533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
1AC – Plan
The United States federal government should establish a tax credit for the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines in the
United States.
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
1
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
1AC – Climate
Contention One: Climate Change
Runaway warming is inevitable unless we take action --- err aff even if we cannot guarantee that warming is anthropogenic.
Mills 2011 (Robin – Head of Consulting at Manaar Energy Consulting, Non-Resident Scholar at INEGMA, Capturing Carbon: The
New Weapon in the War Against Climate Change, p. 9-11)
Even if carbon dioxide emissions were to stop today, the built-in inertia in the climate system would lead to temperatures
increasing further. In addition to the 0.75CC rise since the nineteenth century, we are already committed to a further warming of
0.6°C. If emissions, and hence temperatures, continue to rise, warming may be as much as 4°C by 2050—and locally much more,
15°C hotter in the Arctic and 10°C in western and southern Africa. At this level, climate impacts will become more and more
serious. Extinctions are likely to increase sharply , while extreme heat-waves, forest die-offs, flooding of major river deltas,
persistent severe droughts, mass migrations,33 wars and famines are all possible. We may soon pass, or already have passed, the
point at which, over the next few centuries, parts of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt irreversibly, with potential
sea level rises of 1.5 and 2-3 metres respectively.34 Due to feedback mechanisms and poorly understood components of global
climate, there is even the possibility of a sudden, rapid catastrophic change . For example, open ocean absorbs more heat from
the sun than ice. Melting permafrost35 and warming ocean bottom waters36 release carbon dioxide and the powerful greenhouse
gas methane, driving further warming. Carbon sinks will become increasingly ineffective37 as forests die off, soils dry out and
warmer oceans dissolve less carbon dioxide, so that ecosystems may become net contributors of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere, rather than net absorbers as today. The shade of clouds may diminish over warming oceans,38 while melting ice
shelves may lead to sudden collapse of grounded ice, and hence rapid rises in sea level. The picture is complicated further by some
offsetting effects, due for instance to increased plant growth in a warmer, more CO2-rich world. Changes in cloudiness, snowfall
and albedo (reflectiveness) of vegetation may have warming or cooling effects. Such positive feedbacks may greatly accelerate
warming. Unpredictable, non-linear effects can lead to prolonged droughts in the Mediterranean, California41 or West Africa,42 or
to weakening of ocean circulation43 with knock-on effects including a rise in North Atlantic sea levels of up to 1 metre, a collapse
of fisheries, disruption of the South Asian monsoon,44 and possibly (albeit unlikely) sharp cooling in Europe.45 Similar rapid
changes are documented from Earth history, as at the end of the Ice Ages. At one time, at the end of the so-called Younger Dryas
event around 12,000 years ago, Europe warmed by some 5°C within two decades.4" It seems increasingly clear, from geological
studies, that the climate system is unstable and prone to abrupt transitions from one state to another, so further warming might
trigger entirely unforeseen consequences.47 We should not give in to alarmism, and such disastrous shifts are thought to be
unlikely—but their consequences are serious enough to be worth guarding against. This is about as far as the weight of consensus
has reached,48 Yet many individuals and corporations continue to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The US
petroleum and coal businesses, in particular certain commentators,49 and many of the general public across the world, 50 continue
to maintain that the climate is not warming, that elevated carbon dioxide does not cause warming, that rising carbon dioxide and
temperatures are not caused by humans, that the consequences of climate change will be benign, or some combination of these
positions. Beyond this understanding, there remains great uncertainty and debate on how much warming will occur for given
changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, how serious the impacts of this warming will be, how the climate will change at regional
and local levels, how much it is worth spending to reduce climate change,51 exactly what types of action we should take, and how
we should go about encouraging global action. Despite extensive and continuing research, these major uncertainties will persist for
the foreseeable future. Some of the debate is a normative one, about the values of our civilisation, and therefore is not even capable
of being solved by scientific inquiry. Such uncertainty and controversy, though, is not a reason for inaction . After all, we ban
certain drugs suspected to be carcinogenic, without waiting for absolute proof, and we will only know the truth about some of
these climate change disasters when they actually strike. I will take as my starting point here, in this fast-evolving area of research,
the view that we should attempt to keep total warming below 2-3°C.52 The original goal of the EU, recommended by the
International Climate Change Task Force, was for a maximum temperature rise of 2°C,53 but given the delay in taking major
action, and the latest science, this already seems to be very tough to achieve. Anything above 2°C is already dangerous but, with
luck, avoiding rises over 3°C will prevent the most damaging effects of climate change . Otherwise, we will venture into
uncharted territory, where the risk of abrupt climatic changes is high: 'Once the world has warmed by 4°C, conditions will be so
different from anything we can observe today (and still more different from the last ice age) that it is inherently hard to say where
the warming will stop.'55
A preponderance of evidence proves warming is anthropogenic --- results in extinction.
Deibel 2007 (Terry – international relations at the Naval War College, Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft,
Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today, p. 387-390)
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
2
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far
in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life
depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere
possibility has passed through probability to near certainty . Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change
published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate
scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals
of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this
sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet
over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid
the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected,
and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by
a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature
measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to
contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to
Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,”
concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it
breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are
accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately,
atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in
for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories
quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass
die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of
Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate,
leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and
inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic
thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist
William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP
annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming,
based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface
temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just
decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the
best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian
roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New
York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the
Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl
Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union
would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of
nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically . Over the long run it puts dangers from
terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but
potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet .
Even a one percent risk of warming means you vote aff.
Strom 2007 (Robert – professor emeritus of planetary science at the University of Arizona, Hot House: Global Climate Change and
the Human Condition, p. 246)
Keep in mind that the current consequences of global warming discussed in previous chapters are the result of a global average
temperature increase of only 0.5 'C above the 1951-1980 average, and these consequences are beginning to accelerate. Think about
what is in store for us when the average global temperature is 1 °C higher than today. That is already in the pipeline, and there is
nothing we can do to prevent it. We can only plan strategies for dealing with the expected consequences, and reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% as soon as possible to ensure that we don't experience even higher temperatures. There is
also the danger of eventually triggering an abrupt climate change that would accelerate global warming to a catastrophic level
in a short period of time . If that were to happen we would not stand a chance. Even if that possibility had only a 1% chance of
occurring, the consequences are so dire that it would be insane not to act. Clearly we cannot afford to delay taking action by
waiting for additional research to more clearly define what awaits us. The time for action is now.
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
3
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
Studies prove that renewables cannot fill the gap --- CCS is necessary to prevent warming.
Cohen et. al 2009 Armond Cohen, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), a U.S. nonprofit
organization founded in 1996 and dedicated to reducing the human impactontheEarth’satmosphereand the systems that depend on it.
He is a member of the Keystone Energy Board and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, et al.,
Mike Fowler is Technology Coordinator for the Coal Transition Project at the CATF, Kurt Waltzer is Carbon Storage Development
Coordinator for the CATF’s Coal Transition Project, 5-09, [“NowGen’’: Getting Real about Coal Carbon Capture and Sequestration,”
May 2009, Vol. 22, Issue 4 1040-6190, ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jelect/v22y2009i4p25-42.html] E. Liu
As we argued in Section II, however, it is simply not prudent to count on renewables and energy efficiency to fully displace future
coal use—even with carbon constraints. The physical and technical limits are simply too daunting, that’s why nearly every study
concludes that reaching even less protective CO2targets will require a significant CCS contribution . Politicians may support
carbon constraints, but not at the expense of turning out the lights. If CCS is not ready and dirty coal is needed to keep the lights on,
dirty coal will be used.
Reductions alone won’t solve --- removal of CO2 from the air is necessary to solve warming and ocean acidification.
Mills 2011 (Robin – Head of Consulting at Manaar Energy Consulting, Non-Resident Scholar at INEGMA, Capturing Carbon: The
New Weapon in the War Against Climate Change, p. 41)
Capture Can Tackle Carbon Dioxide Already in the Atmosphere
We will quite possibly discover, in the next ten, twenty, or thirty years, that our emissions abatements have been insufficient, and
that the climate is much more sensitive than we had imagined. In any case, the allowable annual carbon emissions by 2050 are
going to be very small, around 2 tonnes per person, less than a third of current levels–and that in the context of a much richer
world. A single aeroplane journey can eat up most of this budget. In this case, only carbon capture can help us. We will have to
reduce the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere rapidly–not merely reducing our net emissions, but actually taking
them below zero. This can also help reduce ocean acidification , a non-greenhouse but serious impact of the build-up of carbon
dioxide. In order to be ready for this eventually, we need to develop carbon capture techniques today on the easier opportunities–
coal-fired power stations and so on–and have a network of carbon dioxide pipelines and storage sites ready. I, for one, don’t
wish to discover in 2050 that disaster is upon us, and regret that it’s too late by then for a realistic ‘Plan B.’
Ocean acidification results in extinction --- CO2 is the driver.
Parry, 3/2/2012 (Wynne – senior writer for LiveScience, Oceans Turning Acidic Faster than Past 300 Million Years, Live Science, p.
http://www.livescience.com/18786-ocean-acidification-extinction.html)
The oceans are becoming more acidic faster than they have in the past 300 million years, a period that includes four mass
extinctions, researchers have found. Then, as is happening now, increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warmed the planet
and made the oceans more acidic. These changes are associated with major shifts in climate and mass extinctions. But while past
increases in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels resulted from volcanoes and other natural causes, today that spike is due to
human activities, the scientists note. "What we're doing today really stands out," lead researcher Bärbel Hönisch, a
paleoceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a news release. "We know that life during
past ocean acidification events was not wiped out — new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon
emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about — coral reefs, oysters, salmon." [Humans Causing
6th Mass Extinction] As the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, oceans absorb that carbon dioxide, which turns
into a carbon acid. As a result the pH — a measure of acidity — drops, meaning the water has become more acidic. This dissolves
the carbonates needed by some organisms, like corals, oysters or the tiny snails salmon eat. In their review, published Thursday
(March 1) in the journal Science, Hönisch and colleagues found the closest modern parallel about 56 millions ago in what is called
the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when atmospheric carbon concentrations doubled, pushing up global temperatures.
Extinctions in the deep sea accompanied this shift. (The PETM occurred about 9 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.)
But, now, the ocean is acidifying at least 10 times faster than it did 56 million years ago, according to Hönisch. Ocean
acidification may also have occurred when volcanoes pumped massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air 252 million years
ago, at the end of the Permian period, and 201 million years ago, at the end of the Triassic period, they found. Both are associated
with mass extinctions. "The current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) carbon dioxide release stands out as capable of driving a
combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years of Earth
history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change ," the researchers
conclude in their paper.
U.S. development of CCS is necessary --- its role in the world determines the rate of CO2 emissions.
Stephens, 6/28/2012 (Jennie – Assistant Professor of the Environmental Science and Policy Program in the Department of
International Development for Community and Environment at Clark University, An Uncertain Future Capture and Storage for
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
4
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
Carbon, Public Interest Report, Federation of American Scientists, p. http://www.fas.org/blog/pir/2012/06/28/an-uncertain-futurecapture-and-storage-for-carbon-css/)
As the coal-reliant countries of the world have been increasingly forced to consider reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to
mitigate climate change, carbon capture and storage (CCS) has emerged as a technology with critically important political
influence. Visions of “clean” coal-fired power plants that will not emit CO2 into the atmosphere have provided powerful
motivation for large public and private investments in CCS technology1. And the scale of CO2 emission reductions deemed
necessary for climate stabilization is so large that some consider CCS a necessary future technology without which society will
be unable to mitigate climate change . Despite growing interest and investment in CCS, the technology’s future remains
uncertain and the pace of technological development has been slower than many had envisioned five or ten years ago.2 STATUS
OF CCS TECHNOLOGY CCS incorporates various technologies associated with capturing and transporting CO2 and storing the
compressed gas somewhere other than the atmosphere. Most current conceptualizations of a complete CCS system focus on the
potential of storing the CO2 in underground geologic reservoirs, although ocean storage and terrestrial storage have also been
considered. The different components of a fully integrated CCS system are at various levels of technical readiness, but most parts
of a full CCS system have been used and applied, often at a smaller scale, in other industrial applications. Despite growing interest
and investment, a fully integrated coalfired power plant with CCS has not yet been demonstrated.3There are, however, numerous
small scale projects that focus on demonstrating a limited part of a full CCS system.4A public database maintained by the U.S.
Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory currently documents a total of 254 CCS projects, including
proposed, active and cancelled projects.5These projects are geographically distributed in 27 countries including 65 projects
focused on capture, 61 projects focused on storage, and 128 that involve both capture and storage. Of these projects, most are in
the planning phase and only 20 are actually currently capturing and/or injecting CO2. Among the current priorities for advancing
CCS are enhancing the capture process to reduce the energy intensity and cost of capture, demonstrating underground CO2 capture
in a diverse set of geologic formations, and demonstrating and deploying integrated and scaled-up CCS power-plant systems that
allow for “learning-by-doing.” A CHANGE IN COAL POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES The potential of CCS technology
has changed the politics of coal in many places, but its influence in the United States is particularly pronounced. The United States
has so far focused its national response to climate change on technology rather than policy and is among the countries in the world
that has invested most heavily in CCS.6 The scope and scale of U.S. interest in CCS is critical, because due to its size, status, and
disproportionate contribution to accumulated CO2 emissions, the U nited States has unique potential for political and
technological influence over energy technology development and the trajectory of global atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The magnitude of the U.S. reliance on coal (about 45 percent of the nation’s electricity comes from coal) has been a dominant
factor influencing both national energy policy and the lack of national climate policy. Politicians from regions of the country
where the coal industry is most influential have been among the most powerful opponents of national climate change legislation.
For coal states and politicians representing those states, however, CCS has provided a potential vision of a carbon constrained
future in which the coal industry could still thrive. From a political perspective, therefore, the potential of CCS technology has
been valuable in contributing to the engagement of critical actors in national climate policy discussions; CCS has enabled some
constituents who had been previously reluctant to even acknowledge the challenges of climate change to engage in the climateenergy political discourse.
U.S. is modeled --- demonstrating the economic feasibility of CCS gets other nations like China and India on-board.
MIT News Release, 3/14/2007 (MIT Panel Provides Policy Blueprint for Future of Use of Coal as Policymakers Work to Reverse
Global Warming, p. http://web.mit.edu/coal/)
Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) panel issued a report today that
examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens,
the global warming crisis. The study, "The Future of Coal – Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates the U.S. assume
global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions. Led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch, Institute
Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, the
report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions
significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. According to Dr. Deutch, "As the world's leading
energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of
technical, economic, and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give
policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should
carbon emission controls be adopted, and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner." Dr.
Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a carbon-constrained world – higher
efficiency generation, perhaps through new materials; novel approaches to gasification, CO2 capture, and oxygen separation; and
advanced system concepts, perhaps guided by a new generation of simulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort in the near term
will yield significant dividends down the road, and should be undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientific
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
5
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
challenge." Key findings in this study: • Coal is a low-cost, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing world, and its
use is projected to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change
unless coal plants are deployed with very high efficiency and large scale CCS is implemented. • CCS is the critical enabling
technology because it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs. • A
significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic attractiveness of new
technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades. We need large-scale
demonstration projects of the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS system. We should
proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Several integrated large-scale demonstrations with appropriate
measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the United States over the next decade with government support . This
is important for establishing public confidence for the very large-scale sequestration program anticipated in the future. The
regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration should be developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the
Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process. • The U.S. government should provide assistance only to coal
projects with CO2 capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance. • Today, IGCC appears to
be the economic choice for new coal plants with CCS. However, this could change with further RD&D, so it is not appropriate to
pick a single technology winner at this time, especially in light of the variability in coal type, access to sequestration sites, and
other factors. The government should provide assistance to several "first of a kind" coal utilization demonstration plants, but only
with carbon capture. • Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without CO2 capture will be
"grandfathered" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This is a perverse incentive to build coal plants
without CO2 capture today. • Emissions will be stabilized only through global adherence to CO2 emission constraints. China and
India are unlikely to adopt carbon constraints unless the U.S. does so and leads the way in the development of CCS
technology .
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
6
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
1AC – Solvency
Contention Two: Solvency
The Obama administration is rolling out carbon rules that will demand reductions now.
Gardner, 3/27/2012 (Timothy – staff writer for Reuters, Government proposes first carbon limits on power plants, p.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-usa-carbon-idUSBRE82Q0W120120327)
The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, a
move hotly contested by Republicans and industry in an election year. The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would
effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas. But the rules
will not regulate existing power plants, the source of one third of U.S. emissions, and will not apply to any plants that start
construction over the next 12 months. The watering down of the proposal led some ardent environmentalists to criticize its
loopholes, but a power company that has taken steps to cut emissions praised the rules. While the proposal does not dictate which
fuels a plant can burn, it requires any new coal plants to use costly technology to capture and store the emissions underground.
Any new coal-fired plants would have to halve carbon dioxide emissions to match those of gas plants. "We're putting in place a
standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can't leave to our kids and
grandkids," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters in a teleconference. Jackson could not say whether the standards,
which will go through a public comment period, would be finalized before the November 6 election. If they are not, they could be
more easily overturned if Obama lost. Republicans say a slew of EPA clean air measures will drive up power costs but have had
little success in trying to stop them in Congress. Industries have turned to the courts to slow down the EPA's program. Some
Democrats from energy-intensive states also complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a
tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West
Virginia. REGULATORY CERTAINTY The EPA's overall clean-air efforts have divided the power industry between companies
that have moved toward cleaner energy, such as Exelon and NextEra, and those that generate most of their power from coal, such
as Southern Co and American Electric Power. Ralph Izzo, the chairman and CEO of PSEG, a utility that has invested in cleaner
burning energy, said the rules provide a logical framework to confront the emissions. The rules provide the industry with "much
needed regulatory certainty," that is needed to help guide future multi-billion dollar investments in the U.S. power grid, he added.
Under the new standards, coal plants could add equipment to capture and bury underground for permanent storage their carbon
emissions. The rules give utilities time to get those systems running, by requiring they average the emissions cuts over 30 years.
Still, the coal-burning industry says that carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is not yet commercially available. Jackson
said the EPA believes the technology will be ready soon. "Every model that we've seen shows that technology as it develops will
become commercially available certainly within the next 10 years".
However, a lack of financial incentives prevents the implementation of CCS operations.
Handwerk, 5/22/2012 (Brian, Amid Economic Concerns, Carbon Capture Faces a Hazy Future, National Geographic, p.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-and-storage-economic-hurdles/)
Many companies have determined that expensive CCS operations simply aren't worth the investment without government
mandates or revenue from carbon prices set far higher than those currently found at the main operational market, the European
Trading System, or other fledgling markets. According to a recent Worldwatch Institute report, only eight large-scale, fully
integrated CCS projects are actually operational, and that number has not increased in three years. "In fact, from 2010 to 2011, the
number of large-scale CCS plants operating, under construction, or being planned declined," said Matt Lucky, the report's author.
Numerous projects in Europe and North America are being scrapped altogether, Lucky added. Last month, TransAlta, the
Canadian electricity giant, abandoned plans for a CCS facility at an Alberta coal-burning plant because financial incentives were
too weak to justify costly investment in CCS.
This means that lowering the cost of CCS is key to commercialization.
Venezia et. al, 2008 (John – Associate at the World Resources Institute, Hiranya Fernando – senior research associate at World
Resources Institute, Clay Rigdon – research analyst at the World Resources Institute, Preeti Verma, Capturing King Coal: Deploying
Carbon Capture and Storage Systems in the U.S. at Scale, World Resources Institute, p. 16)
Far-sighted policy design and the prudent dedication of public resources and incentives are indispensable to a scaled-up national
carbon capture and storage effort. Commercial players are unlikely to engage unless U.S. climate policy mandates it in some way
or makes it cost effective. Historically, the power producer based technology choices on relative fuel costs and capital costs. Today
the power industry must also give serious consideration to federal and state policies being developed to reduce carbon emissions
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
7
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
that will eventually create future carbon liabilities. Although deploying these new technologies increases present capital
expenditure, that expenditure could offset future compliance costs. CCS, however, is one of many emissions reduction strategies.
For CCS to de deployed at scale it must be positioned as the least-cost compliance strategy —i.e. the strategy that will reduce a
power plant’s expected carbon liability at the cheapest cost.
The plan solves in five independent ways.
The first is return on investment --- developing pipelines changes economic calculus more than any other factor.
Roddy 2012 Dermot J. Roddy, Science City Professor of Energy, Newcastle University, 3-12, [“Development of a CO2network for
industrial emissions,” Applied Energy Volume 91, Issue 1, March 2012, Pages 459–465,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911006672] E. Liu
The subject of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for power sta- tions running on coal or natural gas is both important and prominent. The application of CCS to other industries which have large carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is equally important but much
less prominent. Industry accounts for 40% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. In 2007 the global figure for direct
CO2emissions from industry was 7.6 Gte of direct CO2emissions to which could be added3.9
GteofindirectCO2emissionsfrompowerstationssupply- ingelectricityto industry[1]. The much-quotedIEA‘‘blue map’’sce- nario for
halving global CO2emissions between 2005 and 2050 shows a 19% contribution from CCS which is split roughly equally between
the power generation sector and the rest of industry [1]. Intuitively it would seem obvious that financial benefits could be available
from building CO2pipelines to serve the needs of a cluster of CO2emitters (both industrial and power-sector) com- pared with a
collection of point-to-point transportation and stor- age solutions. Confirmation comes from the economic cost model developed by
McCoy and Rubin which draws by analogy upon as-built costs for 263 natural gas pipelines built in the USA be- tween 1995 and
2005. Their cost model shows that return on investment is significantly more dependant on pipeline capacity and on cost of
capital than on any other factor that they considered [2]. Further confirmation is provided by Middleton and Bielicki when they
quantify the cost of networks up to 50 Mte/year and compare them with point-to-point solutions [3]. The previous UK
government’s CCS strategy includes the comment that ‘‘the establishment of an embryonic UK CO2transport and storage
infrastructure may sustain existing and future investment in carbon intensive process industries through the assurance that
they will be able to access a system to handle their CO2when the carbon market drives them to CCS’’ [4]. It also talks about
the possibility of storing CO2on behalf of other countries. For at least 10 years, Norway has also been considering the merits of
develop- ing a CO2infrastructure and extending it to handle much of Northern Europe’s industrial CO2emissions [5]. A number of
regional studies have been carried out to investi- gate the potential for CO2cluster development. A study of the Yorkshire and
Humber area in the UK found that 90% of the re- gion’s 90 Mte/year of CO2emissions comes from 12 large CO2emit- ters, and
developed some ideas for building a CO2collection and storage network [6]. A Scottish study makes a case for building a
CO2collection network to transport 20 Mte/year of CO2for ulti- mate storage under the North Sea [7]. A Portuguese study divides
the country’s 27 biggest CO2 emitters into three clusters and identifies suitable storage sites [8]. An Italian study identifies an 8
Mte/year CO2cluster in the industrialised part of Northern Italy and links it to three storage sites [9]. A large-scale study in California links 37 potential sources to 14 potential reservoirs, with the prospect of storing up to 50 Mte/year of CO2[3]. Similar studies
have been carried out in North East England, the Rotterdam area, the Northern Netherlands, Germany and at various other
locations in the USA.
Second, access. Pipelines are necessary to make sequestration feasible nationwide. Capture is currently separate from storage.
Williams 2007 Eric Williams, Project Director, Climate Change Policy Partnership, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions, Duke University, et al., Nora Greenglass and Rebecca Ryals, 3-8-07, [“Carbon Capture, Pipeline and Storage: A Viable
Option for North Carolina Utilities? ,” Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and The Center on Global Change, Duke
University , www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/news/carboncapture.pdf] E. Liu
? Geologic sequestration is not economically or technically feasible within North Carolina An assessment of geologic storage in
North Carolina reveals little available storage capacity. The best in-state option can store only 29.91 MMTCO2, about three
year’s worth of captured CO2 (assuming around 1,600 MW of generating capacity). A new pipeline would be required to
transport the CO2 to the reservoir, making the project economically infeasible.? CCS may be viable if the captured CO2 is
piped out of North Carolina and stored elsewhere Carbon dioxide emissions captured from North Carolina coal plants could
be transported to viable geologic sinks in the Appalachian Basin or Gulf Coast region, requiring the construction of a multistate pipeline on existing rights of way along the East Tennessee and Texas Eastern natural gas pipelines. The lowest-cost
pipeline and storage option for plants in North Carolina is to build a multi- state pipeline capable of supporting the transfer of CO2
from around 10,400 MW of capacity feeding in along the pipeline route. The timing of the carbon capture and pipeline system
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
8
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
dramatically affects the net present value (NPV) of the whole system, and the price of CO2 has considerable influence over
the timing of building capture equipment and pipeline. The optimal timing of the pipeline for a given CO2 price is different with
IGCC than with SPC. At a CO2 price of $7.2 per ton ($15 per ton levelized)9, IGCC becomes cost-effective on a NPV basis,
assuming CCS is brought on-line in 2027. This scenario would avoid almost 800 million tons of CO2 over its lifetime compared
to SPC with CCS (CCS and pipeline beginning in 2039).
Third, stimulates investment. Tax credits for pipelines provide an economic incentive to participate in CCS technology.
Apt et. al, 10/9/2007 (Jay – Professor of Technology at the Tepper School of Business and Engineering and Public Policy, Director of
the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Lee Gresham, M. Granger Morgan – Lord Chair Professor in Engineering, Professor
and Department Head of the Engineering and Public Policy, and Adam Newcomer – Exelon Power Team, Incentives for Near-Term
Carbon Dioxide Geological Sequestration, A White Paper prepared for The Gasification Carbon Management Working Group,
Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, p. 49)
1. A federal sequestration tax credit and investment tax credit for CO2 pipelines Currently, 15% of the costs incurred in
enhanced oil recovery are eligible for the enhanced oil recovery federal tax credit (claimed on form 8830). The Energy Tax
Incentives Act of 2005 provides a 30% business investment credit for solar energy and fuel cell property and certain solar lighting
systems; a 10% investment tax credit is provided for microturbines (claimed on form 3468). A tax credit in the range of 10 to 30
percent of incurred costs for carbon dioxide pipelines would be in accord with the federal tax credits used to encourage the above
investments. A sequestration tax credit for geologic sequestration is likely to provide an effective incentive for sequestration
projects. Such a sequestration tax credit should have provisions that reduce the tax credit if the U.S. enacts legislation resulting
in a carbon price above the effective price established by the tax credit. Like the production tax credit, the sequestration tax credit
may be designed with time limits both for the date by which the projects must be underway and the conclusion date of the tax
credit.
Fourth, enhanced oil recovery. Pipelines are necessary for continued EOR --- they link CO2 sources with oil recovery.
MIT Energy Initiative, 7/23/2010 (Role of Enhanced Oil Recovery in Accelerating the Deployment of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration, p. 4-5)
Federal CCS programs have paid relatively little attention to the CO2 transportation infrastructure , but this is a key enabler for
building both EOR and DSF sequestration . Looking well into the future, a CO2 -EOR program utilizing hundreds of millions of
tons of CO2 annually will likely require tens of thousands of miles of CO2 pipeline. A “giant horseshoe” configuration was
discussed at the symposium, linking the major CO2 sources of the Midwest with the producing regions of the Gulf Coast,
West Texas, and the Rockies . Clearly, such an ambitious undertaking should occur with public support only with evidence that
large-scale CO2 -EOR using anthropogenic sources will materialize as an opportunity for both climate risk mitigation and
enhanced oil production. Satisfying these needs will probably require sustained “high” (i.e., current) oil price levels and a price (or
cap) on CO2 emissions. However, even the initial steps to implement anthropogenic CO2 -EOR should be taken with a view
toward beginning to build the physical infrastructure in a way that would be needed for a future major scale-up.
Financial incentives for CO2 pipelines can piggy back off of existing EOR infrastructure. Connecting the source to the sink
will incentivize further development of CCS technology.
MIT Energy Initiative, 7/23/2010 (Role of Enhanced Oil Recovery in Accelerating the Deployment of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration, p. 40-41)
Continental-Scale CO2 Pipeline Network Requirements The analyses of the scale of the CO2 -EOR opportunity that would be
created by the ACES legislation would require new, continental-scale pipeline infrastructure to connect the CO2 sources to the
sinks. Some participants advocated direct public intervention in the development of the necessary infrastructure and proposed a
type of hybrid model for funding. The model would combine some of the lessons learned in building the transcontinental railroad
system and the development of the unconventional natural gas pipeline system. Leadership was deemed essential, a characteristic
that was critical to the building of the transcontinental railroad, which offers parallels in scale of the project, risk levels, and the
involvement of the private markets. The development of unconventional natural gas “ piggy backed” on the infrastructure built
for conventional gas; the overlap of resource locations for conventional and unconventional gas resources is somewhat analogous
to the current co-location of MPZs and ROZs. According to several of the participants, the exploitation of ROZs is only a matter of
technology and investment. Participants discussed a hybrid of both models as a possible avenue for developing a national CO2 EOR sequestration program. Some components of such a program would have to be built from scratch such as the measurement
and verification procedures as well as the new pipelines, analogous to the ground-level development of the railroad system. The
experience with the development of unconventional natural gas offers an analogy in terms of leveraging the existing EOR
infrastructure and tapping into the subsurface fluid flow expertise of the oil and gas industry. These new pipelines and
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
9
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
distribution networks could be financed through a quasi-governmental agency by the issuance of climate change bonds. Significant
CO2 pipeline networks already exist in West Texas and these segments can provide the foundation for the further expansion of the
network that will connect the anthropogenic sources of CO2 to the geologically well-characterized EOR oil basins, both MPZs and
ROZs. At later stages, the network could be used to transport the captured CO2 into the depleted natural CO2 domes. The resulting
infrastructure was described as “the Horseshoe” pipeline concept, as seen in Figure 12. The national pipeline would be constructed
by filling in the gaps as shown by the dotted lines; according to the participants, the most important piece in this network would be
the connection between East and West Texas. The shaded areas in Figure 12 represent the areas of large CO2 -EOR projects.
Finally, it was argued that establishing the pipeline connection between the source and the sink would expand demand for
captured anthropogenic CO2 and would incentivize the research needed to achieve a multifold reduction in the cost of capture.
Thus, the availability of pipeline capacity could facilitate the breakthrough of the “chicken and egg” problem.
CO2-EOR overcomes barriers to a transition to CCS technology.
Kemp, 7/30/2012 (John – Reuters market analyst, U.S. bets on producing oil with captured CO2, Reuters, p.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/column-kemp-oil-co-idUSL6E8IUGHM20120730)
For policymakers, the real significance of CO2-EOR is its potential to act as a catalyst or "early action pathway" to overcome
barriers to a wider roll out of CCS infrastructure . CO2 capture and storage is capital intensive and immensely costly at every
stage: technology for stripping it out of the combustion exhaust; pipelines for transport; wells for injection; and an appropriate
monitoring, compliance, legal and regularly framework. In practice the costs are often prohibitive. But if the captured CO2 that is a
by-product of combustion can be given a value as an input into EOR, the effective costs are reduced. Crucially, there are
significant scale and network economies. Once pipelines have been built to transport CO2 to EOR projects, it is much cheaper to
build out the network to store additional volumes in other non-oil bearing formations.
Fifth, certainty and predictability. Federal action is necessary to maintain low costs of pipeline construction.
Mack 2009 Joel Mack is a partner in the envi- ronment, land, and resources depart- ment at Latham & Watkins LLP in San. Diego
and Buck Endemann, Litigation Attorney in San Diego, CA , 10-28-09, [“Making carbon dioxide sequestration feasible: Toward
federal regulation of CO2sequestration pipelines,” lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub3385_1.pdf] E. Liu
The United States is embarking for the first time on examining and reducing CO2emissions in order to reduce global climate
change impacts. Given the large amounts of CO2emissions from coal-fired power plants, to the extent policymakers envision using
geologic sequestration of CO2 to address any appreciable fraction of current and future CO2emissions, the required infrastructure
investment will be massive, and may be required over a limited period of time. In order for cost of CO2 sequestration pipelines to
be borne efficiently by the private sector or utility ratepayers, and to accomplish these objectives in a timely fashion, the
regulatory structures in place need to assure certainty , efficiency and predictability in the siting and regulatory process, in
ratemaking require- ments, and in the ability to obtain the necessary real property entitlement to construct such pipelines. The
current system, while certainly functioning well over the existing pipeline network, is simply not structured to handle the
development in a short period of time of perhaps 50,000 or 100,000 miles of these pipelines at a cost of many billions of dollars.
The current system is not structured to attract private equity or debt capital investment, similar to the way the private sector has
invested in our electric generation and natural gas pipeline infrastructure. A comprehensive federal program is ultimately what
is required for this investment to be made on a timely basis and relying to the maximum extent on private sources of capital and
the global capital markets. As the United States moves towards a reduced carbon footprint, the nation will have to deal with the
CO2emissions from our large fleet of coal-fired, base load power plants. Geologic sequestration is a technology that will likely be
a major part of the solution to this problem, and in order for that to happen, the United States will have to invest substantially in a
massive increase of its CO2 pipeline transportation capacity. The current regulatory regime, consisting of state utility commission
oversight and very limited federal regulation over rate complaints and pipeline safety, is likely to prove inadequate to support the
massive infrastructure development required to 68An alternative form of federal regulation, such as that in place for electric
transmission corridors, while preserving state feedback, is not likely to solve the implement this objective in a timelyand capitalefficient manner. This article recommends that Congress adopt legislation to provide for preemptive, federal licensing, rate
regulation and oversight of these pipelines in order to provide the certaintyand clarity that will give the private sector the certainty,
predictability and confidence to invest in this very important part of our infrastructure.
A piece-meal approach fails --- it’s too inconsistent and results in a race to the bottom. Federal action is key.
Horne 2010 (Jennifer, J.D. at S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, Getting from here to there: Devising an Optimal
Regulatory Model for CO<2> Transport in a New Carbon Capture and Sequestration Industry, Journal of Land, Resources &
Environmental Law, p. Lexis)
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
10
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
B. The Case for a Comprehensive Federal Approach The challenge of transitioning to a commercial-scale CCS industry
calls for a well-coordinated, comprehensive approach to regulation. A national market will require a high degree of
uniformity and certainty . The surest and most expedient [*376] path to a market with those features is comprehensive federal
regulation - for CCS generally, and transport specifically. Like natural gas and oil pipelines - both complex, enormous systems
with national reach n128 - CCS will benefit from the sort of consistent regulation from one state to the next that a federal
approach can provide, and that a piecemeal state-based approach cannot . n129 This is especially true if CCS is to become a
national industry that helps to solve the climate change dilemma. As Delissa Hayano has argued: The costs and logistics of
compressing, transporting, and sequestering CO<2> on the scale necessary to address [climate change] concerns requires a
national interest parallel to that motivating the construction of equivalent-scale national infrastructure projects such as the
interstate road system. n130 While state-based regulation can be effective for certain types of markets, it would be a less-thanideal fit for CCS transport. State-based regulation would create too much inconsistency and complexity . n131 In another
context, Professor Lincoln Davies has described a state-based approach to promoting renewable energy development as risking
" crazy-quilt" regulation . n132 Specifically, the sheer variety of state-based Renewal Portfolio Standard (RPS) models that have
sprung up in recent years have yielded widely varying standards from one state to the next. n133 The result is a fragmenting of
renewable energy into multiple markets, not the creation of a single uniform national one. While the differentiation possible
from state regulation long has been lauded as promoting innovations through laboratories of democracy, n134 to promote an
industry that necessarily will be interstate in nature, such as CCS transport, federal models often are invoked. n135 The rationales
typically offered for federal regulation include: (1) that uniform regulation is needed to ensure a well-functioning [*377] market;
n136 (2) that federal regulation is necessary to avoid state " races to the bottom;" n137 and (3) that such regulation is essential to
avoid fragmentation across borders in creating a network system national or regional in scope. n138 As the Supreme Court has
observed in the dormant Commerce Clause context, "This principle that our economic unit is the Nation ... has as its corollary that
the states are not separable economic units." n139 For each of the different CCS transport regulatory design elements, these
rationales apply, albeit to somewhat varying extents. Pipeline safety is regulated at the federal level, rather than state-by-state, for
good reason. The PHMSA regulates design, construction, and on-going operations and testing for interstate pipelines in various
industries. n140 A consistent set of standards provides consistent protection for the public and the environment no matter
where the pipeline's location. Effects from an accident may be localized, n141 but the possible effects on global warming from
CO<2> leakage reach far and wide. n142 Indeed, the need for uniform regulation often is invoked for industries where standards of
performance or operation are more efficient if standardized. n143 They clearly apply for safety regulation in a network industry
like CCS transport, where the need for safe operation does not change from one jurisdiction to the next and the risk of different
safety requirements could unnecessarily increase construction costs, or worse, result in incompatible subsystems. For rate and
access regulation, federal regulation may be somewhat less important than it is for safety or siting, but it will still facilitate
consistency and avoid confusion in the transport market, particularly when it comes to access. Nondiscriminatory access
requirements can come in different forms. For example, in natural gas, pipelines must offer nondiscriminatory access but operate
as contract carriers. n144 That means that the pipeline owner contracts in advance with a customer to provide access to a set
amount of its capacity. n145 In oil, pipelines operate under a system of prorationing. In this system, even when the pipeline
capacity is fully utilized, if another customer requires transport service, the pipeline is obliged to accommodate the new customer
and adjust the capacity available to other customers accordingly. n146 In CCS, if a pipeline runs through multiple states, and each
state uses a different nondiscriminatory access model, [*378] confusion and inefficiency would result . In such circumstances,
a uniform set of requirements for access will be far more workable .
Plan fast tracks CCS.
Bohm, 3/4/2010 (Mark – Climate Change Engineering Specialist with Suncor Energy, The Economics of Transportation of CO2 in
Common Carrier Network Pipeline Systems, Carbon Capture Journal, p.
http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=523)
Establishing a widespread CO2 transportation infrastructure requires a strategic approach that takes into account the magnitude
of potential deployment scenarios for CCS with hundreds of megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 transported every year through pipeline
systems. Transporting CO2 by pipeline is not a new technology; in the US almost 4,000 miles of CO2 pipeline for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) are in operation. However, the infrastructure for mass CCS could be on the scale of the current gas transmission
infrastructure for Europe or North America, and will require significant investment to construct and operate. The CO2 Capture
Project (a partnership of seven oil and gas majors to advance CCS) has been looking at the issues surrounding the economics of
transportation of CO2 in common carrier network pipeline systems. The CCP commissioned a study to examine different
approaches to infrastructure development. In the study two approaches have been evaluated. The first would see the development
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
11
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
of a point-to-point system, the second the development of common carrier pipeline networks, including backbone pipeline
systems. This study has helped our understanding of the challenges involved; shedding light on what would be the best scenario
and how in practical terms CO2 infrastructure might evolve. The results of this study were presented in a paper - Assessing issues
of financing a CO2 transportation pipeline infrastructure commissioned by the CCP, and completed by Environmental Resources
Management (ERM). Results of the Study The study confirmed that an integrated backbone pipeline network is likely to be the
most efficient long-term option. It offers the lowest average cost on a per tonne basis for operators over the life of the projects
if sufficient capacity utilization is achieved relatively early in the life of the pipeline. Crucially, integrated pipelines reduce the
barriers to entry and are more likely to lead to the faster development and deployment of carbon capture and storage .
Particularly in situations where government money is being used to finance CO2 transportation it makes sense to pursue an
integrated approach that provides equitable, open access to other large final emitters. This will reduce the barriers to entry and will
encourage faster adoption of CCS. However, point-topoint pipelines offer lower costs for the first movers and do not have the
same capacity utilization risk. It is clear that without government incentives for the development of optimized networks, project
developers are likely to build point-to-point pipelines. Other forms of financial support may be needed which overcome
commercial barriers and ensure optimized development of CO2 pipeline networks So what is the way forward? Guaranteed
capacity utilization is essential for integrated backbone pipeline networks to become economically viable. Public policy is needed
that provides some guarantees as to capacity utilization. Government incentives or loan guarantees are also needed to support a
backbone infrastructure and encourage the development of optimized networks. Government support in the first years, when
capacity is ramping up, will be essential for eventual commercial viability
Piggy backing off of EOR infrastructure resolves liability issues.
Marston and Moore 2008 (Philip – energy regulatory attorney, and Patricia – oil and gas attorney, From EOR to CCS: The Evolving
Legal and Regulatory Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage, Energy Law Journal, p. Lexis-Nexis)
The key conclusion of this review is that existing federal and state legal regimes developed for the EOR business already
adequately address many aspects of the needs of such a CCS infrastructure, especially if the early phase of CCS implementation
builds on the EOR infrastructure . It also highlights the importance of avoiding the creation of unintended regulatory barriers to
incorporating anthropogenic sources of CO<2> into the existing EOR-based infrastructure and transactions. This existing
framework can serve as a foundation upon which policy makers can build in order allow the U.S. to implement quickly a carbon
emissions reduction program without jeopardizing existing successful energy-related projects. In sum, rather than crafting detailed
regulations for an industry that may not come into existence for years to come, our recommendation is that policy makers focus on
incremental use of the existing EOR industry , for example by focusing initially on the injection of CO<2> into the best known
and recognized of potential underground reservoirs - those oil and gas reservoirs that have already been identified, described and
even unitized for enhanced oil recovery by the injection of CO<2>. There will be adequate time to identify more potential
sequestration sites that include the deep saline aquifers or coal seams and to draft law for regulating the additional infrastructure
that will ultimately be required to make use of those sites. Certainly, Federal government involvement may be required to address
the issues of long-term "post-closure" liability for CO<2> injections made for CCS purposes into less-well defined saline aquifer
formations. Similarly, where incentive payments are made at the time of initial injection, some mechanism will be required for
ensuring the integrity of the incentive regime and reflecting the possibilities for injected CO<2> to be recycled and re-used in EOR
activities. But, in the early stages of implementing a carbon emissions reduction regime, the established yet evolving state laws and
regulatory rules reflect a deep understanding of the relevant problems and show how the existing state-based legal framework can
be utilized for CO<2> storage and how - with some tweaking and refining - it can be amended to allow a progressive transition
from incidental injection for EOR to incremental injection for CCS.
No risk of earthquakes or leaks --- best studies and analysis are on our side.
Peridas, 6/26/2012 (George – scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center, CCS and Earthquakes – Anything to
Worry About?, p. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/community/blogs/authors/gperidas/2012/06/26/ccs-and-earthquakes-anythingworry-about-0)
Zoback and Gorelick however appear to have been causing undue alarm in the media . They state (p. 2) that their “principal
concern is not that injection associated with CCS projects is likely to trigger large earthquakes; the problem is that even small to
moderate earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of a CO2 repository”. They acknowledge that only slip on large faults can result in
earthquakes large enough to cause damage to human environments, and that such faults are easily identified and avoided. No
objections on that last point. The potential for slip on existing faults/fractures and seismicity can and should be taken into account
during site selection. This is routinely done as part of a proper geomechanical assessment, and Federal Underground Injection
Control Program regulations for geologic sequestration operations require “[i]nformation on the seismic history including the
presence and depth of seismic sources and a determination that the seismicity would not interfere with containment”.1 Large
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
12
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
seismic events can be avoided in a straightforward way through proper siting and operations. Zoback’s and Gorelick’s arguments
against CCS hinge on the assertion that “[b]ecause laboratory studies show that just a few millimeters of shear displacement are
capable of enhancing fracture and joint permeability, several centimeters of slip would be capable of creating a permeable
hydraulic pathway that could compromise the seal integrity of the CO2 reservoir and potentially reach the near surface.” In plain
English, the authors are saying that even a small earthquake can cause CO2 to escape all the way to the surface, without
investigating the circumstances under which this might happen or their applicability to broad scale CCS. This creates the
impression that it will happen in every case, and is a big logical leap and a gross simplification , for several reasons. First, the
laboratory studies they cite were performed on granite, which is extremely unlikely to be used as a sealing layer, or “caprock” in a
real-life sequestration project. Almost certainly, the caprock will be shale or another low permeability sedimentary rock. The way
that a strong but brittle rock like granite deforms in response to stress is very different from the way that softer and more ductile
shales and other sedimentary rocks deform, and is therefore not a good analogue.2 Second, concluding de facto that joint and
fracture permeability in the caprock(s) would increase in all cases, and that a pathway would be created that would result in the
migration of CO2 to the surface, is wrong. The degree to which joint and fracture permeability is increased, if at all, depends on
many factors, including rock type, stress state, and in-filling materials. This is well documented in a large body of literature on
shear-induced behavior of fractures and faults (if you want a flavor, take a look here3 for example). In fact, situations abound
where many large faults that exhibit large slip act as seals and have no effect on permeability . Such is the case in California and
Iran, where trapped oil and gas exists despite frequent large natural earthquakes. In these areas, in fact, faults themselves have
acted as seals as opposed to pathways for fluid migration, and trapped hydrocarbons over geologic time. Another welldocumented event is the magnitude 6.8 earthquake in Chuetsu, which did not result in any leaks in the nearby Nagaoka CO2
injection project. Despite frequent and large natural earthquakes therefore, CO2 and other fluids have remained trapped in the
subsurface. Additionally, assuming that CO2 will reach the surface implies that the fault in question extends from the injection
zone to the surface. As the authors themselves note, such a large fault would be easy to identify and avoid. Even if a fault allows
CO2 to migrate out of the injection zone, many sites also have multiple sealing layers that impede the motion of fluids to the
surface as well as multiple permeable layers that can act as secondary containers. In fact, studies show that such layered systems
can help prevent fluids from reaching the surface.4 Assuming that a pathway will be created all the way to the surface is a huge
leap of logic. Fluids can and do move along faults and fractures – but this does not mean that the containment “box” has been
breached – fluids can simply move within the “box”, leaving the caprocks intact. In other words, jumping to the conclusion that a
small induced earthquake would result in surface leakage is wrong. That’s not to say that it cannot happen, but the problem with
the authors’ assertion is that they then postulate that not enough sites for sequestration can be found that avoid this scenario to
meaningfully deploy CCS at scale. Although they acknowledge that certain geological settings are ideally suited to secure
sequestration of CO2, such as in the case of the Sleipner project in Norway (which features a highly porous and permeable
reservoir consisting of weak, poorly cemented sandstone that is laterally extensive), they then extrapolate that not enough sites like
Sleipner can be found around the U.S. to house the necessary volumes of CO2 to mitigate climate change. This extrapolation is
based on speculation and comes with no scientific justification . The authors do not study the potential for sites like Sleipner –
i.e. with sufficient porosity and permeability to accommodate injected CO2 without giving rise to unacceptable stresses – to be
found around the country. This can only be done with a rigorous geologic assessment, and there is no evidence to suggest that
such sites cannot be found in sufficient numbers. Not all sequestration sites need to be slam-dunk cases with porosity and
permeability like Sleipner’s in order to safely accommodate CO2. Of course – wouldn’t it be nice if things were ideal everywhere,
but a wide range of geological settings can also accommodate CO2 safely without causing unacceptable seismicity risk. The
regulation of maximum allowable pressure, evaluation of seismic risk, and of the conditions in which transmissive faults would
threaten groundwater is central to Federal regulations under the Underground Injection Control Program. Industry and
regulators should take note, however: even though smaller earthquakes caused by injection may cause no physical damage or
human harm, the public may reject the idea of CO2 injection if these quakes and perceptible. Zoback and Gorelick’s assertions
were met with skepticism by expert scientists. Sally Benson (Stanford professor of Energy Resources Engineering and Director of
Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project, and Lead Coordinating Author of the Underground Geological Storage Chapter in
the IPCC Special Report on CCS) said “of course, you need to pick sites carefully, but finding these kinds of locations does not
seem infeasible”. I think Rob Finley hit the nail on the head when he compared Zoback and Gorelick's analysis to early criticisms
of the Wright brothers and the notion at the time that airplanes would never work at scale. Rob is the principal investigator of the
Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, which is now operating a large CO2 injection project in Decatur, Illinois, and has
spent considerable time and money investigating the geology of the Illinois Basin. Julio Friedmann at Lawrence Livermore
National Lab points out that “[b]y 2020, we're going to have somewhere between 15 and 20 projects around the world. That will be
a good time to assess what we've learned and whether [CCS] can be scaled up more.” The last in the series of international
conferences on the subject attracted 1,500 people. None of them appear to have voiced the seeming impossibilities for CCS
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
13
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
that Zoback and Gorelick describe in their “Perspective”. Should we therefore be alarmed by the prospect of CO2 injection in
terms of earthquakes? My view is “ no ” – we should however be vigilant. Improperly conducted CCS does have the potential to
cause earthquakes, due to the volumes of CO2 injected. But preventing and predicting these is within our capabilities. Avoiding
the large ones is straightforward. It is worth noting that large natural earthquakes have not compromised the storage security in
natural and man-made sites that trap CO2 and hydrocarbons. This does not mean, of course, that we should tolerate CCS projects
that could cause earthquakes. Avoiding smaller quakes that may not cause harm but may alarm the public and local communities
will require will careful site operation and regulation. And that can and must be done. Regulators and prospective injectors, do
your homework.
EOR does not increase emissions.
Biello, 4/9/2009 (David – Associate Editor of Environment and Energy at Scientific American, Enhanced Oil Recovery: How to Make
Money from Carbon Capture and Storage Today, Scientific American, p.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=enhanced-oil-recovery)
In all of these projects, the CO2 basically scours more hydrocarbons out of the oil field. When injected into the oil reservoir, it
mixes with the oil and mobilizes more of it—like turpentine cleaning paint—and then allows it to be pumped to the surface. Using
carbon dioxide to churn out more fossil fuels—and permanently storing some of the CO2 in the process—might sound
counterproductive to limiting climate change because those fuels, when burned, put more CO2 into the atmosphere. But it does
reduce overall emissions by at least 24 percent , calculates petroleum engineer Ronald Evans, Denbury's senior vice president of
reservoir engineering: every recovered barrel of oil eventually puts 0.42 metric ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, but 0.52 to 0.64
metric ton are injected underground recovering it. In fact, Kinder Morgan's Bradley estimates that enhanced oil recovery in the
U.S. could reduce CO2 emissions by 4 percent , if done correctly.
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
14
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
1AC – No War
Contention Three: No War
1- no great power war
a- Nuclear deterrence checks.
G. John Ikenberry 2011 [Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, “A World of Our
Making”, Issue #21, Summer 2011, http://www.democracyjournal.org/21/a-world-of-our-making-1.php?page=all]
There are four reasons to think that some type of updated and reorganized liberal international order will persist. First, the old
and traditional mechanism for overturning international order—great-power war—is no longer likely to occur. Already, the
contemporary world has experienced the longest period of great-power peace in the long history of the state system. This
absence of great-power war is no doubt due to several factors not present in earlier eras, namely nuclear deterrence and the
dominance of liberal democracies. Nuclear weapons—and the deterrence they generate—give great powers some confidence
that they will not be dominated or invaded by other major states. They make war among major states less rational and therefore less likely. This removal of great-power war as a tool of overturning international order tends to reinforce the status quo.
The United States was lucky to have emerged as a global power in the nuclear age, because rival great powers are put at a
disadvantage if they seek to overturn the American-led system. The cost-benefit calculation of rival would-be hegemonic
powers is altered in favor of working for change within the system. But, again, the fact that great-power deterrence also sets
limits on the projection of American power presumably makes the existing international order more tolerable. It removes a type
of behavior in the system—war, invasion, and conquest between great powers—that historically provided the motive for
seeking to overturn order. If the violent over-turning of international order is removed, a bias for continuity is introduced into
the system.
b- shared interests and cooperation checks
Doug Robb 5/2012 [Lieutenant, US Navy, “Now Hear This – Why the Age of Great-Power War Is Over”, US Naval Institute,
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/now-hear-why-age-great-power-war-over, RH]
In addition to geopolitical and diplomacy issues, globalization continues to transform the world. This interdependence has
blurred the lines between economic security and physical security. Increasingly, great-power interests demand cooperation
rather than conflict. To that end, maritime nations such as the United States and China desire open sea lines of communication
and protected trade routes, a common security challenge that could bring these powers together, rather than drive them apart
(witness China’s response to the issue of piracy in its backyard). Facing these security tasks cooperatively is both mutually
advantageous and common sense. Democratic Peace Theory—championed by Thomas Paine and international relations
theorists such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman—presumes that great-power war will likely occur between a
democratic and non-democratic state. However, as information flows freely and people find outlets for and access to new ideas,
authoritarian leaders will find it harder to cultivate popular support for total war—an argument advanced by philosopher
Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace.” Consider, for example, China’s unceasing attempts to control Internet
access. The 2011 Arab Spring demonstrated that organized opposition to unpopular despotic rule has begun to reshape the
political order, a change galvanized largely by social media. Moreover, few would argue that China today is not socially more
liberal, economically more capitalistic, and governmentally more inclusive than during Mao Tse-tung’s regime. As these trends
continue, nations will find large-scale conflict increasingly disagreeable. In terms of the military, ongoing fiscal constraints and
socio-economic problems likely will marginalize defense issues. All the more reason why great powers will find it mutually
beneficial to work together to find solutions to common security problems, such as countering drug smuggling, piracy, climate
change, human trafficking, and terrorism—missions that Admiral Robert F. Willard, former Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command, called “deterrence and reassurance.” As the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a formidable deterrent
against unlimited war. They make conflict irrational; in other words, the concept of mutually assured destruction—however
unpalatable—actually had a stabilizing effect on both national behaviors and nuclear policies for decades. These tools thus
render great-power war infinitely less likely by guaranteeing catastrophic results for both sides. As Bob Dylan warned,
“When you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.” Great-power war is not an end in itself, but rather a way for
nations to achieve their strategic aims. In the current security environment, such a war is equal parts costly, counterproductive,
archaic, and improbable.
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
15
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
2- no nuclear war
a- Any leader trying to launch nuclear weapons would be assassinated.
Walsh 85 (Edward, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force, “Nuclear War Opposing Viewpoints, p. 51)
No president or dictator, madman or otherwise would take it upon himself [sic] to launch an all out nuclear attack without
due consultation with his [sic] staff. It is a natural human phenomenon that there would be certain members of this staff with
an invincible sense of survival who would resort to assassination before allowing themselves and their nation to be subjected
to a retaliatory holocaust.
b- Nuclear war won’t escalate – first use will end in conflict resolution
Quinlan 1997 (Michael – under-secretary of state for defense, Thinking About Nuclear Weapons, p. 31)
There are good reasons for fearing escalation: the confusion of war; its stresses, anger, hatred, and the desire for revenge;
reluctance to accept the humiliation of backing down; perhaps the temptation to get further blows in first. Given all this, the risks
of escalation—which Western leaders were rightly wont to emphasise in the interests of deterrence—are grave. But this is not to
say that they are virtually certain, or even necessarily odds-on; still less that they are so for all the assorted circumstances in which
the situation might arise, in a nuclear world to which past experience is only a limited guide. It is entirely possible, for example,
that the initial use of nuclear weapons, breaching a barrier that has held since 1945,might so appall both sides in a conflict that they
recognised an overwhelming common interest in composing their differences. The human pressures in that direction would be
very great. Even if initial nuclear use did not quickly end the fighting, the supposition of inexorable momentum in a developing
exchange, with each side rushing to overreaction amid confusion and uncertainty, is implausible; it fails to consider what the
decision-makers' situation would really be. Neither side could want escalation; both would be appalled at what was going on;
both would be desperately looking for signs that the other was ready to call a halt; both, given the capacity for evasion or
concealment which modern delivery systems can possess, could have in reserve ample forces invulnerable enough not to impose
`use or lose' pressures. As a result, neither could have any predisposition to suppose, in an ambiguous situation of enormous risk,
that the right course when in doubt was to go on copiously launching weapons. And none of this analysis rests on any presumption
of highly subtle, pre-concerted or culture-specific rationality; the rationality required is plain and basic.
c- no extinction- bad physics
Seitz 2006, [Harvard University Center for International Affairs visiting scholar, "The' Nuclear Winter ' Meltdown; Photoshopping the
Apocalypse," adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/12/preherein_honor.html, accessed 9-25-11, mss]
The recent winter solstice witnessed a 'Carl Sagan Blog-a-thon' . So in celebration of Al Gore's pal, the late author of The Cold
And The Dark there follows The Wall Street Journal's warmly cautionary Cold War reminder of how a campaign for the Nobel
Peace prize on the Nuclear Freeze ticket devolved into a joke played at the expense of climate modeling's street cred on the eve
of the global warming debate :The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter' All that remains of Sagan's Big Chill are curves such as this ,
but history is full of prophets of doom who fail to deliver, not all are without honor in their own land. The 1983 'Nuclear
Winter " papers in Science were so politicized that even the eminently liberal President of The Council for a Liveable World
called "The worst example of the misrepesentation of science to the public in my memory." Among the authors was Stanford
President Donald Kennedy. Today he edits Science , the nation's major arbiter of climate science--and policy. Below, a case
illustrating the mid-range of the ~.7 to ~1.6 degree C maximum cooling the 2006 studies suggest is superimposed in color on
the Blackly Apocalyptic predictions published in Science Vol. 222, 1983 . They're worth comparing, because the range of
soot concentrations in the new models overlaps with cases assumed to have dire climatic consequences in the widely
publicized 1983 scenarios -- "Apocalyptic predictions require, to be taken seriously,higher standards of evidence than do
assertions on other matters where the stakes are not as great." wrote Sagan in Foreign Affairs , Winter 1983 -84. But that
"evidence" was never forthcoming.'Nuclear Winter' never existed outside of a computer except as air-brushed
animation commissioned by the a PR firm - Porter Novelli Inc. Yet Sagan predicted "the extinction of the human species " as
temperatures plummeted 35 degrees C and the world froze in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. Last year, Sagan's cohort
tried to reanimate the ghost in a machine anti-nuclear activists invoked in the depths of the Cold War, by re-running equally
arbitrary scenarios on a modern interactive Global Circulation Model. But the Cold War is history in more ways than one. It is
a credit to post-modern computer climate simulations that they do not reproduce the apocalyptic results of what Sagan
oxymoronically termed "a sophisticated one dimensional model." The subzero 'baseline case' has melted down into a tepid 1.3
degrees of average cooling- grey skies do not a Ragnarok make . What remains is just not the stuff that End of the World
myths are made of. It is hard to exaggerate how seriously " nuclear winter "was once taken by policy analysts who ought to
have known better. Many were taken aback by the sheer force of Sagan's rhetoric Remarkably, Science's news coverage of the
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
16
533561685
Dartmouth 2012
1
new results fails to graphically compare them with the old ones Editor Kennedy and other recent executives of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, once proudly co-authored and helped to publicize. You can't say they didn't try to
reproduce this Cold War icon. Once again, soot from imaginary software materializes in midair by the megaton , flying higher
than Mount Everest . This is not physics, but a crude exercise in ' garbage in, gospel out' parameter forcing designed to
maximize and extend the cooling an aeosol can generate, by sparing it from realistic attrition by rainout in the lower
atmosphere. Despite decades of progress in modeling atmospheric chemistry , there is none in this computer simulation, and
ignoring photochemistry further extends its impact. Fortunately , the history of science is as hard to erase as it is easy to
ignore. Their past mastery of semantic agression cannot spare the authors of "Nuclear Winter Lite " direct comparison of their
new results and their old. Dark smoke clouds in the lower atmosphere don't last long enough to spread across the
globe. Cloud droplets and rainfall remove them. rapidly washing them out of the sky in a matter of days to weeks- not long
enough to sustain a global pall. Real world weather brings down particles much as soot is scrubbed out of power plant smoke
by the water sprays in smoke stack scrubbers Robock acknowledges this- not even a single degree of cooling results when
soot is released at lower elevations in he models . The workaround is to inject the imaginary aerosol at truly Himalayan
elevations - pressure altitudes of 300 millibar and higher , where the computer model's vertical transport function modules
pass it off to their even higher neighbors in the stratosphere , where it does not rain and particles linger.. The new studies like
the old suffer from the disconnect between a desire to paint the sky black and the vicissitudes of natural history. As with many
exercise in worst case models both at invoke rare phenomena as commonplace, claiming it prudent to assume the worst. But
the real world is subject to Murphy's lesser known second law- if everything must go wrong, don't bet on it. In 2006 as in 1983
firestorms and forest fires that send smoke into the stratosphere rise to alien prominence in the modelers re-imagined world ,
but i the real one remains a very different place, where though every month sees forest fires burning areas the size of cities 2,500 hectares or larger , stratospheric smoke injections arise but once in a blue moon. So how come these neo-nuclear winter
models feature so much smoke so far aloft for so long? The answer is simple- the modelers intervened. Turning off vertical
transport algorithms may make Al Gore happy- he has bet on reviving the credibility Sagan's ersatz apocalypse , but there is
no denying that in some of these scenarios human desire, not physical forces accounts for the vertical hoisting of millions of
tons of mass ten vertical kilometers into the sky.to the level at which the models take over , with results at once predictable -and arbitrary. This is not physics, it is computer gamesmanship carried over to a new generation of X-Box.
Last printed 3/6/2016 5:54:00 PM
17