, partly on environmental grounds and partly to force other countries to buy manufactured products from China. When the plan was
reported on Sept. 1, Western governments and companies strongly objected and Ms. Wang announced on Sept. 3 that China would not halt exports and
would revise its overall plan. But the ministry subsequently cut the annual export quota for all rare earths by 12 percent, the fourth steep cut in as many
years. Executives
in the $1.3 billion rare-earths mining industry say that less environmentally damaging
mining is needed, given the importance of their product for green energy technologies. Developers
hope to open mines in Canada, South Africa and Australia, but all are years from large-scale
production and will produce sizable quantities of light rare earths. Their output of heavy rare earths
will most likely be snapped up to meet rising demand from the wind turbine industry. “This industry
wants to save the world,” said Nicholas Curtis, the executive chairman of the Lynas Corporation of
Australia, in a speech to an industry gathering in Hong Kong in late November. “We can’t do it and
leave a product that is glowing in the dark somewhere else, killing people.”
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
44
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Enviro Solvency
Mining rare earth elements on earth produces huge amounts of pollution
Bourzac 11 (Katherine, materials science editor at MIT’s Technology Review, “The Rare-Earth Crisis,”
Technology Review, May/June 2011,
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37344/?mod=related&pw7=T&raq=t
Rare-earth metals, despite the name, are relatively abundant in Earth's crust. The 16 naturally occurring rare earths are usually
found mixed together in deposits that often contain radioactive elements as well—and separating the metals requires costly
processes that produce a stew of toxic pollutants. "We know what the [total] concentration of rare earths is in all areas
of the deposit," says Molycorp mine manager Rocky Smith, standing on one of the tiers carved into the 800foot-deep pit and pointing out an ore-laden rock; it's tinged mauve with bastnäsite, a mineral that contains a
mixture of rare earths. But knowing where the rare earths are throughout the site and getting the individual metals out of the
ore are two different things.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
45
116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
**Solvency**
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
46
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: REEs Are On The Moon
REE concentrations are relatively high in recently studied moon meteorites and suggest high abundances
of these elements on the moon.
K. Takahashi and A. Masuda, Earth Sciences Laboratory, The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,
Hirosawa 2-1, Wako-shi, Saitama 35 1-01. Japan, 1994, “REE abundances and Rb-Sr systematics for Lunar
meteorites: Chemical and isotopic characteristics and their genetic implications”
The REE patterns for the lunar highland rocks have been classified roughly into two types. One type,
representing the majority, has patterns with positive Eu anomalies as seen in Figs. 1 (a)-l (c), and the
other has patterns with negative Eu anomalies and relatively high REE abundances (Leedey x50100), such as those of Fra Mauro basalts (Taylor, 1975). Among the samples shown in Fig. 1, only one
sample, 109-C, shows a small negative Eu anomaly and REE abundances higher than the others. This
clast is considered to reflect the admixture of such a component as Fra Mauro type material. Under
moderate and reducing conditions, the divalent Eu (Eu2+) is stable and Eu is enriched in Ca-rich
plagioclase. Therefore, the anorthositic materials have REE patterns with large positive Eu anomalies
and other complementary materials, such as KREEP, show negative Eu anomalies.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
47
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: No Transportation
Mass drivers can be used as a low-cost method of transporting lunar materials into Earth’s orbit without
the need of rocket fuel among other components of rockets.
Mark Prado, Permanent.com Owner and Editor, 06(?), “Mass Drivers”, http://permanent.com/t-massdr.htm
The mass driver will eventually become the main means of supplying material from the Moon to
industry in orbital space, though not in the early years of space development. It can help preserve the
lunar environment by reducing the creation of a tenuous atmosphere from rocket fuel propellants, and
it saves on the consumption and costs of producing fuel propellant. It can be argued that the mass
driver can ship materials in much larger volumes than is feasible by chemical rocketry and at lower
costs per unit mass. The "mass driver" has been a popular lunar launch concept, largely due to
promotion, research and development by the Space Studies Institute (SSI). A laboratory prototype of
the accelerator section has been built and tested successfully by SSI. Powered only by electricity, it is
a solar powered launcher using the principle of electromagnetism to magnetically accelerate a payload
equipped with a magnetic bucket to escape velocity. It has been argued that the mass driver is a
relatively inexpensive and automated device to create a stream of material at the rate of up to a few
small packages per second, depending upon design. Total amount of material deliverable each month
could dwarf any feasible lunar or Earth launch capacity by rocketry, in terms of tonnage of payload
launched. A number of bottom-line facts about the mass driver for space transportation: It is a
relatively simple and automatic device to operate. There is little significant mechanical contact
between parts (e.g., no fiery fuels, no hi-speed fuel pumps, no rubbing components, no lubricants, etc.)
The mass driver operates at humanly temperatures. Maximum forces are measured in hundreds of
pounds, not thousands of tons. (Rockets lift ONE payload of several tons plus fuel and vehicle, for a
few minutes each month, whereas the mass driver lifts only a kilogram or so at a time but for the whole
month.) The mass driver can potentially catapult thousands of tons per month. That would take
numerous rockets of revolutionary size launched per month. The catapulted-to-payload ratio is about 1
: 10,000 over its lifetime. Each rocket has about a 1: 1/2 vehicle-to-payload ratio at best, plus a 1:
1/50th fuel-to-payload ratio. The mass driver requires no fuel propellants, and is "fully reusable". The
mass driver is made of a small variety of parts, all simple and repeated in a modular way which
expedites simple replacement and maintenance using a small stock of spares in case of a small failure.
It is a lightweight device, which makes stockpiles of spare parts are relatively inexpensive; all of which
are attractive features of a device operating in a remote place like the Moon.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
48
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Tech Not There (1/3)
The JAXA team was already able to send a mission to the Hayabusa and Itokawa asteroids to bring
mineral samples, and future missions have already been planned, that’s our Crandall 10 evidence from
the 1ac. Clearly, if the technology exists to bring minerals back, the tech also exists to further mine the
asteroids and the surface of the moon for REEs.
Engines and fuel already exist or are in testing
Fiveplanets.com, 10 (no specific author, 10/28/10, “Asteroid Mining”,
http://fiveplanets.com/space/?tag=asteroid-mining, 6/24/11, JPW)
In terms of propulsion technologies, the best in terms of power to weight ratio are still various forms of solar sail or ion
engine, such at the VASIMR engine, which has currently completed ground testing of a 200kW model, and will be
launching a test model to the ISS in 2011 or 2012, where it will be used for reboosting. Power to weight is an important
concept for a cargo tub, because it will require additional volume to transport the metals back to earth orbit. Studies have
shown that a 200kW model can transfer 7 metric tons of cargo from LEO to LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) in approximately 6
months, and would require only 1.3 tons of argon as propellant, as well as a 1/5th MW solar array. Note that travel to a NEO is closer
and requires less energy than LLO, meaning that less fuel would be required to transport that amount of cargo, and travel times would be
reduced as well. Also please note that the travel time assumes optimum use of fuel. Faster travel times can be achieved by
utilizing more. So, we have an engine (VASIMR), a taxi (Falcon 9), and an economic reason. How do we stay there, where
do we store the metals, and how do we extract them? That will be covered in Asteroid Mining Part 2.
The US has refined REE before- the technology must be there.
AnalysisIntelligence.com 6/15
Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)- intelligence collection management that involves finding, selecting, and acquiring information
from publicly available sources and analyzing it to produce actionable intelligence. <http://www.analysisintelligence.com/tag/china/>//DoeS
The China-Japan dispute caused the Pentagon to focus on the US dependence on China for rare-earth elements. Following
those links, we learn that until around 1990, the U.S. was self-sufficient and the world leader in producing and refining rare
earth elements. Within a decade, though, the US became reliant on China for more than 90% of its use. These elements are
used not only in everyday items Americans have become dependent on, such as cell phones and televisions, but in items that the
Pentagon is dependent on, such as smart bombs and radar. This Business Week article in particular laid out in detail the perils of being
too dependent on China for these vital elements.
The tech exists- French chemicals have been used since the 90s and if REEs are mined, refinement
development will take care of itself.
Burns, physical medical expert 10
New Deposits of Rare Earths Ores in Tanzania Substitute for China? by Stuart Burns on April 8, 2010
<http://agmetalminer.com/2010/04/08/new-deposits-of-rare-earths-ores-in-tanzania-substitute-for-china/>//DoeS
New interest has now developed on higher grade deposits and technically, facilities could be developed in conjunction with
Wigu Hill. In reality, though, Dr. Paul* believes refining capability will either be developed in North America or Europe or
both to meet growing demand for rare earth metals from the host of emerging green technologies. Intriguingly, Dr. Paul
mentioned the capabilities of French chemicals company Rhône-Poulenc in the refining of these elements. Apparently back
in the 1990s prior to the dominance of China’s Bayan Obo mine and development of China’s numerous associated refining
ventures, Rhone-Poulenc was refining rare earth metals. The firm subsequently spun the refining operation off into a
separate company called Rhodia Rare Earths which today has facilities in France, the US and Japan. We tried contacting the
company to ask if their facilities were still in full operation and to better understand their ability to meet western demand in the event that
new ore bodies were exploited. Unfortunately, nobody from the company was able or willing to be interviewed, so their capability
remains uncertain. Certainly expansion or refurbishment of such facilities should be more economical than developing new
refining capabilities. More important, the firm should still have the technical expertise that appears in such short supply
outside of China.
*Dr. Roger Paul, general manager of business development at South Africa’s center of excellence in mineral and metallurgical
technologies, Mintek.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
49
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Tech Not There (2/3)
Asteroid mining is possible and close to feasibility
MJ Sonter, head of Asteroid Enterprises, “The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Mining the Near-Earth
Asteroids”, 10/2/98,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_technical_and_economic_feasibility_of_mining_the_near_earth_asteri
ods.shtml
Conclusions: Advances in asteroid astronomy and discovery rates give confidence that there are many accessible
potential orebodies among the Near-Earth Asteroids. Mining and metallurgical options exist that are simple and robust .
The use of NPV is crucial in project concept development. A teleoperated miner for return of volatiles from
NEAs is economically feasible, using present technology, with an initial market of about 1000 tonnes per year. ---- Asteroid
mining is very close to technical and economic feasibility.
Moving an NEA into orbit is possible with capital investment
Space Studies Institute, 2002, “A Space Roadmap: Mine the Sky, Defend the Earth, Settle the Universe”,
http://ssi.org/reading/papers/space-studies-institute-roadmap/
Professor Ed Belbruno of Princeton has discovered a clever technique to return mass from these locations to geostationary
orbit for a nominal change in delta V using a lunar resonance capture orbit. Many bodies in these highly accessible earthcrossing orbits will also be easily returnable to geostationary earth orbit. Ed Belbruno has done detailed calculations
showing that this is so. NEO’s in halo orbits about the Lagrange points in the Earth sun system are still hypothetical.
Nonetheless, if a concerted effort is made to find them, even small ones of the proper composition could be enormously
valuable. A metallic asteroid 100 meters in diameter has a mass of roughly eight million tons, this would be sufficient to construct
most of the mass of 80 five Gigawatt satellite solar power stations. The research needs here are obvious, how does one move such an asteroid? How does
one cut up and maneuver the fragments of metal? How does one formulate the alloys and fabricate the structures? Although there is a large body
metallurgical knowledge on hand that has been developed for terrestrial purposes, that knowledge may not be directly translatable to the space
environment. We need experiments and we need prototypes, in that order.
Tech is possible, mining causes more space exploration, and it will soon be more cost-effective to mine in
space than on earth
Charles Gerlach, Charles served as Managing Director for Consulting at In-Stat, a technology market research firm that is a part of Reed
Business Information, a unit of Reed Elsevier, the global publishing and information company. Before joining In-Stat, Charles was president and
founder of Gerlach Strategic Advisors, a consulting firm serving telecommunications and technology companies. During this time, Charles also
launched Gerlach Space Systems, a company focused on space resource development. Charles was the Communications Sector Lead for IBM’s
Institute for Business Value where he managed a team responsible for development of industry-focused strategic business analysis in support of
IBM’s Communications Sector services teams (telecommunications, media and entertainment, utilities). Charles joined IBM as part of its acquisition
of the strategy consulting firm Mainspring in June 2001. At Mainspring, a venture-capital-funded Internet strategy consulting firm, Charles focused
extensively on the evolution of both the telecommunications and media markets. During this time, Charles authored many articles on
communications, media, and electronic commerce and was widely quoted in the press, 2005, “Profitably Exploiting Near-Earth Object Resources”,
http://abundantplanet.org/files/Space-Ast-Profitably-Exploiting-NEO-Gerlach-2005.pdf
Of particular interest for resource development are those asteroids and comets with orbits that make them relatively
accessible from the Earth. Gravitational perturbations have caused samples of a wide variety of differentiated materials from various parts of the
solar system to pass through the inner solar system where they can be more readily accessed and used by humans. These materials are likely to be
the first non-terrestrial resources to be exploited for use both on Earth and in space and are likely to play an important role
in supporting further space exploration. This feedback loop will foster more human activity in space: early materials are
likely to support space-based operations that will, in turn, be able to more cost-effectively acquire and process additional
materials. In addition, the negligible surface gravity of these objects will enable novel approaches to resource mining and
processing and will make it easier to transport materials back to Earth/Earth orbit than to launch the same materials into space from deep
within the “gravity wells” of the Earth, other planets, or their moons. In the future, the rising cost of resource acquisition on Earth will
surpass the falling cost of acquiring equivalent or substitute materials in space. This is likely to provide the economic
catalyst for large-scale acquisition and utilization of space resources. In fact, as we will show in this paper, for some
resources, these costs may already be relatively close (Figure 1), and given favorable technical developments and target
asteroid conditions, we may soon be able to obtain some resources in space at lower costs than we can mine and process
them on Earth.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
50
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Tech Not There (3/3)
Certain asteroids are easier to reach than the moon
Charles Gerlach, Charles served as Managing Director for Consulting at In-Stat, a technology market research
firm that is a part of Reed Business Information, a unit of Reed Elsevier, the global publishing and information
company. Before joining In-Stat, Charles was president and founder of Gerlach Strategic Advisors, a consulting
firm serving telecommunications and technology companies. During this time, Charles also launched Gerlach
Space Systems, a company focused on space resource development. Charles was the Communications Sector
Lead for IBM’s Institute for Business Value where he managed a team responsible for development of industryfocused strategic business analysis in support of IBM’s Communications Sector services teams
(telecommunications, media and entertainment, utilities). Charles joined IBM as part of its acquisition of the
strategy consulting firm Mainspring in June 2001. At Mainspring, a venture-capital-funded Internet strategy
consulting firm, Charles focused extensively on the evolution of both the telecommunications and media
markets. During this time, Charles authored many articles on communications, media, and electronic commerce
and was widely quoted in the press, 2005, “Profitably Exploiting Near-Earth Object Resources”,
http://abundantplanet.org/files/Space-Ast-Profitably-Exploiting-NEO-Gerlach-2005.pdf
NOTE: the wingdings looking symbols are deltas (like math class), in the phrase “delta-v”, describing the
change in velocity needed to access certain celestial bodies
In fact, the mission velocity
-v needed to reach selected near-earth, low-v target objects is not much greater than that needed to place a communications
satellite in geosynchronous orbit (GEO). The
-v required to place material
from these targets on an Earth-orbit-intercept trajectory may, in selected cases, be far less than that required
to lift mass into orbit from the surface of the Earth, and can be imparted gradually, over several weeks, substantially
reducing demands on the propulsion system. Lewis has estimated that 10 percent of all NEOs are more
accessible in terms of
-v than the Moon and are much easier to return to
Earth from than the Moon. 13 Maybe fifty percent of these are likely to have desirable resources that
can be readily extracted. Using the Shoemaker-Helin formulae 14 for estimating the probable likely
minimum
-v for Hohmann transfers to and from these bodies, Sonter
calculated that about 6 percent of the near-Earth asteroids known in 2001 are more accessible than the
Moon, having a minimum outbound
-v from LEO for rendezvous of less
than 6 km/s. He estimated that about twice this percentage have “global minimum” outbound
-vs from LEO under about 6.5 km/s. A few have outbound
-vs under 4.5 km/s, with at least one known object (1991 VG) having an
outbound
-v slightly under 4.0 km/s. Similarly, a few have
-vs for return departure on the order of 1 km/s. 15 Analysis by Sonter
and others suggests that the lowest
-v targets for initial resource
development are the low eccentricity, low inclination subset of the “Earth-Approaching” Apollo,
Amor, or Aten asteroids or any as-yet undiscovered Earth-Trojan asteroids. 16
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
51
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: China won’t cut off our supply of REES.
1. China’s rare Earths Director states that it may be a net importer by 2015, if not sooner, and
therefore will probably cut down its international supply of the material. Extend to Rare Earth
Digest, 11
2. China may be a net importer of Rare Earth by 2015, due to the rare earths needed in their
continued use of eco-friendly energy. Extend to Commodityonline, 11
3. China, despite the fact that it controls approximately 95% of the rare earth market, may become a
net importer as its demand in it is increasing. Extend Beach 11.
Obama’s energy plan will help stimulate jobs and reenergize the economy.
Moira O’Neil, News Writer, June 2009, Investor’s Chronicle
The 44th US President has not wasted time since coming to office as he pushes forward to kick-start a "new
Americanenergy economy". President Obama aims to help create 5m jobs by strategically investing $150bn into
clean energy overthe next 10 years. He wants to ensure 10 per cent of US electricity comes from renewable sources
by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. Stockbroker Charles Stanley is pointing out that a simple way to benefit from the
potential massive injection offunds into this sector is through four exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that offer an
excellent broad exposure toalternative energy. "I've called for investments in solar, wind, geothermal. Contrary to
what Senator McCain keeps on saying, I favournuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix," said
Senator Obama on 7 October 2008. The 44th US President has not wasted time since coming to office as he pushes
forward to kick-start a "new Americanenergy economy". President Obama aims to help create 5m jobs by
strategically investing $150bn into clean energy overthe next 10 years. He wants to ensure 10 per cent of US
electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. Stockbroker Charles Stanley is pointing
out that a simple way to benefit from the potential massive injection offunds into this sector is through four
exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that offer an excellent broad exposure toalternative energy. The DAXGlobal
Alternative Energy Fund (ALTP) from ETF Securities aims to track the performance of around 15alternative energy
companies that have over 50 per cent of their revenues coming from natural gas, solar, wind, ethanol and
geothermal/hybrids/batteries.The iShares S&P Global Clean Energy fund (INRG) gives exposure to companies
involved in clean energy products, andalso in the manufacture of equipment and technology for the clean energy
industry. The ETFS WNA Global Nuclear Energy Fund (NUKP) gives a broad exposure to the nuclear industry, while
Lyxor ETF NewEnergy (LNEW), which was listed just under a year ago, gives global exposure to the alternative
energy sector bytracking the World Alternative Energy Index of 20 stocks calculated by Dow Jones.John Fletcher of
Charles Stanley says: "All do pretty much the same regarding exposure to this sector, so really itmust be down to
personal preference." He suggests you either commit money across a number of these funds and thus spread risk
away from just one ETFprovider, or, "if you would prefer to invest in an ETF run by a company with a long pedigree
in ETFs, then the iSharesproduct might be best". The iShares S&P Global Clean Energy Fund, according to Mr
Fletcher, is not such a "pure play" on the sector as ALTPbut should still give adequate exposure. iShares Global Clean
Energy offers exposure to shares of around 30 of the world's largest publicly traded companiesinvolved in clean
energy production or the manufacture of equipment and technology for the clean energy industry. The
diversification into a greater number of holdings makes it lower risk than ALTP. There is good country
diversification: US (32 per cent), China (21 per cent), Spain (11.5 per cent), Germany (11 per cent), Denmark (6 per
cent), UK (5 per cent), France (5 per cent), Norway (4 per cent), Australia (3.5 per cent).However, note that
investment in the fund is likely to expose you to currency risk and the limited number of securities in the fund (29)
makes it high risk compared with less specialist growth funds with greater numbers of holdings. It may be extremely
volatile and this is demonstrated in recent performance - the fund is down 61 per cent over six months.There is also
negligible yield. However, iShares points out that clean energy is an emerging alternative asset class, and can help
diversify aportfolio away from broad-based equities and bonds. The fund is available as a self-invested personal
pension (Sipp) or an individual savings account (Isa) and its totalexpense ratio is an inexpensive 0.65 per cent.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
52
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: China Increasing Supply
1. The Chinese monopoly of producing and refining REE is not letting the US develop the way it could
and would like to.
Since so much of the world’s REEs are in China, they are vamping up the prices while decreasing the
amount that they export, making it harder and harder for the US to actually obtain any of it.
Extend Whittington
2. China’s rising domestic demand will cause it to become a net importer of rare earths, making finding
alternate sources critical.
Since China’s own demand for REEs is also increasing, they will decrease exports even more and may not
even export at all to meet their own needs, making it virtually impossible for the US to obtain REEs.
Extend Beach
3. China supplies 97% of REMs and is willing to cut off export.
Katherine Bourzac materials science editor at Technology Review 12/15/ 2010 “Report Points to U.S.
Vulnerability to China's Rare-Earth Supplies” MIT Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_blog.aspx?id=26142The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) will release a report today pointing to the risk of disruption in the supply of
materials critical to making hybrid-car batteries, energy-efficient lightbulbs, and lightweight wind turbines. China supplies
97 percent of these materials, a group of elements called rare-earth metals. The report will be unveiled today
at a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. According to
the New York Times, the Obama administration is expected to raise the issue with Chinese officials in
trade talks today. China imposes export taxes on these materials, and this fall temporarily blocked their export to
Japan, one of the biggest consumers, altogether. While research groups at Hitachi, GE, and academic
labs work on alternative materials, mining companies outside of China are planning to ramp up
production. But people in the mining industry are concerned about the repercussions of the movement, which
occurred over a decade ago, of R&D, engineering expertise, and intellectual property out of the United
States. The DOE report also points to these concerns about infrastructure, and indicates a political
resolve to begin to remedy it.
4. Demand for electric and hybrid cars exceeds available supplies of certain irreplaceable rare earths
Bourzac 11 (Katherine, materials science editor at MIT’s Technology Review, “The Rare-Earth Crisis,”
Technology Review, May/June 2011,
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37344/?mod=related&pw7=T&raq=t
With worldwide demand for the materials exploding, the site's owner, Molycorp Minerals, restarted
mining at Mountain Pass last December. It is now the Western Hemisphere's only producer of rare-earth metals
and one of just a handful outside of China, which currently produces 95 percent of the world's supply. Last
September, after China stopped exporting the materials to Japan for two months, countries around the
world began scrambling to secure their own sources. But even without Chinese restrictions and with the
revival of the California mine, worldwide supplies of some rare earths could soon fall short of demand. Of
particular concern are neodymium and dysprosium, which are used to make magnets that help generate torque in the
motors of electric and hybrid cars and convert torque into electricity in large wind turbines . In a report released last
December, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that widespread use of electric-drive vehicles and offshore wind
farms could cause shortages of these metals by 2015. What would happen then is anyone's guess. There are no
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
53
116108808
DDW 2011
1
practical alternatives to these metals in many critical applications requiring strong permanent magnets —materials
that
retain a magnetic field without the need for a power source to induce magnetism by passing an electric
current through them. Most everyday magnets, including those that hold notes on the fridge, are
permanent magnets. But they aren't very strong, while those made from rare earths are tremendously so.
Alloys of neodymium with iron and boron are four to five times as strong by weight as permanent
magnets made from any other material. That's one reason rare-earth magnets are found in nearly every
hybrid and electric car on the road. The motor of Toyota's Prius, for example, uses about a kilogram of
rare earths. Offshore wind turbines can require hundreds of kilograms each.
5. The US has no REE mining industry and relies on China for imported REE
Haxel, Hedrick, & Orris 02
(Gordon, author and researcher for the US Geological Survey, James, director at US Rare Earths and retired
rare-earth commodity specialist for the USGS, and Greta, president of the Arizona Geological Society, “Rare
Earth Elements—Critical Resources for High Technology,” 11/20/02, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/)
Over the past several years the only domestic source of REE, the mine at Mountain Pass, California, has operated below
capacity and only intermittently. Following environmental and regulatory problems with the main
wastewater pipeline, the REE separation (solvent extraction) plant was shut down. Mountain Pass
currently produces only bastnäsite concentrates and sells separated REE only from stockpiles produced
before the shutdown. Even after the regulatory situation has been resolved, however, the long-term
viability of Mountain Pass as a supplier of separated REE for high-technology applications is threatened by market factor s.
In 1999 and 2000, nearly all (more than 90%) of the separated REE used in the United States was imported
either directly from China or from countries that imported their plant feed materials from China . The surprisingly rapid
progression from self-sufficiency prior to about 1990 to nearly complete dependence on imports from a
single country today involves a number of causative factors. These include much lower labor and
regulatory costs in China than in the United States; continued expansion of electronics and other
manufacturing in Asia; the favorable number, size, and HREE content of Chinese deposits; and the
ongoing environmental and regulatory problems at Mountain Pass. China now dominates world REE
markets (fig. 1), raising several important issues of REE supply for the United States: (1) The United
States is in danger of losing its longstanding leadership in many areas of REE technology. Transfer of
expertise in REE processing technology and REE applications from the United States and Europe to
Asia has allowed China to develop a major REE industry, eclipsing all other countries in production of
both ore and refined products. The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology recently announced a
new national basic research program. Among the first group of 15 high-priority projects to be funded
was “Basic research in rare earth materials” (Science, Dec. 18, 1998, p. 2171). (2) United States
dependence on imports from China comes at a time when REE have become increasingly important in defense applications,
including jet fighter engines and other aircraft components, missile guidance systems, electronic
countermeasures, underwater mine detection, antimissile defense, range finding, and space-based satellite
power and communication systems.
China substantially cut down illegal mining operations which had been substantial.
Maniere 6/7
China Maintains Firm Grasp Over Rare Earth Markets by: George Maniere MBA from Long Island University
June 7, 2011
<http://seekingalpha.com/article/273685-china-maintains-firm-grasp-over-rare-earth-markets>//DoeS
In April, China did increase this year’s production quota of rare earths by 5 percent over 2010.
However, the government took serious steps to clamp down on illegal mining operations that, through
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
54
116108808
DDW 2011
1
the black market, have added a significant amount of supply to a starving market. The crackdowns on
illegal mining have only served to aggravate the already constrained supply issues it is estimated that
30-40,000 tons of rare earths are smuggled out of the country every year. Chinese officials also
suspended new mining licenses until June 2012, which will not help alleviate supply tightness.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
55
116108808
DDW 2011
1
______________________________________
**AT: Off-Case**
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
56
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Spending DA
The plan would save money- more expensive tritium fusion will be done without the plan.
Coledan, Aerospace Consultant at Rai, 4
Stefano Coledan at Popular Mechanics “Mining The Moon” December 7, 2004 12:00 AM Coledan worked as a
consultant for the European and Italian Space agencies and Italian industry (Rai- Aerospace Consultant at Rai Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A.) now reports for NASA.
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056>//DoeS
Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3
concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20
to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a
projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.
Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large
amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters
of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3--enough to power
a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year. Although considerable lunar soil would have to be
processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines might
perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation
release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present
sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3
from ordinary helium. The total estimated cost for fusion development, rocket development and
starting lunar operations would be about $15 billion. The International Thermonuclear Reactor
Project, with a current estimated cost of $10 billion for a proof-of-concept reactor, is just a small
part of the necessary development of tritium-based fusion and does not include the problems of
commercialization and waste disposal.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
57
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Private Sector CP (1/3)
Infrastructure isn’t ready yet for a full-scale operation – which is preventing companies from developing
programs
Hall 10 (Kevin, 10/4/10, “Mining the Moon could be crucial to our tech-filled future”,
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/mining-the-moon.php, 6/23/11, JPW)
The bad news? It takes infrastructure to process these minerals, and that infrastructure is not only not in place in
America, but it'd be expensive for it to be developed — something that's keeping companies from jumping in first. That,
and it's not like those reserves will last forever. A country that runs out of REEs on Earth — and can't
rely on trade to supply its needs — may then have to turn to the Moon for more. "It seems that there is
significant quantity of REE's in North America, [it's] just not profitable to refine them… yet," Dale Boucher, a
director at the Canada-based Northern Center for Advanced Technology company told Space.com.
"What value is the strategic element in this? Can one put a price on this? If so, it may be economically
viable to explore the moon and extract the REEs."
Government is a necessary catalyst to private investment – means only the plan solves and we access your
net benefit
Wall 10 (Mike, senior writer for Space.com, 10/30/10, “Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon”,
http://www.space.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon.html, 6/23/11, JPW)
Most panelists agreed that economics will ultimately drive such extractive enterprises. Private industry, rather than
government, will be doing most of the heavy lifting. However, government leadership and investment will likely be needed to
get these businesses off the ground, several panelists said. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the
feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations, Spudis said. To get them onboard, government should demonstrate the
necessary technologies and know-how. "Let the government lead the way, and let the private sector follow ," Spudis said.
Government could also prime the pump for private industry, some panelists said, spurring demand for
rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it," Greason
said. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the
supply." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction. Once business gets a
foothold in space, and it becomes obvious how much money there is to be made, space will open up to humanity . The sky is
no longer the limit. "Once you do that, you have economic escape velocity," Greason said. "If we can get there,
the stars are ours."
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
58
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Private Sector CP (2/3)
Perm do both solves best uniquely in this instance- empirically proven with railroad development.
Coledan, Aerospace Consultant at Rai, 4
Stefano Coledan at Popular Mechanics “Mining The Moon” December 7, 2004 12:00 AM Coledan worked as a
consultant for the European and Italian Space agencies and Italian industry (Rai- Aerospace Consultant at Rai Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A.) now reports for NASA.
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056>//DoeS
Yes, Americans and others made repeated trips into Earth orbit, but humanity seemed content to send only robots into the
vastness beyond. That changed on Jan. 14, 2004, when President George W. Bush challenged NASA to "explore space and
extend a human presence across our solar system." It was an electrifying call to action for those of us who share the vision
of Americans leading humankind into deep space, continuing the ultimate migration that began 42 years ago when
President John F. Kennedy first challenged NASA to land on the moon. We can do so again. If Bush's initiative is sustained
by Congress and future presidents, American leadership can take us back to the moon, then to Mars and, ultimately,
beyond. Although the president's announcement did not mention it explicitly, his message implied an important role for the
private sector in leading human expansion into deep space. In the past, this type of public-private cooperation produced
enormous dividends. Recognizing the distinctly American entrepreneurial spirit that drives pioneers, the President's
Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy subsequently recommended that NASA encourage
private space-related initiatives. I believe in going a step further. I believe that if government efforts lag, private enterprise
should take the lead in settling space. We need look only to our past to see how well this could work. In 1862, the federal
government supported the building of the transcontinental railroad with land grants. By the end of the 19th century, the
private sector came to dominate the infrastructure, introducing improvements in rail transport that laid the foundation for
industrial development in the 20th century. In a similar fashion, a cooperative effort in learning how to mine the moon for
helium-3 will create the technological infrastructure for our inevitable journeys to Mars and beyond.
Private companies will drill onto private land in order to meet quota for REE mining on Earth
Rogers 10 (Dave, former editorial writer for the Bay City Times and a widely read, respected journalist/writer in and around Bay
City, “Lithium drilling upsets Quebec residents,” Canwest News Service, 1/31/10, http://www.evbatteryforum.com/lithium-drillingupsets-quebec-residents/)
The rush to find lithium in West Quebec has some residents concerned that prospectors will cut trees and
tunnel or drill on their land to meet the demand for the volatile metal used in rechargeable electric car batteries.
Stelmine Canada Ltd., a Montreal-area mineral exploration company has staked claims on 13,000 acres of private land
just across the border from Ottawa. The company is also searching for 14 rare earth elements used in military and
high-technology applications because the minerals are sometimes found together. Stelmine president Michel Lemay said many rare earth
elements are used in electronics. He said the demand for lithium is expected grow rapidly because of the push to develop plug-in electric
cars. “These elements are used for all kinds of high-tech equipment, including exploration of the moon,” Lemay said. “I am convinced
that governments will use them for war and eventually to develop electric tractors.” Lisa Hopkins of Val-des-Monts, Que., said property
owners have discovered unknown prospectors drilling horizontally onto their land in their search for minerals .
“All my
neighbours are affected by the mining claims and I may be too,” Hopkins said. “North of here they came
with bulldozers and dug up everything with no letters, warnings or anything. “They left the place a total disaster
and didn't fix anything. You feel that you shouldn't own or develop anything because you could be left
completely in ruins and destroyed. It surprised me that we only own the surface rights and people can come and dig
here.” Lemay said mineral exploration companies are turning to lithium as gasoline becomes more expensive. “For many years China
produced 95 per cent of the world's rare earth elements, but a month or two ago it announced that it would restrict their exports,” Lemay
said. “If China limits its exports the prices will go up.” Lemay said his company will resume exploration next spring. Drilling on
private land is expected to start in August or September. A U.S. Pentagon study to be released in the spring is expected to conclude
that the vast majority of the rare earth oxides that the U.S. needs for defence purposes and manufacturing are controlled by China.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
59
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Private Sector CP (3/3)
Moon mining for REEs will not only create a large industry, it will also encourage private sectors to mine
on the moon as well.
Dr.
Ben
Bova,
Non-fiction
author,
“Rare
earth
elements
are
in
the
news.”,
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/27/ben-bova-nov-28-2010-rare-earth-elements-are-news/?print=1,
2010
If we’re going to send astronauts to an asteroid, why not include a geologist who can bring back some samples of rare
earths? Why not give the mission a purpose beyond merely exploring for the sake of scientific knowledge? Why not begin
to exploit the natural resources that lie among the asteroids?
Such an effort could act as an incentive for private industry to move farther into space than merely providing rockets to
ferry people and cargo to the International Space Station. It could also show the world — and particularly the Chinese
government — that we can move beyond our dependence on their resources (and ploys).
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
60
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Mine Earth CP (1/2)
1. Solvency defecit- extend the Geere 6 card from the 1AC, REEs are found in high concentration on
asteroids. Mines on Earth aren’t sufficient.
(Generic)
The Earth does not have enough REEs.
Campbel 9
Michael D. Campbel, et al. Campbell is well-known nationally and internationally for his work as a technical
leader, program manager, consultant and lecturer in hydrogeology, mining, and associated environmental and
geotechnical fields. 6/9/09 “Developing Industrial Minerals, Nuclear Minerals and Commodities of Interest via
Off-World Exploration and Mining”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/80067campbell/ndx_campbell.pdf
Another potential demand for SmCo magnets derives from developing innovations in the production
and installation of very high speed rail systems. The French corporation Alstom has developed rail
systems designed for transport between major urban centers (see Alstom, 2009). With speeds ranging
from 300 to 360 km/hr, these trains employ motors operating with SmCo permanent magnets. The
company‟s new AGC line of very high speed trains boasts 15% energy savings due to the use of new
composite materials and the efficient traction system. In fuel- equivalent terms, the AGV consumes
only 0.4 liters of oil/100Km/passenger, about 1/15th that of an airplane. In addition to cars and trains,
the development of highly efficient Internal Permanent Magnet (IPM) motors may give HEV mass transit systems the boost
they need to become widely accepted (see Alstom, 2009). Samarium promises to be a material in high demand in
the coming decades, as evidenced by the growing reliance on low-carbon technologies for transportation. The fact remains
that policies now underway in China will serve to reduce the availability of REOs, while their own research into the uses of
these materials proceeds apace. This has the double impact of making China a world leader in the development of
technologies employing REOs as well as the owner of the majority of the global resource. As far as samarium goes, we
have only to look toward the Moon or elsewhere in space. The Earth does not appear to be unique in offering such
resources. As time passes, we will likely realize that mining in space is easier and more profitable than mining
on Earth for many reasons, difficult in the beginning as we learn but without gravity, materials handling
becomes easier than on Earth.
(If in US)
US mines don’t have heavy REEs we need.
Hsu 10 (Jeremy, 4/14/10, “US Military Supply of Rare Earth Elements Not Secure”,
http://www.livescience.com/10978-military-supply-rare-earth-elements-secure.html, 6/24/11, JPW)
But looking beyond the GAO report reveals that many U.S. deposits lack the "heavy" rare earth elements critical for much
of today's technological innovations. Another cause for concern: Chinese corporations have also begun investing in mining
companies that hold certain U.S. deposits. The U.S. once supplied most of the global supply of rare earth elements, and also
manufactured rare earth products such as the neodymium magnets. But rare earth processing has largely shifted to China
since the 1990s. Even if the U.S. resumes mining its rare earth deposits and begins converting rare earth ore into oxides, it
lacks the facilities for converting rare earth oxides into refined metals. China has set quotas limiting rare earth exports and
added on export taxes, despite supplying as much as 97 percent of the world's rare earth oxides. It even warned in an
official plan for 2009-2015 that its own industrial demand might force it to stop exporting entirely.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
61
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Mine Earth CP (2/2)
2. Perm do both.
3. Mining rare earths on Earth creates massive amounts of pollution and radioactive waste
Maggie Koerth-Baker, Maggie writes about the biological sciences, alternative energy and sustainability,
anthropology, health and medicine. Her work appears regularly in national magazines and on science news Web
sites. She's also a contributing editor to the award-winning blog, BoingBoing.net, 6/3/11,
http://boingboing.net/2011/06/03/the-rare-earth-conun.html
American dominance ended in the mid 1980s. China, which for decades had been developing the technology for separating
rare earths (not easy to do because they're chemically so similar), entered the world market with a roar. With government
support, cheap labor, and lax or nonexistent environmental regulations, its rare earth industries undercut all competitors.
The Mountain Pass mine closed in 2002, and Baotou, a city in Inner Mongolia (an autonomous region of China), became
the world's new rare earth capital. Baotou's mines hold about 80 percent of China's rare earths, says Chen Zhanheng,
director of the academic department of the Chinese Society of Rare Earths in Beijing. But Baotou has paid a steep price for
its supremacy. Some of the most environmentally benign and high-tech products turn out to have very dirty origins indeed.
Rare earth mines often also contain radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium. Villagers near Baotou reportedly
have been relocated because their water and crops have been contaminated with mining wastes. Every year the mines near
Baotou produce about ten million tons of wastewater, much of it either highly acidic or radioactive, and nearly all of it
untreated. Chen maintains that the Chinese government is making an effort to clean up the industry.
Extinction
Diner ‘94—Major David, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, Winter,
143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The
more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each
knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple,
unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing
widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly
perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each
new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an
aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
4. [Asteroids Add-On]
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
62
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Plan Solves Mining
REEs appear in a uniquely high concentration on the moon.
David, former Director of Research at the National Commission on Space, 2010
Is Mining Rare Minerals on the Moon Vital to National Security by Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space
Insider Columnist Research Associate for Secure World Foundation, has been writing about global space
activities for 50 years. He is an award-winning journalist, a consultant to the Coalition for Space Exploration
and is SPACE.com’s Space Insider Columnist & served as Director of Research for the National Commission
on Space, a U.S. Congress/White House study that appraised the next 50 to 100 years of space exploration.
Date: 04 October 2010 Time: 08:10 AM ET <http://www.space.com/9250-mining-rare-minerals-moon-vitalnational-security.html>//DoeS
Local concentrations Given all the mineral mischief here on Earth, the moon could become a
wellspring of essential resources ? but at what quality, quantity and outlay to extract? [10 Coolest New
Moon Discoveries] Providing a lunar look-see is Carle Pieters, a leading planetary scientist in the
Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University in Providence, R.I. "Yes, we know there are
local concentrations of REE on the moon," Pieters told SPACE.com, referring to rare earth elements by
their acronym REE. "We also know from the returned samples that we have not sampled these REE
concentrations directly, but can readily detect them along a mixing line with many of the samples we
do have." Pieters is also principal investigator for NASA?s Moon Mineralogy Mapper, known as M3,
which was carried on India?s Chandrayaan-1 lunar-orbiting spacecraft. That probe was lofted by the
Indian Space Research Organization in October 2008 and operated around the moon until late August
2009. Among other findings, the M3 gear found a whole new range of processes for mineral
concentrations on the moon ? unappreciated until now. For example, the M3 experiment detected a
new lunar rock ? a unique mixture of plain-old plagioclase ? plentiful in the Earth?s crust and the
moon?s highlands ? and pink spinel, an especially beautiful arrangement of magnesium, aluminum and
oxygen that, in its purest forms, is prized as a gemstone here on Earth. What about the whereabouts of
precious elements sitting there on our celestial neighbor in gravitational lock? Pieters said lunar
scientists have a good idea how lunar rare earth elements became concentrated ? it occurred as part of
the moon's magma ocean differentiation sequence. But it is now also recognized that "early events
disrupted and substantially reorganized that process in ways we are still trying to decipher," she added.
With the recent, but limited, new data for the moon from the international fleet of lunar orbiters with
remote sensing instruments ?? from Europe, Japan, China, India and now the United States, "we are
beginning to see direct evidence for the activity of geologic processes that separate and concentrate
different minerals," Pieters said.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
63
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Solvency Defecit
REEs are not concentrated enough on Earth- you would need to mine 7 times as much as we are now just
to meet the demand of wind turbines.
Goldenberg 10 (Suzanne, US environment correspondent for Guardian newspaper, “Rare earth metals mine is
key to US control over hi-tech future”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/26/rare-earth-metalsus, 6/23/11, JPW)
By mid-2012, Molycorp aims to produce 20,000 tonnes a year of nine of the 17 rare earths or about 25% of current
western imports from China. Smith suggested the company could possibly ramp up production to
40,000 tonnes within the next 18 months. He says Molycorp has exposed just 55 acres of the 2,200
acre site. But even production on that scale may not be enough to guarantee the supply of metals needed to move to a
clean energy economy: lanthanum for batteries for hybrid cars, neodymium for the permanent magnets for
wind turbines, especially offshore, europium for energy efficient lighting. "You would need seven mines the
size of Molycorp's just to meet the demand for wind turbines and that would mean no neodymium for motors or
any other applications," said Jim Hedrick, who until last year was the rare earth expert at the US
Geological Survey. "Obviously there is a demand for 10 or 20 mines through the world to meet all the
different demands for these products." Some companies, such as General Electric, are already moving to
reduce their use of rare earths. "What we are going to absolutely have to do is diversify our sources and optimise the use of
these materials in manufacturing," said Steve Duclos, who heads GE's global research division.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
64
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Earth Mining Bad for Enviro (1/2)
Rare earth mining is destroying China now
Asia Sentinel, 6/21/11,
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3263&Itemid=422, “China’s
Rare Earth Mining Catastrophe”
Last December, China's Commerce Minister, Chen Deming, said the country "has no choice" but to take stringent measures
to clean up its rare earths industry, placing export controls on some of the world's most vital elements. Beijing cut exports
for the first half of 2011 by 35 percent, following a 72 percent reduction for the second half of last year. While most of the
attention in the world's press centered on what was regarded as a strategic decision, Chinese officials said they could no
longer afford the damage to their environment. With one third of the world's rare earth reserves, the country at that point was
delivering 95 percent of the world's exports of 17 different rare earth substances, which go into a wide and growing variety of crucial
industries from computer to catalytic converters to wind farms to many more. The fact is that the country faces massive damage
from mining and smelting. Over the last two or three years China has begun to face up to the fact that the rare earths mining
industry is beset by widespread illegal mining, virtually complete lack of worker safety guidelines or measures, which has
wrecked a broad swath of the country and left thousands of miners suffering from a variety of deadly diseases with
pneumoconiosis, or black lung disease the most prevalent. Doing something about the destruction has become imperative.
Google "China rare earths environmental damage" and hundreds of stories will appear. The industry in China produces five
times the waste gas, including fluorine and sulfur dioxide as the total flared off annually by all miners and oil refiners in the
United States, according to a speech by Xu Xu, the chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals, and
Chemicals Importers and Exporters in December in Beijing, who was quoted in a variety of publications. In addition to that, Xu was
quoted as saying, the industry produces 13 billion meters of gas and 25 million tons of wastewater filled with cancer-causing heavy
metals including cadmium and others. These are some issues that are being considered in Australia, California and Malaysia as the
world scrambles for additional supplies to replace those China is shutting down. Excluding China, global industries will require 55,000 to
60,000 metric tons of rare earth metals in 2011, with a third to a half coming from China. There is always the question in China whether
environmental rules will do any good. Some authorities estimate that fully half the rare earth metals being produced in China are
smuggled out of the country after being mixed with other ores to disguise them. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Environmental Protection
announced that further emissions caps for 15 types of pollutants related to rare earth mining and smelting will go into effect on Oct. 1,
probably constricting the supply more . Cindy Hurst, an analyst for the U.S. Army's Foreign Military Studies Office in Fort
Leavenworth quoted the Chinese Society of Rare Earths in an article for the website The Cutting Edge that "Every ton of rare earth
produced (in China) generates approximately 8.5 kilograms of fluorine and 13 kg of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric
acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to
12,000 cubic meters of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid,
approximately 75 cubic meters of acidic wastewater plus about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water)."
All of the rare earth enterprises in the Baotou region of China, Hurst wrote, "produce roughly 10 million metric tons of all
varieties of wastewater every year, most it discharged without being effectively treated, which not only contaminates
potable water for daily living, but also contaminates the surrounding water environment and irrigated farmlands." In
addition, each ton of rare earths produces 2,000 tons of mine tailings, which often contain radioactive thorium. Despite
those dangers, it appears certain that the appetite for rare earth minerals can only grow, and the attendant dangers. And if
China can't supply them, other countries will. In California, a mine in Mountain Pass near the Mojave Desert is being reopened after
closing nine years ago because of environmental issues. The mine, being reopened by a company called Molycorp Inc., will have to
answer to 18 different California regulatory agencies, spending US$2.4 million annually on monitoring and compliance
Rare earth mining is incredibly toxic and thus politically controversial
Matthew Wheeland, managing editor of GreenBiz.com, 3/11/11, “Rare Earth Mining Becomes an Acceptable Risk Outside of
China”, http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/03/11/rare-earth-mining-becomes-acceptable-risk-outside-china
For Malaysia and the world's most advanced technology companies, the plant is a gamble that the processing can be done
safely enough to make the local environmental risks worth the promised global rewards. Once little known outside
chemistry circles, rare earth metals have become increasingly vital to high-tech manufacturing. But as Malaysia learned the
hard way a few decades ago, refining rare earth ore usually leaves thousands of tons of low-level radioactive waste behind.
So the world has largely left the dirty work to Chinese refineries — processing factories that are barely regulated and in
some cases illegally operated, and have created vast toxic waste sites. The new plant is being developed by an Australian
mining company to process materials mined in Australia -- but sent abroad to avoid running afoul of Australia's politically
powerful Green Party and other concerned environmentalists.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
65
116108808
DDW 2011
1
XT: Earth Mining Bad for Enviro (2/2)
Rare earth mining is terrible for the environment
UCLA.com, Summer 2009, http://www.environment.ucla.edu/ucpe/didyouknow/article.asp?parentid=4274
Did you know that most of our electronic devices are manufactured using Rare Earth Metals? Just what are Rare Earth
Metals? They include indium, gallium, lanthanum, yttrium, europium and neodymium. Lanthanum is required to make
nickel metal hydride batteries, used in hybrid cars. Neodymium is essential for motors and generators like those used in
wind turbines. These metals are found only in a few places on Earth: China, Australia and North America, with a few
deposits in India, Brazil, Malaysia and South Africa. Chinas Inner Mongolian region is by far the richest in these deposits
and provides more than 95% of the worlds supply. The US relies on imports for 100% of its supply. Rare Earth mining is
not pretty. A mine in Californias Mohave desert, first opened in the early 1950s, is about one-quarter of a mile wide, and
over 500 feet deep. It was closed in 2002 for environmental violations and because of plunging global prices. While our
new technologies are dependent on these Rare Earth Metals, production of Rare Earth Metals has leveled off, prices are
increasing, and global dependence on Chinas exports have as well. For the U.S. this is partly due to environmental
regulations and higher wages that make their extraction more expensive. A question before us is whether we are willing to
pay the true costs in environmental damage and for less destructive mining, as well as for safe, clean work conditions and
good pay to mine these Rare Earth Metals in our own backyards? A yet bigger question is that of ultimate supply. Are we
devising new technologies that depend on a set of ingredients that will soon peak in supply? And then what?
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
66
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Relations DA/Consult CP (1/2)
No other international entity is in a position to give the United States trouble for lunar mining. Besides,
the US has done things in the past without repercussions.
Bilder, Professor of Law, 2009
Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 2009 Article 1 “A Legal Regime for the Mining of
Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options” Professor Bilder is Foley & Lardner-Bascom Professor of Law at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was educated at Williams College and Harvard University Law
School and was a Fulbright Scholar at Cambridge University. He served as an attorney in the Office of the
Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. <https://litigationessentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=33+Fordham
+Int%27l+L.J.+243&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=6808e07099c1c4c43356b42b78568301>//DoeS
As indicated, there does not at present appear to be any legal barrier to the United States engaging in
lunar mining, save for the very general limitations imposed by the Outer Space Treaty and broader
international law.113 Moreover, as a practical matter, no other nation is likely in the near future to be in
a position to prevent the United States from establishing a lunar base and conducting activities on the
Moon as it wishes.114 Consequently, the United States could presumably proceed with an He-3-based
fusion energy program on the assumption that it could mine and bring to Earth lunar He-3 without any
need for seeking further international approval. Under this approach, the United States could develop an
appropriate legal regime of its own, consistent with its own needs and principles, rather than having to reach
compromises with other countries. There is precedent for unilateral U.S. action of this kind-the 1980 United
States Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act,115 which, following U.S. rejection of the 1982 LOSC,
continues to govern the commercial recovery of deep seabed minerals by U.S. companies.116 Subsequent to its
enactment, the United States concluded international agreements with several other states in 1982 and 1984
(Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) to resolve overlapping
claims with respect to mining areas for polymetallic nodules of the deep seabed.1' 7
Other countries won’t care if we mine the moon – they didn’t care when we brought back moon rocks
Hennigan 11 (William J., aerospace reporter at the LA Times, “MoonEx aims to scour moon for rare
materials,” LA Times, 4/8/11, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/08/business/la-fi-moon-venture-20110408)
The company is among several teams hoping to someday win the Google Lunar X Prize competition, a
$30-million race to the moon in which a privately funded team must place a robot on the moon's
surface and have it explore at least 1/3 of a mile. It also must transmit high-definition video and images
back to Earth before 2016. The idea of exploiting the moon's resources for private gain is not likely to be a concern,
Jain said., The U.S., he said, "has already brought back moon rocks to our country without any other country fighting
war over it." The start-up is on firm financial footing, Jain said, notable because a moon launch would
require massive investment. In the coming months, MoonEx hopes to stage a public demonstration of
its hardware.
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
67
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Relations DA/Consult CP (2/2)
International law has no restriction on the US mining the moon for resources
Vergano 05 (Dan, science reporter at USA Today, “A deeper look into space law,” 4/12/05, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-04-11-space-law_x.htm)
In calling for manned missions to the moon and beyond, President Bush suggested mining the moon's soil
for "rocket fuel and breathable air" to supply those missions. The suggestion led to a demand by some
scientists for the creation of tons of fake lunar soil, called JSC-1, for experiments. Little of the phony
stuff was left from the days of the Apollo moon landings. Space enthusiasts have advocated such
mining for decades, but participants at a January NASA conference concluded that a robotic mining
mission to the moon is needed to prove it would work. Another lunar issue to be addressed is that space law needs
an update, says Frans von der Dunk of the International Institute of Air and Space Law in the
Netherlands. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty allows "exploiting resources without properly owning the 'real estate'
underlying it," says von der Dunk, but rules don't exist for licensing private firms or exercising legal
control over their employees on the moon. And the United Nations' 1979 Moon Agreement, which proclaims
"the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind" while laying down rules for
exploiting those resources, has never been signed by the United States .
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
68
116108808
DDW 2011
1
AT: Nanocomposite Magnets CP
The nanocomposite magnets wouldn’t be ready to use for a few more years.
Bourzac, Science Editor at MIT’s Tech Review, 1/20
New Magnets Could Solve Our Rare-Earth Problems Researchers are working on composites that would make
strong magnets that need less of the hard-to-get ingredients. Thursday, January 20, 2011 By Katherine Bourzac,
materials science editor at Technology Review, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MS, Science Writing
<http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/27112/page1/>//DoeS
Stronger, lighter magnets could enter the market in the next few years, making more efficient car
engines and wind turbines possible. Researchers need the new materials because today's best magnets
use rare-earth metals, whose supply is becoming unreliable even as demand grows. So researchers are
now working on new types of nanostructured magnets that would use smaller amounts of rare-earth
metals than standard magnets. Many hurdles remain, but GE Global Research hopes to demonstrate
new magnet materials within the next two years.
The magnets wouldn’t work- materials are too reactive to transport and scientists can’t assemble the
nanoparticles correctly.
Bourzac, Science Editor at MIT’s Tech Review, 1/20
New Magnets Could Solve Our Rare-Earth Problems Researchers are working on composites that would make
strong magnets that need less of the hard-to-get ingredients. Thursday, January 20, 2011 By Katherine Bourzac,
materials science editor at Technology Review, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MS, Science Writing
<http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/27112/page1/>//DoeS
Hadjipanayis* reports his group, a multi-institute consortium, has received nearly $4.5 million in
ARPA-E funding. It's possible to make the necessary nanoparticles in small quantities in the lab, but
scaling up will be difficult. "They're very reactive materials," he says. The group is experimenting with
a wide range of different types of nanoparticles, including combinations of neodymium-based
nanoparticles with iron-cobalt nanoparticles. Another challenge is assembling the nanoparticles in a
mixture that ensures they have enough contact with each other to get exchange coupling. "It's one step
at a time," says Hadjipanayis.
*George Hadjipanayis, chair of the physics and astronomy department at the University of Delaware
Last printed 2/13/2016 5:01:00 AM
69