SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****SBSP AFFIRMATIVE 1/2*****
*****1AC***** .................................................................................................................................... 3
1AC – Inherency ............................................................................................................................................................4
1AC – Plan Text.............................................................................................................................................................. 5
1AC – Economy Advantage 1/6 .....................................................................................................................................6
1AC – Oil Advantage 1/3 ............................................................................................................................................. 13
1AC – Warming Advantage 1/5 ................................................................................................................................... 18
*****ECONOMY ADVANTAGE***** ................................................................................................ 25
SBSP Solves – Sustainable ......................................................................................................................................... 26
SBSP Solves – Economical .......................................................................................................................................... 27
SBSP Solves – Jobs ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
SBSP Solves – Technology ......................................................................................................................................... 29
SBSP Solves – Resource Scarcity ............................................................................................................................... 30
SBSP Solves – Technology .......................................................................................................................................... 31
SBSP Solves – Poverty ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Alt Energy Key to Economy ........................................................................................................................................33
High Gas Prices Hurt Economy ................................................................................................................................. 34
A2: SBSP Hurts the Economy .....................................................................................................................................35
A2: SBSP Infrastructure Change Bad ........................................................................................................................ 36
Trade Deficit Module ................................................................................................................................................... 37
Energy Resource Wars Bad 1/2 ................................................................................................................................. 38
*****OIL ADVANTAGE***** ............................................................................................................ 41
Peak Oil Coming 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................... 42
SBSP Solves – Oil Wars .............................................................................................................................................. 44
SBSP Solves – Oil Dependence 1/3 ............................................................................................................................45
Oil Dependence Bad – Global Conflict ...................................................................................................................... 48
Oil Dependence Bad – Middle East 1/3 .................................................................................................................... 49
Oil Dependence Bad – China ......................................................................................................................................52
Oil Dependence Bad – Terrorism ...............................................................................................................................53
Oil Dependence Bad – Adventurism 1/2 ....................................................................................................................54
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Saudi Arabia ..................................................................................................................56
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Russia Economy 1/3 ...................................................................................................... 57
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Indonesia Economy ....................................................................................................... 61
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Mexican Economy ........................................................................................................ 62
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Iraq Economy 1/2 ......................................................................................................... 64
Peak Oil Bad – Global Conflict 1/3 ............................................................................................................................ 66
Peak Oil Bad – Economy ............................................................................................................................................ 69
*****WARMING ADVANTAGE***** ................................................................................................ 70
Warming Real 1/3 ........................................................................................................................................................ 71
SBSP Solves – Energy Access...................................................................................................................................... 74
SBSP Solves – Energy Security ................................................................................................................................... 75
SBSP Solves – Climate Change 1/2 ............................................................................................................................. 76
SBSP Solves – Efficient ...............................................................................................................................................78
Warming Bad – Global Conflict 1/2 ........................................................................................................................... 79
Warming Bad – Famine ............................................................................................................................................. 82
Warming Bad – Extinction 1/2 .................................................................................................................................. 83
A2: Warming Inevitable ............................................................................................................................................. 85
A2: Long Timeframe 1/3 ............................................................................................................................................ 86
*****SOLVENCY***** ..................................................................................................................... 90
Technology Exists/Feasible 1/4 .................................................................................................................................. 91
Solves Environment/Economy ...................................................................................................................................95
A2: Satellites Vulnerable ............................................................................................................................................ 96
US Key 1/2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 97
Congress Key ............................................................................................................................................................. 100
1
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****SBSP AFFIRMATIVE 2/2*****
*****A2***** .................................................................................................................................. 101
A2: Proliferation Disadvantage 1/3 ..........................................................................................................................102
A2: Spending Disadvantage 1/2 ................................................................................................................................ 105
A2: Obama Good Disadvantage 1/2.......................................................................................................................... 107
2AC India Counterplan 1/4 ....................................................................................................................................... 110
2AC Japan Counterplan 1/10 .................................................................................................................................... 114
2AC Alternative Energy Counterplan 1/4................................................................................................................. 125
*****ADD-ONS***** ...................................................................................................................... 129
Disease Add-on .......................................................................................................................................................... 130
China Add-on ............................................................................................................................................................. 131
China Add-on Extensions.......................................................................................................................................... 132
Colonization Add-on.................................................................................................................................................. 133
US-India Relations Add-on ....................................................................................................................................... 135
Asteroids Add-on ....................................................................................................................................................... 136
Proliferation Add-on 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................... 137
Natural Disasters Add-on.......................................................................................................................................... 139
Clean Tech Leadership Add-on 1/2 ..........................................................................................................................140
*****NEGATIVE***** .................................................................................................................... 142
Space Elevators Turn ................................................................................................................................................. 143
China Turn ................................................................................................................................................................. 144
Shale Gas Turn 1/3 .................................................................................................................................................... 145
A2: US Key ................................................................................................................................................................. 149
1NC Oil Advantage ..................................................................................................................................................... 150
1NC Warming Advantage 1/3 .................................................................................................................................... 151
1NC Solvency 1/3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 154
Japan Counterplan .................................................................................................................................................... 159
Spending Link ............................................................................................................................................................160
2
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****1AC*****
3
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Inherency
SBSP is not happening in the status quo- it’s perceived as too costly. NASA has
already shot the idea down once due to budgetary issues.
Shiga, David, staff writer for NewScientist, Short, Sharp Science, “will Obama pursue Space Based
Solar
Power?”,
22
December
2008,
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/will-obama-pursue-spacebased.html
Could power beamed to Earth from space solve our energy problems? Advocates of space-based solar power may
find a receptive ear in the Obama administration. The space-based solar power (SBSP) concept involves using
geosynchronous satellites to collect solar energy and beam it down to Earth, most likely in the form of microwaves (this
graphic shows how the idea might work). The key advantage over Earth-based solar power is that such satellites
would enjoy nearly continuous sunshine. A major challenge for Earth-based solar power is that it is so inconstant
- it isn't available at night or when skies are cloudy. You could solve this problem by storing energy for later use,
but it's difficult to do this in a cost-effective way, and something people are still researching. The
major disadvantage for SBSP is that it's so costly to launch stuff into space. But advocates of the
idea point to new launch vehicles being developed, like SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, which could bring down the cost of access to
space, and make SBSP more attractive. Advocates for SBSP are hoping to secure some support for developing the
technology from the Obama administration, given the incoming president's pledge to make developing alternative
energy sources a top priority. They have posted a white paper on the topic on the transition website, change.gov. One
thing that surely helps their cause is that one of Obama's transition team members for NASA is George
Whitesides, who has been a vocal advocate for SBSP. Whitesides is currently on leave from his post as executive
director of the National Space Society, where he helped push for SBSP research. On the downside, earlier this
month NASA cancelled early work on a proposed SBSP demonstration project, which
apparently could have involved putting a demonstration device on the International Space
Station. But it sounds like the decision owes more to a tight budget at NASA than anything else,
and I see no reason why the project couldn't be revived if the next administration takes an interest in SBSP. So I
wouldn't count out SBSP just yet. On the other hand, I'm sure SBSP will be competing with lots of other
alternative-energy ideas seeking research dollars. And even though Whitesides has a record of strong advocacy for
SBSP, this doesn't guarantee that the Obama administration will go for it. There are more highly placed people
who will undoubtedly get a bigger say in this, like energy secretary nominee Steven Chu, who hasn't said much publicly
about SBSP. I think it's fair to say that this could be a crucial moment for SBSP, however, so it's definitely
something to watch over the next few months.
4
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Plan Text
The United States federal government should develop and demonstrate spacebased solar power satellites.
5
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Economy Advantage 1/6
Today’s energy unsustainable for future energy needs
Atkinson 09 (Nancy, Universe Today, “New Company Looks to Produce Space Based Solar Power
Within a Decade” http://www.universetoday.com/25754/new-company-looks-to-produce-spacebased-solar-power-within-a-decade/ DOA: 7/19/11)
According to a white paper written by aerospace engineer James Michael Snead, “The End of Easy Energy and
What Are We Going To Do About It,” in order to meet the world’s projected increase in energy needs
by 2100 which likely will be at least three times what is being produced today, today’s sustainable energy
production must expand by a factor of over 25. Under that scenario, even if the US were to build 70
new nuclear plants, add the equivalent of 15 more Hoover Dams, expand the geothermal
capacity by 50 times what it is today, install over a million large land or sea wind turbines
covering 150,000 square miles, build 60,000 square miles of commercial solar voltaic farms,
and on top of that convert 1.3 billion dry tons of food mass to bio fuels, still only 30% of the
power needs would be filled by 2100, or perhaps even earlier.
SBSP would transform the US economy – generating enough resources for
sustainable growth
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
A first step is to define and illustrate the potential significance of space-based solar power
for the future evolution of civilization . Using historical precedence is one way to make the
argument for solar power satellites in terms of types of government support and private industry initiatives and
investment needed. For example, the indirect benefits of SBSP can be presented in the
context of future population growth, increasing requirements for electrical
power, declining natural resources and heightened environmental and other
risks. Advancements in human civilization can be marked by the appearance of disruptive
technologies, those unanticipated innovations that rapidly surpassed current state-of-the-art
and dramatically improved quality of life. Development of the printing press illustrated
this principle as the rapid reproduction of books enabled public literacy and the invention of
steam engines for trains and ships enabled faster travel and quicker distribution of
information. Advancements associated with transporting commodities launched revolutions that forever
changed society. When the United States of America was in its infancy, and its populations were clustered
predominantly on its eastern Atlantic coast , the development of a Transcontinental Railroad enabled
the import and export of goods to and from its western Pacific Coast. Instead of waiting for
ships to sail around the tip of South America, goods were loaded onto the railroads and
shipped across the continent. What is important to remember about this example is that the
construction of the Transcontinental Railroad was backed by the government, but operated as
a commercial enterprise initiated by the private sector.[1] With the comparatively quicker
exchange of commodities between the east and west coasts, entrepreneurs found themselves
with increased access to the materials needed to achieve their vision. The completion of the
Transcontinental Railroad sped along the American industrial ascendancy. The rail innovation
encouraged the manufacturing of products for distant markets, prompting mass production.
The development of new water, coal and oil powered machines helped to fabricate the items
that made life seem more civilized. From the mid-1800's to the turn of the century, the massproduction of goods - ranging from hairpins to horseless carriages - and the introduction of
6
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
new technologies affecting the lifestyle of average citizens marked a time when there was a
significant leap in socioeconomic well being.
7
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Economy Advantage 2/6
SBSP will create millions of jobs, solve energy wars, and provide the spark for an
explosion of tech spinoffs
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
Now, multiple nations are exploring the prospects for launching a new breed of satellites
designed to harvest solar power in space, transmitting it from geosynchronous orbit to terrestrial receivers. If these plans turn
out, solar power satellites will radically change the ways we harness and
distribute energy. Solar power from space is far more efficient than terrestrial capture due
to the filtering effects of our atmosphere and the day and night cycles experienced everywhere
on earth. Solar power is thought to be our most likely candidate for a clean-base,
renewable and dependable source for energy. According to Dr. Feng Hsu, Technical Lead and Manager over Integrated Risk
Management at NASA, Goddard, roughly 350,000,000 terawatt hours of energy falls towards earth per year.[5]
SMSP has obvious selling points, but this development presents advantages of a higher order. That is, the
implementation of solar power satellites has the prospect of enabling development of other
technologies, which can send waves of creative innovation throughout global
society. Is it hard to imagine its implications for international peace keeping? Wars are
fought over access to energy. Sun's energy is abundant and free, if we can learn how
to tap it. Is it hard to imagine that capturing and delivering sun's energy to global
users is a global business, and that thousands of careers and millions of jobs will
be created in the process of bringing it to reality?
8
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Economy Advantage 3/6
Economic decline causes global war
Royal 10 – Director of CTR Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S.
Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of
Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215
economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.
Less intuitive is how periods of
Political science literature
has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered
at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle
rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such
as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about
power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a
theory, finding that
declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major,
medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level,
'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to
gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined
to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade
expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link
between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess
(2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during
periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the
extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, &
Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that
Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.
"Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline,
sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a
'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and
use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more
susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the
frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at
systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
9
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Economy Advantage 4/6
SPS independence eliminates the trade deficit
Broadus 11 – Former Professor of Law @ GMU Joseph Broadus, 2011, “Energy Independence
Must be a National Priority,” http://www.redcounty.com/content/energy-independence-must-benational-priority
Staggering oil price hikes have once again led Americans to question our national energy policy with particular emphasis on reliance on
A cornerstone of any national energy policy must be energy
independence. U.S. energy self-suffciency is not just an option but a necessity which needs
top priority. A recent Congressional Research Service study revealed that the United States has twice the energy resources of any other
imports. For me, one thing is certain.
nation, and leads the world in energy potential. We have the means to meet our needs. Yet, the United States imports about a quarter of its
energy requirement at staggering costs. The
cost of imported energy is about $500 billion dollars. That's half
a trillion dollars bleeding out of the country every year. That's perhaps million of lost American
jobs, and substantial loss of tax revenue to cash starved states and the federal government. If one
considers the question of velocity, the problem looms even larger. Velocity is the idea that a dollar spent results in
subsequent rounds of spending. Bringing a new payroll dollar into a community or country
results in much higher levels of expenditures as that initial dollar moves through the economy in subsequent
transactions. The real lost to our economy than is not just the dollars going out, but the transactions
that are never made. Energy imports are a breeder reactor for economic woes. For example energy
imports are a critical factor in the trade deficit. Understand, that if energy imports were
removed from the trade accounts the U.S. would be at or near balanced trade .
Large trade deficit with China has led Congress to favor protectionism bills
NYT 10 (“Return of the Killer Trade Deficit” August
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16mon1.html)
16,
2010.
New
York
Times.
The United States is tentatively emerging from recession but is
still at risk of another dip. Yet trade statistics released last week indicate that American consumers are sucking in large quantities of imports as spending recovers,
The world economy is falling back on very dangerous habits.
while weak demand in the rest of the world is crimping American exports. Meanwhile, China is mopping up demand everywhere you look with its artificially cheap supply of goods. Germany,
The bulging American
trade deficit means that rising consumer demand is flowing to suppliers overseas rather than
fueling growth at home. The American economy is too weak to carry this load. The recent trade data led
the world’s other exporting power, is cutting its budget and relying on foreign demand to drive its economic rebound. This isn’t sustainable.
economists to slash growth estimates for this year. For the global recovery to continue, domestic demand must revive around the world. Other leading countries must do more to stimulate
their own demand. And China cannot keep hogging the global export market. The numbers are staggering. The United States trade deficit ballooned to $49.9 billion in June, the biggest since
October 2008. In July, one month later, China recorded a $28.7 billion trade surplus, the biggest since January 2009. In the first five months of the year, Germany’s trade surplus, driven in
large part by demand for machine tools in recovering Asian economies, rose 30 percent compared with 2009, to about $75 billion. Unsurprisingly, data from both sides of the oceans mesh:
the United States’ bilateral deficit with China rose 17 percent in June, to $26.2 billion — the biggest in 40 months. It rose 5 percent with Germany, to $3 billion. The pattern underscores big
As Germany and other rich countries in Europe start slashing
their budgets and the world economy slows, the United States — beleaguered as it is — has been left as a
lone source of demand growth. Meanwhile, Beijing’s reluctance to end an economic strategy based on cheap exports is cementing its position as the world’s
demand hog. There are bad ways to address this problem. Punish China rumblings are back on Capitol Hill, but any move to
slap punitive tariffs on Chinese goods could lead to destructive tit-for-tat retaliation. The drive
by Congressional Republicans to end the Obama administration’s sensible (and still too weak)
stimulus policies might help cut the trade deficit — but only by tipping the economy back into
recession. There is a proper approach to this rising threat. Chinese leaders have to finally rebalance their economy and rely more on internal demand and less on exports. The central
bank announced in June that it would allow China’s currency to start inching up against the dollar — but it has risen less than half a percent. China must deliver. Rich
economies with big trade surpluses and the ability to sustain budget deficits — most notably Germany — need
to spend more, not less, at home and abroad. After the risk of recession has receded, the United
States must work to correct its longstanding trade deficit with the world by slowing national
spending and increasing savings. But there will be no recovery — here or around the world —
unless all of the major economic players do more to bolster demand right now.
problems with the mix of economic policies around the world.
10
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Economy Advantage 5/6
These trade conflicts culminate in global nuclear war and nuclear terrorism
Panzner Instructor New York Institute of Finance ‘8 (Michael J.-, Financial Armageddon:
Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes, P. 136-138)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth
protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series
of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and
if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse.
Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and
immigration will almost certainly intensify.
devastating global disaster. But
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even
call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries
exceedingly difficult.
As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless
policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire
certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be
stymied by limits on investment by non-citizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global
payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending.
In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures
across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to
the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion
and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever
more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and
other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired
from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as
food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world
where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply . Disputes over the misuse, overuse,
and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace.
Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with
minimal provocation.
In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from
cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic
problems by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures.
Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups
will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole
new level.
Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue
nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China
will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark
on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from
around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago,
have even speculated that an “intense
at some point.
confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable”
Growing cultural and religious differences will be
transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering
resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and
triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with
conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret
stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological.
11
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Economy Advantage 6/6
Nuclear terrorism causes global nuclear escalation – national retaliation goes
global
Morgan, Professor of Foreign Studies at Hankuk University, ‘9 (Dennis Ray, December, “World on
fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human
race” Futures, Vol 41 Issue 10, p 683-693, ScienceDirect)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question "Is Nuclear War Inevitable??" [10].4 In
Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between
powerful countries. No doubt, they've figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into
nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would
have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or
Israel. Because of the Russian "dead hand" system, "where regional nuclear commanders
would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed," it is likely that any attack would be
blamed on the United States" [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for
years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would
retaliate with the suicidal "Samson option" against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East .
Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even "antiSemitic" European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would
then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not
tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern
Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the
Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to
future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll
upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.
12
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Oil Advantage 1/3
There are no suitable alternative to fossil fuels in the status quo, by 2020 Peak oil
and Peak Natural gas will swiftly end energy distribution – impacts occur too fast
for alternative to be researched.
Fan Et al. 6/2 (William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok; 6/2/2011; Industry and
Technology
Assessment,
SPACE
BASED
SOLAR
POWER;
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf)A
M
Recent studies regarding “peak oil,” the time when the world oil supply reaches its highest
volume before it declines, suggest a time frame between now and 2016, and multiple scenarios
predict a 10% reduction in production by 2030 [8]. Oil makes up 29% of the current energy supply [9].
While these numbers suggest that oil will decrease at 0.005% per year, its actual decrease will
not be gradual, but instead be a sudden precipitous drop over the course of only a few years
[8], not giving the market enough time to develop a suitable alternative without having a
destructive effect on the global economy. Coal, also makes up 29% of the current energy
supply. “Peak coal” is estimated by academic sources to be reached in the next few years, and
have been reduced to 50% of peak values by 2047 [10], though significant technological improvement in
mining and refining low quality coal may reduce some of the effects . Producing 25% of the world’s sources
of energy, natural gas is the only resource that is not expected to peak until 2020[11]. However,
natural gas is not commonly shipped over ocean lanes, leading to a natural gas crisis currently
in North America, as domestic (US and Canadian) production is not enough to meet demand, even with the
use of environmentally destructive “shale gas” and other unconventional natural gas resources . North
American peak natural gas could occur as early as 2013 [12]. Including the widespread use of
environmentally destructive practices, North American gas production will only increase by 5%
by 2025 [13]. Combining this data with data for total consumption gives us the following table[14]. The
projections were all constructed using the standard Hubbert method, after which the overall changes were
linearized and then extrapolated to 2025, as shown in the table below . Nuclear and renewables,
discounting traditional biomass, currently accounts for 8.8% of the world energy supply. If we
assume a low, basic growth in energy demand, by year 2025 there will need to be a 32%
increase in energy supply. If we project a loss of 6.7% by 2025 from fossil fuels, there needs to
be an amount of 38.7% of the current energy supply that comes from nuclear and renewables .
This amounts to an increase of 12.8% per year from nuclear and renewables alone. While on the other hand, a 4%
annual increase in energy demand would lead to a necessary 18.5% increase in the renewable and nuclear. Nuclear
energy is approximately half the size of the renewable energy sources. Considering the difficulties there are
in disposing of nuclear waste, and the recent problems with the nuclear facilities in Japan
casting doubt on the safety of nuclear energy, it is unlikely that nuclear energy will be able to
meet this increased demand. Furthermore, though currently renewable energy is increasing at a rapid rate,
of around 20% over the renewables (mainly hydroelectric power) as a whole [14]. This indicates that there needs
to be growth of a new source of energy in order to match such demand. Furthermore, as supply is not linear, but is
instead expected to have sharp changes due to the Hubbert curve, a prepositioned alternative source of energy
may have much to gain.
13
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Oil Advantage 2/3
SBSP prevents ensures energy security and fossil fuel dependence
NSS
07
(National
Space
Society
Report
to
the
National
Security
Space
Office)(http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release01.pdf)
SBSP development would have a transformational, even revolutionary, effect on
space access for the nation(s) that develop(s) it. SBSP cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the
space and ubiquitous in‐space operations. The sheer volume and number of flights into space, and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game‐changing. By lowering the cost to
orbit so substantially, and by providing safe and routine access, entirely new industries and possibilities open up. SBSP and low‐cost, reliable space access are co‐dependent, and advances in
The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an
inexhaustible strategic reservoir of renewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy
security and assurance.The reservoir of Space Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with
room for growth far past the foreseeable needs of the entire human civilization for the next century and
beyond. In the vicinity of Earth, each and every hour there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energy continuously pouring through every square kilometer of space. If one were to stretch
that around the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1 km‐wide ring receives over 210 terawatt‐years of power annually. The amount of energy coursing
through that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in ALL
known recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy
output of the fusion‐powered Sun is billions of times beyond that, and it will last for billions of years—orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources combined. Space‐
Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the solar system. This is
either will catalyze development in the other. FINDING:
not to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing this resource or the tremendous time and effort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important
to realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energy—clean, renewable energy—available to the human civilization if it can develop the means to effectively capture it. FINDING: The
SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankind’s reliance on
fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that will
SBSP Study Group found that in the long run,
almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort to meet their energy needs with carbon neutral sources. To the extent
SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the rate at which humanity
consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to transport, and is highly
efficient in conversion to both mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy
could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground transportation, a movement toward plug‐in hybrids
mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources,
would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be powered by SBSP electricity. For those applications that favor or rely upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels, America’s
national labs are pursuing several promising avenues of research to manufacture carbon‐neutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct solar thermal energy or radiated/electrical SBSP. The
lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently split energy‐neutral feedstocks or upgrade lower‐ grade fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid hydrocarbons. Put
SBSP could be utilized to split hydrogen from water and the carbon monoxide (syngas) from carbon dioxide which can then be combined to
manufacture any desired hydrocarbon fuel, including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. This
plainly,
technology is still in its infancy, and significant investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of technical readiness and meet economic and efficiency goals. This
technology enables a carbon‐neutral (closed carbon‐cycle) hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable sources of power, which can utilize the existing global fuel infrastructure without
modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil companies. The ability to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a carbon neutral
cycle, is a “total game changer” that deserves significant attention.- 13 - Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be
use of nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule
may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States
might consider the security challenges of wide proliferation of enrichment‐based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a
comparable niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopefu l path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel
dependence. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long‐term route to alleviate the security
challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional
fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a
first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on‐line fast
enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global
economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could
increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power
carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased
of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it
conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative in the third dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that to the extent the United States decides it wishes to limit its carbon emissions,
SBSP offers a potential path for
long‐term carbon mitigation. This study does not take a position on anthropogenic climate change, which at this time still provoked significant debate among
participants, but there is undeniable interest in options that limit carbon emission. Studies by Asakura et al in 2000 suggest that SBSP lifetime carbon
emissions (chiefly in construction) are even more attractive than nuclear power, and that for the same amount of
14
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
carbon emission, one could install 60 times the generating capacity, or alternately, one could replace existing generating
capacity with 1/60th the lifetime carbon emission of a coal ‐fired plant without CO2 sequestration.
15
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Oil Advantage 3/3
Oil spike causes nuclear great power war
McKillop, Founder of International Association of Energy Economists, ‘4 (October 10, “Energy
Transition
And
Final
Energy
Crisis”
Oil
and
Gas
Journal,
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=23067)
Geopolitical risk: In the mid-term and long-term there is recognized need to cut oil and gas burning to limit climate change. More
importantly in the short-term there is an increasingly urgent need to limit and head off oil and
gas price explosions able to trigger ‘great power rivalry’ , that is armed conflict for remaining
reserves of oil and natural gas between the world’s economic superpowers, motivated by ‘national
economic survival.’
World regions most exposed to this risk are evidently the Middle East and Central Asia, and to a lesser
extent Africa. We can note that threats of using military invasion, or actual invasion -- of Iraq in 2003 -- did not in any way ‘facilitate and
improve’ oil supplies to the large consumer countries and groups of countries.
In fact the exact opposite: the US-UK invasion of Iraq has effectively sabotaged or neutralized Iraq’s oil export
capacity for many years.
Any international plan and program for energy transition, perhaps modeled on or incorporating the Kyoto Treaty, must
ensure that oil producers are not exposed to military invasion, nor catastrophic falls in the oil price and their
export revenues, when or if they choose to husband or conserve their non-renewable resources, and cap their oil or gas production before
reducing it, instead of waiting for resource depletion and exhaustion to do the same job. No “obligation to supply” a depleting, non-renewable
resource exists.
The risk of great power rivalry for remaining oil and gas reserves is high. Even the most unconditional
believers in “unlimited oil and gas reserves” accept that covering depletion loss, and adding net production capacity takes time and is
increasingly costly to develop.
The risk, or threat of large nations or groups of nations ‘jumping the queue’ and taking oil and
gas production capacity wherever it already exists -- leading inevitably to armed resistance, as in
Iraq -- is real.
Certainly since 1973, political deciders in the US have considered that any embargo or ‘unreasonable’
reduction in supplies of oil, by exporters, is hostile to US vital interests -- opening the way to
retortion or revenge by military invasion, to restore the ‘free flow of reasonable priced oil’ ... as it was called by George
Bush-1 at the time of the ‘liberation’ of Kuwait in 1991. Any other large oil-importer nation, or group of oil-importer
nations with nuclear weapons capability can adopt the same ‘oil supply security’ doctrine.
Participation in faster development and construction of non-oil, non-gas renewable energy alternatives to fossil
fuels, and especially substitutes for oil, will therefore reduce invasion risks for oil and gas exporter countries. The
same effort will also reduce ‘threats to economic security’ of the large oil importer nations and groups of nations.
current and future oil and gas ‘supply gaps’, causing undersupply to markets, will
become structural. This will raise the risks from failed attempts at obtaining oil reserves or production capacity through military
As noted above,
invasion, as in Iraq.
These wars go global
Schubert 10 – PhD in electrical engineering Peter J. Schubert, PhD in electrical and computer
engineering from Purdue University, holds 30 US patents, 8 foreign patents, and has published
over 60 technical papers and book chapters, 12-2010, “Costs, Organization, and Roadmap for
SSP,”
Online
Journal
of
Space
Communication,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html
For a miracle to occur the
US must perceive a real and on-going threat. Considering the most problematic areas listed
above gives guidance on what sort of threats may arise. Environmental events may be roughly divided into regional
disasters lasting days, weeks, or years (tsunamis, hurricanes, droughts); or decimating global weather shifts lasting
generations (megavolcanic eruptions, ice age, runaway thermal superstorms ). Either type threatens SSP.
Regional disasters draw down funding coffers to provide immediate relief and possibly rebuilding; while decimations reduce commerce such
that long-term, high-cost projects are no longer affordable. The same logic holds true for nuclear events, whether localized (Hiroshima,
Nagasaki, Chernobyl), or widespread and generational (global thermonuclear war). Energy
shortages will drive prices until
16
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
wars erupt . These may be regional, lasting years; or they may escalate
into a third Great War over scarce energy sources. None of these options favor SSP.
economic necessity overcomes free market forces, and
17
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Warming Advantage 1/5
Science overwhelmingly proves that warming is real, anthropogenic, and a result
of fossil fuel use
IPCC 2007
[“Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”]
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as
a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many
thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use
change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3} • Carbon dioxide is the most important
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from
a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the
natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was
larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960– 2005 average: 1.4 ppm
per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3} • The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period
results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to
6.8]5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000– 2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon
dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.
{7.3} • The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and was 1774 ppb in 2005. The
atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores. Growth rates have declined since the
early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely6 that the observed increase in methane
concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined. {2.3, 7.4} • The
global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth rate has been approximately constant since 1980. More
than a third of all nitrous oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 7.4} The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate
has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence7 that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6
to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9} • The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its
rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased
by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4} • Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black
carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of –0.5 [–0.9 to –0.1] W m–2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of –0.7 [–1.8 to –0.3] W m–
2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modelling, but remain
the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5} • Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from
several other sources. Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W
m–2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons8 is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m–2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land cover changes and deposition of black carbon
aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of –0.2 [–0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to +0.2] W m–2. Additional terms smaller than ±0.1 W m–2 are shown in Figure SPM.2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2} •
Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases
in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising
global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5} • Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the
12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of
0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years
(0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C
]. Urban
heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over
the oceans) on these values. {3.2} • New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature
show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their
respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR. {3.2, 3.4} • The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and
the
average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has
been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes
seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (see Table SPM.1). {5.2, 5.5} • Mountain glaciers and snow cover have
declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have
contributed to sea level rise (ice caps do not include contributions from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets). (See Table SPM.1.) {4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.5} • New data
since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely
contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM.1). Flow speed has increased for some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from
ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold. {3.4} • Observations since 1961 show that
the interior of the ice sheets. The corresponding increased ice sheet mass loss has often followed thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves or loss of fl oating glacier tongues. Such dynamical
ice loss is sufficient to explain most of the Antarctic net mass loss and approximately half of the Greenland net mass loss. The remainder of the ice loss from Greenland has occurred because
losses due to melting have exceeded accumulation due to snowfall. {4.6, 4.8, 5.5}
• Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8
] mm per year over 1961 to 2003.
[1.3 to 2.3
The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to
2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer term trend is unclear. There is high confi dence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century.
The total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m. {5.5} • For 1993 to 2003, the sum of the climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total sea level rise
that is directly observed (see Table SPM.1). These estimates are based on improved satellite and in situ data now available. For the period 1961 to 2003, the sum of climate contributions is
estimated to be smaller than the observed sea level rise. The TAR reported a similar discrepancy for 1910 to 1990. {5.5} At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term
changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of
18
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.10 {3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.2} • Average arctic temperatures increased at almost
twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945. {3.2} 10 Tropical cyclones
include hurricanes and typhoons. 11 The assessed regions are those considered in the regional projections chapter of the TAR and in Chapter 11 of this report. • Satellite data since 1978 show
that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade.
19
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Warming Advantage 2/5
These values are consistent with those reported in the TAR. {4.4} • Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s in the Arctic (by up to 3°C). The
maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, with a decrease in spring of up to 15%. {4.7} • Long-term trends from
1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation amount over many large regions.11 Significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America,
northern Europe and northern and central Asia. Drying has been observed in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Precipitation is highly variable
spatially and temporally, and data are limited in some regions. Long-term trends have not been observed for the other large regions assessed.11 {3.3, 3.9} • Changes in precipitation and
evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid- and highlatitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. {5.2} Mid-latitude westerly winds have
More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider
areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with
higher temperatures and decreased precipitation has contributed to changes in drought. Changes in
strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. {3.5} •
sea surface temperatures, wind patterns and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. {3.3} • The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over
most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9} • Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50
There is
observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic
since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense
years. Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent (see Table SPM.2). {3.8}
tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite
observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. {3.8} A decrease in
diurnal temperature range (DTR) was reported in the TAR, but the data available then extended only from 1950 to 1993. Updated observations reveal that DTR has not changed from 1979 to
2004 as both day- and night-time temperature have risen at about the same rate. The trends are highly variable from one region to another. {3.2} • Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show
interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the
region. {3.2, 4.4} • There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena such as
tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms. {3.8, 5.3} A Palaeoclimatic Perspective Palaeoclimatic studies use changes in climatically sensitive indicators to infer past changes in global climate
on time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. Such proxy data (e.g., tree ring width) may be influenced by both local temperature and other factors such as precipitation, and are
often representative of particular seasons rather than full years. Studies since the TAR draw increased confi dence from additional data showing coherent behaviour across multiple indicators
Palaeoclimatic
information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at
least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than
present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to
4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6} • Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any
in different parts of the world. However, uncertainties generally increase with time into the past due to increasingly limited spatial coverage.
other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than
suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range
given in the TAR. {6.6} • Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of
polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. The Greenland Ice Sheet and
} Most of the
observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due
to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an advance since the TAR’s
conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human
influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental
average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5} • It is likely
other arctic ice fi elds likely contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level rise. There may also have been a contribution from Antarctica. {6.4
that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,
together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global
climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely
that it is not due to known natural causes alone. {4.8, 5.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7} • Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes of surface and
otherwise have taken place. {2.9, 7.5, 9.4} •
atmospheric temperatures in the upper several hundred metres of the ocean, and in contributions to sea level rise. Attribution studies have established anthropogenic contributions to all of
these changes. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined influences of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone
depletion. {3.2, 3.4, 9.4, 9.5} • It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4). The
observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. The
ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the
TAR. {3.2, 9.4} • Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger,
making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas
increases to observed small-scale temperature changes. {8.3, 9.4} • Anthropogenic forcing is likely to have contributed to changes in wind patterns,13 affecting extratropical storm tracks and
temperature patterns in both hemispheres. However, the observed changes in the Northern Hemisphere circulation are larger than simulated in response to 20th-century forcing change.
{3.5, 3.6, 9.5, 10.3} • Temperatures of the most extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days are likely to have increased due to anthropogenic forcing. It is more likely than not that
anthropogenic forcing has increased the risk of heat waves (see Table SPM.2). {9.4} Analysis of climate models together with constraints from observations enables an assessed likely range to
be given for climate sensitivity for the fi rst time and provides increased confidence in the understanding of the climate system response to radiative forcing. {6.6, 8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2} • The
equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a
doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher
than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity
and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2} • It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven
centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability
over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20thcentury warming
evident in these records. {2.7, 2.8, 6.6, 9.3} A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a
broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate
change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include SRES14 illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000 to
2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100. For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade
is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about
• Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global
average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005.
0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}
20
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening
confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}
21
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Warming Advantage 3/5
Space Based Solar Power allows access to unprecedented amounts of energy
NSS
07
(National
Space
Society
Report
to
the
National
Security
Space
Office)(http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm)
Consistent with the US National Security Strategy, energy and environmental security are not just
problems for America, they are critical challenges for the entire world. Expanding human
populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in
the 21st Century, and many see energy scarcity as the foremost threat to national security.
Conflict prevention is of particular interest to security-providing institutions such as the U.S. Department of
Defense which has elevated energy and environmental security as priority issues with a mandate to proactively
find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic security is preserved. The magnitude of the
looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to
include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40
years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and
intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically
beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection
to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-
intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of
geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the
amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth
today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security,
economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space
faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP
capability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying
this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years
continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). The first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of
the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and
technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative to other lower-cost energy
alternatives on the market. In 1995-1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re-examine the concept relative
to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that
technology vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended
development focus areas, but for various reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies,
policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. The post-9/11 situation has changed that calculus
considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. In
addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source
security is now under threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy
markets as well as increased energy demand competition by emerging global economies. Our
National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, often
imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the
deployment of clean technologies to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in
a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need
solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.
22
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Warming Advantage 4/5
We’ll turn any war scenario-climate change will raise the magnitude of all
conflicts and initiate the outbreak of others, multiple internal links-storms,
drought, resource wars, flooding, disease, economic collapse, border tensions,
and U.S. intervention-it’s the consensus of top military experts.
Environmental News Service 7 [Environmental News Service, “Military Panel: Climate Change
Threatens
U.S.
National
Security”,
April
16,
2007,
http://www.ensnewswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-16-05]
climate change presents a serious national security threat that could affect Americans at
home, impact U.S. military operations, and heighten global tensions, finds a study released
today by a blue-ribbon panel of 11 of the most senior retired U.S. admirals and generals.
Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges
that will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world, found the panel, known as the Military Advisory
Board. "We will pay for this one way or another ," said retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former
Global
commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of
some kind. Or, we
will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There
will be a human toll." "The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to
help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security
and stability," the Military Advisory Board recommends. The study, "National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change," explores ways in which climate change acts as a "threat multiplier" in already fragile regions of the world, creating the breeding
grounds for extremism and terrorism. The CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, brought together 11 retired four-star and three-star admirals and
generals as a Military Advisory Board to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change on national security. CNA writers and researchers compiled
the report under the board's direction and review. Members of the Military Advisory Board come from all branches of the armed services. The
board includes a former Army chief of staff, commanders-in-chiefs of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA
administrator, and experts in planning, logistics, underwater operations and oceanography. One member also served as U.S. ambassador to
China. "We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world," said retired General Gordon Sullivan, chairman
of the Military Advisory Board and former Army chief of staff, in releasing the report today at a Washington news conference. "People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about
climate science projections," General Sullivan said. "But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to
happen on the battlefield." Military Advisory Board members said they remain optimistic that climate change challenges can be managed to reduce future risks. As part of its five specific
recommendations for action, the Board said "the path to mitigating the worst security consequences of climate change involves reducing global greenhouse gas emissions." The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency today released the national greenhouse gas inventory, which finds that overall emissions during 2005 increased by 0.8 percent from the previous year.
Overall emissions have grown by 16 percent from 1990 to 2005. Retired Navy Vice Admiral Richard Truly, a shuttle astronaut and former NASA
administrator, said, "Unlike the challenges that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and
"maybe more challenging is that climate change will
affect every nation, and all simultaneously. This is why we need to study this issue now, so that
we'll be prepared and not overwhelmed by the required scope of our response when the time
comes." The Military Advisory Board report recognizes that unabated climate change could bring an
increased frequency of extreme storms, additional drought and flooding, rising
sea levels, melting glaciers and the rapid spread of life-threatening disease. These
they will be grinding and inexorable." Truly also notes that
projected effects are usually viewed as environmental challenges, but now the Military Advisory Board has looked at them from the perspective
of national security assessments.
They are serious risk factors for massive migrations, increased border
tensions, greater demands for rescue and evacuation efforts, and conflicts over essential
resources, including food and water, the board said, saying such developments could lead to direct U.S.
military involvement. "Climate change can provide the conditions that will extend the war on
terror," said retired Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, former commander-in-chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern
Europe. "Rising ocean water levels, droughts, violent weather, ruined national economies-those
are the kinds of stresses we'll see more of under climate change," he said. "In the long term, we want to
address the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit," Admiral Lopez said. "But climate change will prolong those
conditions. It makes them worse."
23
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1AC – Warming Advantage 5/5
Independently, warming is the only existential risk.
Deibel ’07—Prof IR @ National War College (Terry, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American
Statecraft,” Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
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
“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
1998 a close second”;
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
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
significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show,
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
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 possibly 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.
temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
24
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****ECONOMY ADVANTAGE*****
25
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Sustainable
Space solar power is a sustainable alternate energy
DR PETER GARRETSON Friday, May 22, 2009 Ph.D Associate Professor of History. Power-the
final frontier Could satellites in orbit be a source of energy for the future? It’s possible.
www.sakaaltimes.com
Space Solar Power is one of the very few renewable energy options that is both scalable to the
levels we need (the geostationary Belt is thought to be able to support enough satellites to produce 177 tw), and
be able to provide 24-hr power (not just when the Sun shines or wind blows). It also appears to be the
most benign of any of the major energy options. It produces no radioactive waste. Despite minor
emissions and significant energy expenditure during manufacture and launch , the lifecycle CO2 emission of
a Powersat is 60 times less than coal, and has an energy payback period of a mere two years.
Space Based Solar Power more than enough to completely sustain the world
Smith New York - Aug 11, 2003 (Arthur, The Case For Space Based Solar Power Development solar
energy on Earth and in space might be the first large scale space industry by
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html
Energy policy is in the news again, with debates in Congress, statements from presidential candidates,
consternation over our dependence on the Middle East for oil, and a California recall election traceable in part to
energy supply problems for that state. Use of energy, whether fuel for transportation, electrical
energy running the internet, or the destructive energy released in weapons, is central to our
economy and security. It is with good reason that the technical term for energy use per unit time, "power",
suggests control in the human world as well. Three actions taken now - working to reserve radio spectrum for
power transmission, focusing on reductions in costs for space launch, and investing in space solar power
system research - hold the promise of opening up vast new sources of power within the next
10-15 years. Space is big - there is an awful lot of energy out there, and the crumbs we fight about
here on Earth are laughably tiny in comparison. Zettawatts from the Sun pass just through the region
between Earth and Moon - that's enough energy for each man, woman and child in
the US to sustainably power an entire US economy all to themselves. Even our
terrestrial energy choices, fossil or renewable, fission or wind, almost all derive from the energy profligacy of our
Sun and other stars before it.
Space solar power is a sustainable alternate energy
DR PETER GARRETSON Friday, May 22, 2009 Ph.D Associate Professor of History. Power-the
final frontier Could satellites in orbit be a source of energy for the future? It’s possible.
www.sakaaltimes.com
Space Solar Power is one of the very few renewable energy options that is both scalable to the
levels we need (the geostationary Belt is thought to be able to support enough satellites to produce 177 tw), and
be able to provide 24-hr power (not just when the Sun shines or wind blows). It also appears to be the
most benign of any of the major energy options. It produces no radioactive waste . Despite minor
emissions and significant energy expenditure during manufacture and launch , the lifecycle CO2 emission of
a Powersat is 60 times less than coal, and has an energy payback period of a mere two years.
26
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Economical
SBSP most logical and economical option for energy – also helps us protect our
natural space enviro.
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
Despite the high hurdles remaining in making the SBSP an industry in reality, we can look
forward to many dialogues among nations. This will be true because energy from space
is a logical solution to relieving our civilization's unsustainable dependence on
fossil fuels. With enough solar power arrays in space, sufficient storage of power and expanded power
distribution channels on the ground, nations will begin to see that it is far more sensible –
and possibly more economical - to build and launch solar power satellites into space
than to continue digging and burning coal and oil on earth. Another, less often
considered, benefit is that solar power satellites give all nations reasons to
protect space as a natural resource for the benefit of all mankind. Space Law is in
itself a future career path. As national economies become more space-bound, there will be a
need for further resolution and definition of space peace treaties, such as the Commercial
Space Act initiated by the United States in 1998, and laws governing the peaceful use of space
for commercial development.
27
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Jobs
Space Based Solar Power boosts American Job Market and lifts our energy
dependency
Bloom no date, (Howard an American author in sociology, Mark Hopkins, Gary Pearce Barnhard,
Jason
Louv,
John
K.
Strickland
“Space
Solar
Power
Media
Blitz”
http://challenge.bfi.org/application_summary/2318#))
Our goal: to insert the topic of space solar power into the debates on (1) energy policy, (2) carbon use and
sequestration, (3) global climate change, (4) global resource utilization and scarcity (5) enduring, green job
creation (long term, a complete space based solar power program will create over 800,000
high-quality, high-tech American jobs), (6) American trade deficit reversal (space solar
power will make America a net energy exporter), and (7) bridging the socio-economic
divide between nations and peoples with respect to quality of life. The strategy: develop appropriate
media resources to put space based solar power concepts on the discussion table across multiple forums. In the
marketplace of ideas it takes a number of resources for concepts to prevail. A concept needs: (1) a champion - the
National Space Society – the big tent space advocacy organization – has taken point with respect to championing
the development of space based solar power as an extraordinary resource worthy of significant
research and development commitment; (2) relevance to the issues of the day; (3) definition and
descriptions that are understandable and accessible to the various stakeholders; (4) persistent and pervasive
airing across multiple media, public, and private forums; (5) a framework for establishing the confluence of
interests between government, commercial, non-governmental organizations, and the public; (6) injection into a
set of events, conferences, and forums that escalate the level of interest and serve to drive the efforts of all
stakeholders to the next level.
We help the economy by creating jobs, and using already harvested technology
Doug Messieron October 31, 2010 NSS, India to Launch Space-Based Solar Power Initiative, ISRO
and
National
Space
Society
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/10/31/nss-india-launchspacebased-solar-power-initiative/
Space solar power has the potential to reverse America’s half a trillion dollar a year balance
of payments deficit and to generate a new generation of American jobs. Why? Space solar power
is a source whose basic technology is already here. The United States has been harvesting solar
power in space and transmitting it to Earth since 1962, when Telstar, the first commercial
satellite, went up. That satellite, Telstar, looked like a beach ball encrusted with square
medallions. The medallions were photovoltaic panels. And India has been harvesting solar energy in space since
1975, when its first satellite, Aryabhata A, went into orbit. Every square centimeter of Aryabhata’s exterior was
tiled with solar panels. Today harvesting energy in space and transmitting it to Earth is a quarter
of a trillion dollar industry…the commercial satellite business. You use solar energy harvested
in space when you watch soccer games from other continents, when you tune into satellite TV
or satellite radio, when you use the Global Positioning System (GPS), when you consult the
pictures in Google Earth, and when you use your cell phone.
28
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Technology
SBSP gives the economy a boost – it will immediately generate jobs, economic
spin-offs, and new space industries.
Rouge ‘7 (Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study; Report to the Director, National Security Space
Office; Interim Assessment; Release 0.1; 10 October 2007; JOSEPH D. ROUGE, SES; Acting
Director, National Security Space Office)AM
Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP,
however, may create new markets and the need for new products that will provide many new,
high‐paying technical jobs and net significant tax revenues. Great powers have historically
succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to themselves, but to
others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars. The energy market is
trillions of dollars, and there are many billions of people in the developing world that have yet
to connect to the various global markets. Such a large export market could generate substantial
new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to mature SBSP are similarly likely to
have significant economic spin‐offs, each with their own independent revenue stream, and
open up or enable other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism,
enhanced telecommunications, and use of off‐world resources. Not all of the returns may be obvious.
SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility. Estimating the value of utilities is difficult since they
benefit society as a whole more than any one user in particular—consider what the contribution to productivity
and GDP are by imagining what the world would be like without electric lines, roads, railroads, fiber, or airports .
Not all of the economic impact is immediately captured in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the
services and products that spring up to support those workers and their communities.
Historically such infrastructure projects have received significant government support, from
land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural electrification, to development of atomic energy .
While the initial‐capability on‐ramp may be slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very significant
portion of the world energy portfolio by mid‐century and beyond.
29
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Resource Scarcity
SBSP solves for political affairs, econ instability, resource scarcity, Oh, and
warming.
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
Beyond the first decade of the 21st century, nations of the world now face escalating
pressures in international political affairs, economic instability and resource
scarcity compounded by early stage effects of climate change. Though not all civilians are
directly affected, rising fuel costs combined with the virtual collapse of the stock market and the
job market have left many wondering when and how things will get better. Those most affected by
this turbulence include young adults entering college who look forward to entering the workforce. For them, it
seems harder to plan for the career of tomorrow and know how to leverage their skills, education and passion into
meaningful employment. The reassuring message of this paper is that there is a world of perpetual
opportunity ahead. This is not the first time in history that sobering events have presented
themselves to individuals and to nations, nor will it be the last. Were our combined
governments and space-oriented industries to draw on the lessons from history, and agree to
develop, launch and commercialize the technology of solar power satellite, for example,
a fully realized space industry could change the nature of education, jobs and
resources available.
30
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Technology
SBSP Sparks the second industrial era – The biggest economic boom in the last
150 years
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
Space-based solar power (SBSP) is an emerging industry whose objective is to relieve the world
of its crippling dependence on fossil fuels. However, beyond energy and climate change, this
business is rarely considered for its potentially positive impact on future society. Large-scale
efforts at commercialization of innovations have long been dependent on collaborations between government and
private sectors, addressing public need. What the Transcontinental Railroad did for the American
economy in the 1800's is an example: this technological breakthrough spawned the Industrial
Revolution. In the 2000's, space technologies and their industries have demonstrated
the potential for a similar revolutionary influence. As the globe continues to face political,
commodity and economic strife, technologies such as SBSP will introduce unforeseen solutions that
will help to sustain global peace, improve quality of life and create important new
breakthroughs of the future. Presuming SBSP becomes a viable industry, future generations can
look forward to greater global collaboration leading to more efficient access to space, space
commercialization and careers beyond our horizon, the result of the disruptive solar power
satellite.
31
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Poverty
SBSP solves for Poverty – Infinite energy will allow us to supply energy to third
world countries boosting them to second and first world rankings
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
As more nations ascend into the "first world" and "second world" rankings in a fully realized
SBSP economy, their citizens will come to expect higher standards of living in access to
housing, commodities, information and healthcare made possible in part by easier access to
energy, and more efficient transportation, communications and data networking. A change of
perspective is possible. Rather than viewing tomorrow's world population as merely an expanding
"grid" of energy users, that population can be viewed as a renewable resource of creative ideas
for tackling the world's challenges.
32
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Alt Energy Key to Economy
Energy is key to Economy and has enough power to run the economy.
Smith 2004 (The magazine of the National Space SocietyAurther P. The Case for Solar Power
From
Space
Ad
Astra,
Volume
16
Number
1,
2004
http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume16/smith.html)
Use of energy, whether fuel for transportation, electrical energy running the Internet, or the destructive energy
released in weapons, is central to our economy and security. It is with good reason that the
technical term for energy use per unit time, "power," suggests control in the human world as
well. Three actions taken now — working to reserve radio spectrum for power transmission, focusing on
reductions in costs for space launch, and investing in space solar power system research — hold the
promise of opening up vast new sources of power within the next 10 to 15 years. Space is big. There is an awful
lot of energy out there, and the crumbs we fight about here on Earth are laughably tiny in
comparison. Zettawatts from the sun pass just through the region between Earth and the moon — that's
enough energy for each man, woman and child in the United States to power and sustain an
entire U.S. economy all by themselves.
Economic Growth is impossible on Fossil Fuel
W.P Nel & C.J Cooper 2008-08-15 (Implications of fossil fuel constraints on economic growth and
global warming Publication date: First published in: Energy Policy Authors)
Best estimates of future energy availability are derived as an Energy Reference Case (ERC). An
explicit economic growth model is used to interpret the impact of the ERC on economic
growth. The model predicts a divergence from 20th century equilibrium conditions in
economic growth and socio-economic welfare is only stabilised under optimistic assumptions
that demands a paradigm shift in contemporary economic thought and focused attention from
policy makers. Fossil fuel depletion also constrains the maximum extent of Global Warming.
Carbon emissions from the ERC comply nominally with the B1 scenario, which is the lowest emissions case
considered by the IPCC. The IPCC predicts a temperature response within acceptance limits of the Global
Warming debate for the B1 scenario. The carbon feedback cycle, used in the IPCC models, is shown as invalid for
low-emissions scenarios and an alternative carbon cycle reduces the temperature response for the ERC
considerably compared to the IPCC predictions.
Renewable Energy Key to economic recovery – Economy cannot grow on fossil
fuel
| BY 25X25.ORG OCTOBER 17, 2008 ("25x'25" is a rallying cry for renewable energy and a goal
for America – to get 25 percent of our energy from renewable resources like wind, solar, and
biofuels by the year 2025. Experts Say Renewable Energy Key to Economic Recovery,
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/10/experts-say-renewable-energy-key.cfm
As world leaders and their financial chiefs scramble to find ways to shore up credit markets
and rebuild confidence in the global economy, many analysts and government leaders say that
now is the best opportunity to implement renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives
that can drive and maintain economic recovery. Recent and numerous calls for next year's new Congress
and administration to forge a comprehensive national energy policy take on a new urgency in troubled economic
times, and underscore a longstanding recommendation from the National 25x'25 Alliance for a renewable
energy and energy efficient future that will boost our economy, as well as enhance our national
security and improve our environment. "Through the creation of a 25x'25 energy future, we can stimulate
the economy and put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work," says Read Smith, co-chairman of the
National 25x'25 Steering Committee. "Let's not bury our heads in the sand during these very challenging times.
We have solutions that we can bring to the economic recovery table."
33
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
High Gas Prices Hurt Economy
High gas prices harm the economy.
Wiseman, 4/11/2011(Paul, Huffpost Business, Oil Prices Doing Significant Damage to U.S.
Economy
Moody’s
Says,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/oil-prices-useconomy_n_845540.html?view=print&comm_ref=false, 7-18-11)
WASHINGTON — Just when companies have finally stepped up hiring, rising
oil prices are threatening to halt the U.S.
economy's gains. Some economists are scaling back their estimates for growth this year, in part because flat wages have left
households struggling to pay higher gasoline prices.Oil has topped $108 a barrel, the highest price since 2008.
Regular unleaded gasoline now goes for an average $3.69 a gallon, according to AAA's daily fuel gauge survey, up 86 cents from a year ago.The
higher costs have been driven by unrest in Libya and other oil-producing Middle East countries, along with rising energy demand from a
The rising prices are
further straining an economy struggling with high unemployment and a depressed housing
market."The surge in oil prices since the end of last year is already doing significant damage to
the economy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.Unlike other kinds of consumer spending,
gasoline purchases provide less benefit for the U.S. economy. About half the revenue flows to oil exporting
strengthening U.S. economy.Airlines, shipping companies and other U.S. businesses have been squeezed.
countries like Saudi Arabia and Canada, though U.S. oil companies and gasoline retailers also benefit.For consumers, more expensive energy
siphons away money that would otherwise be used for household purchases, from cars and furniture to clothing and vacations.High energy
prices are "putting a drain on consumer budgets," says James Hamilton at the University of California, San Diego. "To the extent they're
having to spend more on gasoline, they have to make cutbacks elsewhere."Two-thirds
of Americans say they expect
rising gasoline prices to cause hardship for them or their families in the next six months , according
to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The telephone poll conducted March 24-28 had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.2 percentage
points.Seventy-one percent say they're cutting back on other expenses to make up for higher pump prices. Sixty-four percent say they're
driving less. And 53 percent say they're changing vacation plans to stay closer to home."I try to leave the car parked at home all day Saturday,"
says Curt Lindsay, who commutes an hour each way to his job as a computer systems administrator outside Washington, D.C. "I'd rather not
spend the money on gasoline."Since gasoline prices topped $3 a gallon, Lindsay has also been trying to drive more slowly to conserve fuel.His
co-worker Albert Zaza canceled family trips to New York and Boston after the cost of filling up his Honda CRV surged from $35 to $47. Zaza
spends four to five hours in traffic each day and has to fill up every other day.Rising fuel prices are pinching businesses too.In Tipton, Iowa,
Grasshopper Lawn Care is tacking 5 percent onto customers' bills to compensate for higher fuel costs. The company has to buy more than
8,000 gallons of gasoline a year. It plans to keep the surcharge until gasoline prices dip back below $3 a gallon, owner Dan Kessler says.The oil
shock and global instability are diluting the benefits of an improving job market. The unemployment rate, though still high, is at a two-year
low. And the economy has just produced the strongest two months of hiring since before the recession began. Bernard Baumohl, chief
economist at the Economic Outlook Group, has slashed his estimate for growth this year to 2.8 percent from 3.5 percent. In 20010, the
economy grew 2.9 percent.Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. After adjusting for inflation and for seasonal
Gasoline prices are surging
just as inflation-adjusted incomes are falling. More expensive gas is draining much of the cash
factors, consumers spent 0.3 percent more in February than in January.But that's unlikely to last.
Americans are receiving from a cut in Social Security taxes this year.Zandi estimates that higher oil prices shaved 0.5 percentage point from
growth in the January-March quarter. He predicts the economy grew 2.6 percent during the quarter.If oil prices average $100 a barrel for the
year, Zandi says, growth will be 0.3 percentage point lower than if prices had stayed at last year's level – an average of less than $80 a barrel. A
few months of $125-a-barrel oil would slash economic growth by a full percentage point, Zandi says. And
a few months at $150 a
barrel could push the economy back into recession.Surging oil prices don't hurt everybody in the United States. Oil
companies, for example, stand to gain. In 2008, Exxon Mobil Corp. earned $45 billion – a record for a U.S. company – after oil prices hit a
record $150 a barrel.Oil services companies such as Halliburton Co., Schlumberger Ltd. and Baker Hughes Inc. also benefit as the oil industry
rushes to find and produce more oil. And the products of biodiesel and other alternative energy companies become more competitive the
higher oil prices go.In a speech last week, Sandra Pianalto, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, offered hope that higher oil
prices won't persist long enough to do much damage."Large increases in food or energy prices tend to be temporary," Pianalto said. "History
shows that they are often followed by sharp declines."But Mark Pawlak, a market strategist at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, says he worries about
a repeat of what happened to the economy last year: It built momentum at the start of 2010, only to stall in the face of a European debt crisis
and a run-up in oil prices from February to April.
34
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: SBSP Hurts the Economy
SBSP is economically competitive.
Lemonick 2009 (August 31st Michael d, senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan
organization whose mission is to communicate climate science to the public,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2184. Last Accessed: 7/18/11)
There is a growing recognition that non-carbon energy sources will be crucial if the world is
going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. It’s almost inevitable that carbon emissions
will end up being taxed one way or another, and when they are, renewables like SBSP will
immediately become more competitive economically.
35
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: SBSP Infrastructure Change Bad
SBSP allows use of pre-existing infrastructure.
Rouge 2007 (October 10th JOSEPH D. SES Acting Director, National Security Space
Officehttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Page 13 Last Accessed 7/18/11)
This technology enables a carbon‐neutral (closed carbon‐cycle) hydrocarbon economy driven by
clean renewable sources of power, which can utilize the existing global fuel infrastructure
without modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil companies. The
ability to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a carbon
neutral cycle, is a “total game changer” that deserves significant attention.
36
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Trade Deficit Module
Trade Deficit Bad – Bankrupts United States.
Bonner August 27, 2010 (Bill, has written two New York Times best-selling books, Financial
Reckoning Day and Empire of Debt. The Daily Reckoning What will the new economy look like?
The economy will never return to its bubble state. That's a good thing. Alex Saha, 3, uses a wand to
make bubbles in Houston, on July 20. America's bubble economy will be replaced by one that
looks very different. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-DailyReckoning/2010/0827/What-will-the-new-economy-look-like)
In addition to the government deficit there is the accumulated trade deficit of $8 trillion –
money spent by the private sector on goods and services bought overseas and not offset by investment back into
the US by means of higher exports. Official federal debt and the accumulated trade shortfalls adds up
to $26 trillion – not quite 200% of GDP, but getting there. Stockman: [N]ow there is no discipline, only global
monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal
wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve. Stockman also condemns the growth of the financial sector: The
combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and
finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008. But the trilliondollar conglomerates that inhabit this new financial world are not free enterprises. They are rather wards of the
state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and
derivatives. They could never have survived, much less thrived, if their deposits had not been governmentguaranteed and if they hadn’t been able to obtain virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover
their bad bets. Kotlikoff focuses more on the total of US debt, including unfunded “unofficial” debts and
obligations. He puts the total at $202 trillion – an amount that clearly can’t be paid. Let’s get real. The
US is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.
Trade Deficit bad – Stops econ growth.
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER and MARTIN CRUTSINGER March 10, 2011; 4:54 PM Higher oil
prices threaten global economy By The Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031004708.html
Jay Bryson, global economist at Wells Fargo Securities, said he has cut his U.S. growth
estimate for the January-March period to 2.9 percent, down from about 3.3 percent last month.
Much of that reduction is due to the impact of higher oil and gas prices. The $46.3 billion trade deficit in
January also will subtract from economic growth. Higher prices for oil helped drive imports up at
the fastest rate in 18 years, as did rising demand for foreign cars, auto parts and machinery. Imports rose at nearly
twice the pace of exports, to $214.1 billion, the Commerce Department said. Exports rose to an all-time high of
$167.7 billion.
37
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Energy Resource Wars Bad 1/2
SSP lowers launch costs – prevents resource wars – the impact is extinction
Collins and Autino 10 - * Life & Environmental Science, Azabu University AND ** Andromeda Inc.,
Italy Patrick and Adriano, “What the growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to
employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture and world peace,”
Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 1553–1562, Science Direct
The major source of social friction, including international friction, has surely always been unequal access to
resources. People fight to control the valuable resources on and under the land, and in and under the sea. The natural
resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically accessible resources even more so. As the population grows, and
demand grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity grows
exponentially. The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of ‘‘Resource Wars’’. Having begun long ago with wars to control the gold and diamonds of
Africa and South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world events today [37]. A particular danger of ‘‘resource wars’’ is that, if the
general public can be persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as resources become
increasingly scarce. Many commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK government advocates of ‘‘war on terror’’ to the language of the novel
‘‘1984’’ which describes a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into near-Earth space is the only alternative to endless ‘‘resource
As an alternative to the ‘‘resource wars’’ already devastating many countries today, opening access to the unlimited
resources of near-Earth space could clearly facilitate world peace and security. The US National
Security Space Office, at the start of its report on the potential of space-based solar power (SSP) published in early 2007, stated: ‘‘Expanding human populations and declining
natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see
energy as the foremost threat to national security’’ [38]. The report ended by encouraging urgent research
on the feasibility of SSP: ‘‘Considering the timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative
that this work for ‘‘drilling up’’ vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately’’ [38]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial
scale may still be some decades away, it is important to recognise that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is
the surest way of ending the threat of resource wars . That is, if it is assumed that the
resources available for human use are limited to those on Earth, then it can be argued that
resource wars are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of space are economically
accessible, this not only eliminates the need for resource wars, it can also preserve the benefits
of civilisation which are being eroded today by ‘‘resource war-mongers’’, most notably the
governments of the ‘‘Anglo-Saxon’’ countries and their ‘‘neo-con’’ advisers. It is also worth noting that the $1 trillion that these have already committed to wars in the Middle-East in the 21st
wars’’
century is orders of magnitude more than the public investment needed to aid companies sufficiently to start the commercial use of space resources. Industrial and financial groups which profit from monopolistic control of
terrestrial supplies of various natural resources, like those which profit from wars, have an economic interest in protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups’ continuing profits are justified neither by capitalism nor
Once the feasibility of
low-cost space travel is understood, ‘‘resource wars’’ are clearly foolish as well as tragic. A visiting extra-terrestrial would be
by democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by preventing the development of low-cost space travel.
pityingly amused at the foolish antics of homo sapiens using longrange rockets to fight each other over dwindling terrestrial resources—rather than using the same rockets to travel in space and have the use of all the resources
they need! 7.2. High return in safety from extra-terrestrial settlement Investment in low-cost orbital access and other space infrastructure will facilitate the establishment of settlements on the Moon, Mars, asteroids and in manmade space structures. In the first phase, development of new regulatory infrastructure in various Earth orbits, including property/usufruct rights, real estate, mortgage financing and insurance, traffic management, pilotage,
policing and other services will enable the population living in Earth orbits to grow very large. Such activities aimed at making near-Earth space habitable are the logical extension of humans’ historical spread over the surface of
the Earth. As trade spreads through near-Earth space, settlements are likely to follow, of which the inhabitants will add to the wealth of different cultures which humans have created in the many different environments in which
Success of such extra-terrestrial settlements will have the additional benefit of reducing the danger of human
extinction due to planet-wide or cosmic accidents [27]. These horrors include both man-made disasters such as
nuclear war, plagues or growing pollution, and natural disasters such as super-volcanoes or
asteroid impact. It is hard to think of any objective that is more important than preserving peace. Weapons developed in recent decades are so
destructive, and have such horrific, long-term side-effects that their use should be discouraged
as strongly as possible by the international community. Hence, reducing the incentive to use these
weapons by rapidly developing the ability to use space-based resources on a large scale is
surely equally important [11,16]. The achievement of this depends on low space travel costs
they live.
which, at the present time, appear to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space tourism industry. 8. Summary As discussed above, if space travel services had started during the 1950s, the space industry
would be enormously more developed than it is today. Hence the failure to develop passenger space travel has seriously distorted the path taken by humans’ technological and economic development since WW2, away from the
path which would have been followed if capitalism and democracy operated as intended. Technological know-how which could have been used to supply services which are known to be very popular with a large proportion of the
population has not been used for that purpose, while waste and suffering due to the unemployment and environmental damage caused by the resulting lack of new industrial opportunities have increased. In response,
policies should be implemented urgently to correct this error, and to catch up with the possibilities for industrial and economic growth that have been
ignored for so long. This policy renewal is urgent because of the growing dangers of unemployment,
economic stagnation, environmental pollution, educational and cultural decline, resource wars
38
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
and loss of civil liberties which face civilisation today. In order to achieve the necessary progress there is a particular need for
collaboration between those working in the two fields of civil aviation and civil space. Although the word ‘‘aerospace’’ is widely used, it is largely a misnomer since these two fields are in
practice quite separate. True ‘‘aerospace’’ collaboration to realise passenger space travel will develop the wonderful profusion of possibilities outlined above.
39
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Energy Resource Wars Bad 2/2
These resource wars over energy will escalate, incentivizing terrorism and
irregular warfare
Moran and Russell 2008
[Daniel and Jason, Associate Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval
Postgraduate School, Senior Lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School and Co-Director of the
Center for Contemporary Conflict, “The Militarization of Energy Security” Strategic Insights, Feb
2008 http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2008/Feb/moranFeb08.asp]
This book does not seek to challenge the prevailing consensus that large-scale conflict among developed states has
become unlikely. Its aim is rather to reflect upon conditions in the one area of international life where serious
observers still regard it as possible: energy security. It is in the energy sector that strategic planners now
find it easiest to imagine major states reconsidering their reluctance to use force against each
other. “Energy security” is now deemed so central to “national security” that threats to the
former are liable to be reflexively interpreted as threats to the latter. In a world in which
territorial disputes, ideological competition, ethnic irredentism, and even nuclear proliferation
all seem capable of being normalized in ways that constrain the actual use of military force, a
crisis in global energy supply stands out as the last all-weather casus belli when the moment
comes to hypothesize worst-case scenarios. This is not a reason to assume that wars over energy are more
likely now than in the past. Precisely because such conflicts have been limited and rare up to now,[3] there is good
reason to be cautious about estimating their likelihood in the future. The probabilities are further muddled by the
fact that over-emphasis on the possibilities for great-power conflict favors important, and generally conservative,
institutional interests within the defense establishments of developed states, particularly the United States . In a
security environment that presents increasingly strong incentives to shift force structure and
doctrine toward irregular warfare, counter-terrorism, constabulary operations, and so on, the
possibility of war to seize or defend energy resources provides a much-needed rationale for
preserving the heavy conventional forces that still consume the lion’s share of defense spending
around the world. This is especially true of naval building programs, whose ostensible purpose is always
presumed to include securing the sea lines of communication that connect the producers and consumers of oil.[4]
The prominence of energy security for military planning and budgeting may be exaggerated compared to its real
salience internationally. Yet the anxiety that this issue is capable of inspiring is itself a measure of
its significance, irrespective of one’s estimate of the probabilities. There were only two world wars in
the entire twentieth century, after all, yet that is scarcely a reason to discount their importance . The possibility
that access to energy resources may become an object of large-scale armed struggle is almost
incontestably the single most alarming prospect facing the international system today. The
political stability of advanced societies, and the continued prospects for economic and social
improvement in developing countries, are both irreducibly dependent on avoiding such a
conflict.
40
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****OIL ADVANTAGE*****
41
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Peak Oil Coming 1/2
Peak oil in 3 years
Bacon & Singh (November 19th 2010 Vinti Singh alternative energy consultant and chemical
engineer for Allwest Energy, design and install solar and wind electric systems.U.S. must switch
to renewable energy faster http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/U-S-must-switch-torenewable-energy-faster-822356.php)
The United States will run out of all its domestic oil reserves in three years if oil use continues
at current rates, while the world has about 40 years left until all of the oil is gone, environment expert Drury
Bacon said Thursday.It's time to seriously begin looking at alternate energy sources, Bacon said. He
spoke to community members at the "Science-at-Night" lecture series at Western Connecticut State
University.Bacon is an alternative energy consultant and chemical engineer for Allwest Energy, an Arizona-based
company founded in the 1990s to design and install solar and wind electric systems."The good news is , we have
plenty of alternative energy," he said. "Is there enough time to make a difference? I think so."Alternative
energy, including wind and solar power, is abundant and the technology already exists to begin producing
alternative energy for mass consumption, said Bacon, who founded the organization Friends of the
Environment.And the U.S. seems to be headed in that direction. In 2009, half of all the new electric energy
produced was renewable, and 33 large offshore wind projects were scheduled for construction off of the Atlantic,
Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes shores, Bacon said.No new coal plants have been built since 2009, and
since 2001, plans for 11 new coal operations have been scrapped, Bacon said.From the time a well is
discovered, oil production looks something like a bell curve. Every day, the U.S. spends $1 billion on oil, 60
percent of which is imported, Bacon said. U.S. oil production reached peak levels in the 1970s, Bacon said. Most
of the oil left in the ground is not liquid, but instead in shale or tar form. Converting that oil
into a usable product is expensive and requires a lot of energy, Bacon said, and leaves
irreparable scars on the environment. We're on the downward end of that bell curve, as U.S. oil
extracts decrease every year, and we are currently taking out the same amounts of oil we were in 1950, Bacon
said.The U.S. is now using about 8 billion barrels of oil a day, and only has about 21 billion
barrels left in its reserves. The world uses 31 billion barrels a year, and at that rate, world
supplies will last a little less than 40 years, Bacon said. But the rate is changing. The U.S. demand
is predicted to go up 11 percent in the next 10 years, Bacon said, while China's demand in that
same time will go up 80 percent and India's demand will go up 96 percent. "We're on the cusp of
change with electric cars," Bacon said, and he cited some corporations that have committed to purchasing hybrid
fleets. General Electric has announced it would purchase about 25,000 hybrid cars by 2015 for
corporate use, he said, while the United States Postal Service and Federal Express have also said
they will buy several thousand hybrid cars for mail delivery. Someone in the audience asked if
producing enough electricity to power those electric cars would outweigh the benefits, to which Bacon responded
that even the most polluting form of energy to create the electricity creates 60 percent less pollution than a
traditional gas-powered car. Batteries are the Achilles heel of hybrid cars, Bacon said. Lithium ion batteries are
the best batteries on the market, and scientists say they are "not good, but good enough," Bacon said. Bacon said
that companies such as Virgin Airlines are researching renewable fuel sources already. "The young
people in the audience are one day going to say, `What were they thinking, burning all that oil in
cars when there were so many other ways to power them?' " Bacon said. Major changes are going
to require some government action, Bacon said. The federal government, for example, puts a lot
of money into the biofuel industry. One acre of corn makes enough oil to power a car for 5,600
miles, he said. But a field of solar panels on one acre of land generate enough energy in a year
to fuel a car for 800,000 miles. (And solar panels can be completely recycled after they reach
the end of their 25-year average lifespan.) Bacon also recommended that the federal government
end all tax breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and redirect them to renewable
energy.
42
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Peak Oil Coming 2/2
Not enough fossil fuels
Randall Parker. "Limited Hydrocarbons Mean Little Global Warming?" 25 Jun. 2007.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004350.html
humans won't be able to fry the world with excessive amounts of fossil fuels burning
because we do not have enough fossil fuels left to burn to cause a first class disaste r. Mother Gaia
Dastardly
wisely limited the amount of fossil fuels she created because she knew her human progeny would wreak disaster if tempted with too much oil
and coal to burn. Writing at The Oil Drum Caltech professor Dave Rutledge argues that the mathematical method which petroleum engineer
King Hubbard used to predict the date of US oil production peak can also be used to predict how much coal will get burned in the world.
Rutledge, Cal Tech Chair for the Division of Engineering and Applied Science, says the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
models for future climate change assume fossil fuels supplies available to raise atmospheric CO2 which overstate future hydrocarbon burning
by a factor of 3 or 4 or more. Often we do not have enough data to fit for remaining production this way. The trend line is for 3.2 trillion barrels
of oil equivalent (Tboe) remaining. We will use this number for our simulation of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature
We face such a huge looming problem with fossil fuels exhaustion that we should be
thinking about moving away from fossil fuels due to rising costs and lowered production rather
than because we might melt the polar ice caps. We need to embrace solar, nuclear, and wind
because we just do not have as much fossil fuels left as the climate doomsters think we do. If the
rise.
Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas, and Peak Coal folks are correct then why do the IPCC types spend so much time talking about climate catastrophe?
My guess: Human-caused climate disaster makes for a far more dramatic moral story of human sin. Talk of using up all the coal and oil doesn't
satisfy the need to see human action in such sinful terms.
the oil but nature doesn't
If we run out of oil then we suffer from the exhaustion of
suffer as much as we do. We sin, but against ourselves. By contrast, if we heat up the planet the
argument can be made for humans as massive sinners against nature. Now we are in a position to see what some consequences for climate are.
We convert future hydrocarbon and coal production to atmospheric carbon emission using EIA coefficients and plot them as the ProducerLimited Profile in Figure 10, together with the carbon emissions from the 40 scenarios. The Producer-Limited Profile has lower emissions than
This would be true even if we calculated the emissions with the full coal
reserves. Jean Laherrere was the first to call attention to this anomalous situation. He has made the point forcefully and repeatedly, to no
any of the 40 scenarios.
apparent effect.
If no alternative energy source is found, oil, coal, and natural gas will be depleted
by 2100
Snead, Professional Aerospace Engineer, 2008
(James Michael Snead, The End of Easy Energy and What to do About It,
http://mikesnead.net/resources/spacefaring/white_paper_the_end_of_easy_energy_and_what
_to_do_about_it.pdf)
If oil, coal, and natural gas remain the predominant source of energy, both known and
expected newly discovered reserves will be exhausted by 2100, if not far earlier. Of the 81 billion BOE
produced each year from all energy sources, 86 % or 70 billion BOE comes from non -renewable oil, coal, and natural gas. At this percentage,
by 2100, the world would need about 240 billion BOE from oil, coal, and natural gas. With an annual average of about 155 billion BOE
through the end of the century, the world would need about 14,1 00 billion BOE of oil, coal, and natural gas to reach the end of the century.
Current proved recoverable reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas total only about 6,000 billion BOE. Expert estimates of additional
recoverable reserves optimistically add another 6,000 billion BOE—for example, including nearly 3,000 billion BOE from all oil from oil
shale—for a combined total of around 12,000 billion BOE.*
With increasing world energy consumption and if oil,
coal and natural gas continue to provide most of the world’s energy, known and new reserves
of oil, coal, and natural gas will be exhausted by the end of the century, if not much earlier.
By 2050, we will have used up all earthly resources
Chadha Environmental engineer 2010 (Mridul Chadha, Environmental engineer and pursuing
Master's in Renewable Energy Engineering and Management at The Energy and Resources
Institute (University) at New Delhi. “US, India Launch Space-Based Solar Energy Initiative”
http://ecopolitology.org/2010/11/10/us-india-launch-space-based-solar-energy-initiative/
ecopolotology politics of energy and the environment 11/10/10)
Addressing the press at the National Press Club in New Delhi, Dr Kalam said, "By 2050, even if we use
every available energy resource we have: clean and dirty, conventional and alternative, solar,
wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, the world will fall short of the energy we need."
43
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Oil Wars
SBSP Solves for Oil war – makes a peaceful world
Morgan October 25, 2007 (By James The Herald (Glasgow) SCIENCE NOTEBOOK; Ray of hope on
energy BYLINE:
Ever since the Sputnik satellite was launched 50 years ago, scientists have dreamed of building "orbiting power
stations", by launching acres of solar panels and beaming electricity back to Earth. Putting "solar
factories" in space would allow them to operate 24 hours a day, offering a consistent, limitless
supply of green energy. These dreams were always shot down by the costs - exorbitant when compared with
the plentiful reserves of fossil fuels. Now, with spiralling oil prices and the threat of runaway climate change, the
balance has tipped, according to the National Security Space Office, part of the Department of Defense . Its study
claims that space-based solar power (SBSP) could be economically competitive in the near
future. In just a year, it calculates, satellites orbiting in a continuous sunlight could generate
energy nearly equivalent to all of the energy available in the world's oil reserves. Not only
might that put the brakes on global warming, it says, it could help to stif le the wars and
political tension that the oil trade creates. The result - a peaceful world.
44
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Oil Dependence 1/3
SBSP solves for global energy crises and improve US peacekeeping efforts.
Rouge ‘7 (Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study; Report to the Director, National Security Space
Office; Interim Assessment; Release 0.1; 10 October 2007; JOSEPH D. ROUGE, SES; Acting
Director, National Security Space Office)AM
There are two separate business cases to be made for the development of Space‐Based Solar
Power, with very different dynamics. Both involve the need for power and energy security –
deliverable in a clean, safe, reliable, unlimited and sustainable manner. The first business case –
“Scenario 1 – Urgent Need” ‐ is based on the use of SBSP to quickly provide (likely on a temporary not
permanent basis) base load power to a specific location. This may provide troops abroad in
unfriendly or ill equipped territory with power. It may be used to help peacekeeping missions
in remote or underdeveloped locations. It could also be used to re‐establish power in disaster
zones such as those affected by devastating hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis or other natural
disasters (either domestic or to provide valuable foreign aid, if or when these occur in other parts of the world)
where the existing infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed and cannot be quickly rebuilt. The value of the
power provided in these circumstances is very high, some would say priceless. The second business case –
“Scenario 2 ‐ Commercial Base load” – is for the use of SBSP as a clean alternative source of base load
power to augment and/or replace existing power generated by burning fossil fuels. This power
could be sold to the grids domestically or abroad or both. The value of power provided here is
the commodity price of electricity (regardless of production method) with perhaps a premium
for the “clean” nature of the power. The ability to sell carbon offset credits may also exist.
SSP solves oil dependence, independently, the impact is great power war and
prevents oil shocks.
NSSO, 2007, SBSP Study Group, 2007, 10 October 2007, (National Security Space Office, SpaceBased Solar Power, As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study, http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)
Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long-term route tu alleviate the security
challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil
fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information
Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come
on-line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on
the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum
requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states , particularly among the less
developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To
the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it
offers an “alternative in the third dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
45
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Oil Dependence 2/3
SSP key to solve energy independence-impact is extinction.
Draiman 2008 [Jay, “Mandatory Renewable Energy: The Energy Evolution”, Energy Consultant
and Energy Development Specialist with over 20 years experience in energy research,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn12774-pentagon-backs-planto-beam-solar-power-from-space.html]
"We strive to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs". Today’s energy industry is perhaps the worlds most powerful . Energy is
the basis of this entire world wealth, and for perhaps earth entire history, the sun
energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early humans did not learn to
exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests. Without
the continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization ,
no Industrial Revolution and no looming global catastrophe . In order to insure energy and economic
independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign
countries, our country, the United States of America utilization of energy sources
must change . " Energy drives our entire economy. We must protect it. "Let's face it,
without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would
come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society
and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable. Our continued dependence
on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
46
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Oil Dependence 3/3
SPS ends US fossil fuel dependence
Bova 8 –award-winning editor and an executive in the aerospace industry Ben, “TO THE NEXT
PRESIDENT From Ben Bova,” 10-2008, http://www.benbova.com/presidentltr1.html
Once you enter the White House you will face enormous problems: an economy in recession, energy prices
soaring, global warming that causes climate change and more powerful tropical storms, rising unemployment, terrorism and war.
But you will have an asset that has been overlooked by previous administrations: the powerful technology that we have forged over half a century of space exploration. You can and should use
Space technology can help to cut our dependence on oil
imported from overseas while at the same time generating whole new industries that could
create millions of new jobs. Using our space assets properly could make you the most popular President since John F. Kennedy. Most Americans take our space
our hard-earned capabilities in space to solve down-to-Earth problems.
technology for granted. They watch the Olympics live from Beijing and see hurricanes tracked by satellites, they put GPS systems in their cars, but they believe that our space program is
mainly an expensive hobby for an elite community of scientists, with no payback to the average taxpayer. Getting nifty pictures from Mars is neat, but it doesnt buy any groceries or lower the
the U.S. is shelling out some $700 billion per year for foreign oil. Some of this money
supports terrorists and dictators such as Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. With world demand for energy increasing, the cost of imported
oil has nowhere to go but up, and the price for gasoline will head toward $10 per gallon during your
Administration - unless you use the knowledge and technology we already have in hand to make a meaningful change for
the better. Space technology can help us to do that. And create new jobs, whole new industries, while doing it. Energy is the
key. If we want to pull our economy out of recession we must stop paying $700 billion a year for
imported oil. If we want to save our environment from greenhouse warming and the inevitable climate change and devastating storms that come with it, we must move away from fossil fuels of all kinds and go to
price of gasoline. Meanwhile,
clean, renewable sources of energy. You will have to make some hard choices about energy. Nuclear power doesnt put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but it has its own problems with radioactive wastes. Hydrogen fuels
burn cleanly, but hydrogen is expensive to produce and really difficult to distribute by pipeline. Wind power works in special locations, but most people dont want huge, noisy wind turbines where they live. Some have suggested
building automobiles that are powered by electricity. The cars would be clean-running, but how will we generate the additional electricity needed to power millions of “plug in” cars? How will we fuel the new powerplants we
would need? Solar energy has long been a favorite of environmentalists. The Sun delivers about a kilowatt per square yard to the ground all across America. Put solarvoltaic cells on your roof and you can generate all the electricity
you need. But only when the Sun is shining. Clouds and night make solar energy a part-time solution, at best. And solar energy cannot supply the base-load needs of factories and densely-populated cities. This is where space
technology comes in. There is a way to use solar energy for base-load power generation, twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year. Place the solar cells in space, in high orbits where they are in sunshine all the time. The Sun
beams out 386 billion billion megawatts of energy: thats 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts. Enormous energy! For comparison, the total installed electrical power generation capacity of the United States is slightly
more than one million megawatts: the Sun emits 386 thousand billion times more. Of this steady and unfailing outpouring of sunlight, our planet Earth catches less than one part in two billion. Theres plenty of room for
improvement! The concept of the Solar Power Satellite (SPS) was invented by Peter Glaser in 1968. The idea is basically very simple: build large assemblages of solar cells in space where they convert sunlight into electricity, and
Solar Power Satellite is the ultimate clean energy source. It
doesnt burn an ounce of fuel. Its powerplant is the Sun, 93 million miles away. A single SPS could deliver five to ten gigawatts to the ground. Thats five to ten
thousand megawatts. The total electrical generation capacity of the entire state of California is 4.4 gigawatts. One SPS could deliver twice as much electrical power. With Solar
Power Satellites you could cut back our need for imported oil, cut back our need for fossil fuels of all
kinds . If this nation moves toward electric “plug-in” automobiles, a few SPSs could provide the increased electrical power we will
need. Since they dont need any fuel, SPSs would have low operating costs. Conservative estimates have shown that a Solar Power Satellite could
then beam the electricity they generate to receiving stations on the ground. The
deliver electricity to the consumer at a cost of eight to ten cents per kilowatt/hour, which is quite competitive with costs from conventional power generation stations. And that would be for
the earliest SPSs. Operating costs would drop as more orbital platforms are constructed and costs for components such as solarvoltaic cells are reduced. Solar Power Satellites could lower the
Solar Power Satellites would be big, a mile across or
more. But they dont require any new inventions. We have the basic technology in hand . Basically, an SPS needs
average taxpayers electric bills, even while providing enormously more electricity than we can now can generate.
solarvoltaic cells to convert sunlight into electricity and microwave transmitters to beam the energy to the ground. Weve been using solar cells to power spacecraft since the 1950s. Solar cells
are in our pocket calculators, wristwatches, and other everyday gadgetry. You can buy solar cells through the Internet. Microwave transmitters are also a well-developed technology. Theres
one in almost every kitchen in the nation, in the heart of our microwave ovens. Some people worry about beaming gigawatts of microwave energy to the ground. But the microwave beams
would be spread over a wide area, so they wouldnt be intense enough to harm anyone. Birds could fly through the thinly-spread beams without harm.
The receiving
stations would be set up in unpopulated areas, nevertheless. The desert areas of the American southwest would make an ideal location for SPS receivers. You could
gain votes in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California! Its ironic, but when Solar Power Satellites become commonplace, the desert wastes of the Sahara and the Middle East could become important energy centers even after
the last drop of oil has been pumped out of them. SPS receiving stations could also be built on platforms at sea: Japan has already looked into that possibility. Building mile-wide structures in space will certainly be a challenge,
but we have learned how to construct the International Space Station, which is about the size of a football field. We have the basics in hand. Solar Power Satellites wont be cheap. Its been estimated that the construction cost of an
SPS will be similar to the cost of building a nuclear powerplant: on the order of a billion dollars. That money neednt come from the taxpayers. It could be raised by the private capital market. Oil companies invest that kind of
money every year on exploring for new oil fields. Private investors usually consider three factors before they plunk their dollars into a new venture. First, how big an investment is needed? Second, how risky is the project? Third,
how long before I see a return on my investment? A billion-dollar investment isnt peanuts, although the private capital market raises that kind of money all the time. The risk involved with building an SPS is considerable,
however. Although the basic technologies involved are well-known, space operations are inherently risky. Finally, it could be many years or even decades before an investment in SPS begins to pay off. How can we get private
investors to put their money into Solar Power Satellites? This nation tackled a similar situation about a century ago, when faced with the problem of building big hydroelectric dams. Those dams were on the cutting edge of
technology at the time, and they were risky endeavors that required hefty funding. Hoover Dam, the Grand Coulee and others were built with private investment backed by long-term, low-interest loans guaranteed by the U.S.
government. Those dams changed the face of the American west, providing irrigation water and electrical power that stimulated enormous economic growth. Phoenix and Las Vegas wouldnt be on the map, except for those dams.
The electricity that powered crucial parts of the Manhattan Project atomic bomb program came from those dams. Solar Power Satellites could be funded the same way, through government-back loans. Not a penny from the
taxpayers pockets. The federal government has backed such loan guarantees in the past to help troubled corporations such as Chrysler and Lockheed. Why not use the same technique to encourage private investment in Solar
Power Satellites? Moreover, a vigorous SPS program would provide a viable market for the private companies that are developing rocket launchers. Several companies are working on efficient, reliable launch vehicles that can
bring down the costs of launching people and payloads into space. Like most new industries, they are caught in a conundrum: they need a market that offers a payoff, but no market will materialize until they can prove that their
product works. The fledgling aircraft industry faced this conundrum in the 1920s. The federal government helped to provide a market for them by giving them contracts to deliver air mail. Out of that beginning arose eventually
todays commercial airline industry. A vigorous SPS program could provide the market that the newborn private space-launch industry needs. And remember, a rocket launcher that can put people and payloads into orbit
profitably can also fly people and cargo across the Earth at hypersonic speed. Anywhere on Earth can be less than an hours flight away. Thats a market worth trillions of dollar per year. ROI, indeed. It will take foresight and
leadership to start a Solar Power Satellite program. The necessary technologies are at our fingertips; the vision to get the program going is what we need. Thats why, Mr. President-Elect, I believe
you should
make it NASAs primary goal to build and operate a demonstration model SPS before the end of your second
term. The “demo” should be sized to deliver a reasonably impressive amount of electrical power to the ground: say ten to 100 megawatts. Such a demonstration will
prove that full-scale SPSs are achievable. With federal loan guarantees, private financing will then take over
and build SPSs that will deliver the gigawatts we need to lower our imports of foreign oil and begin to move away
from fossil fuels.
47
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Global Conflict
This solves imperial conflict
Collina 5 - Executive Director of 20-20 Vision Tom Z. Collina, Executive Director of 20-20Vision;
testimony in front of Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South
Asian Affairs United States Senate “Oil Dependence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Real Dangers,
Realistic
Solutions”.
October
19,
2005
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/051020-collina.pdf
More conflicts in the Middle East America imports almost 60% of its oil today and, at this rate, we’ll import 70%
by 2025. Where will that oil come from? Two-thirds of the world’s oil is in the Middle East, primarily in Saudi
Arabia, Iran and Iraq. The United States has less than 3% of global oil. The Department of Energy
predicts that North American oil imports from the Persian Gulf will double from 2001 to 2025 .i
Other oil suppliers, such as Venezuela, Russia, and West Africa, are also politically unstable and hold
no significant long-term oil reserves compared to those in the Middle East. Bottom line: our
economy and security are increasingly dependent on one of the most unstable regions on earth.
Unless we change our ways, we will find ourselves even more at the mercy of Middle East oil
and thus more likely to get involved in future conflicts . The greater our dependence on
oil, the greater the pressure to protect and control that oil . The growing American
dependence on imported oil is the primary driver of U.S. foreign and military policy today,
particularly in the Middle East, and motivates an aggressive military policy now on display in Iraq. To
help avoid similar wars in the future and to encourage a more cooperative, responsible,
and multilateral foreign policy the United States must significantly reduce its oil use.
Before the Iraq war started, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said:
“Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with
more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves.” Unfortunately, he was right. In fact, the use of military
power to protect the flow of oil has been a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy since 1945 . That
was the year that President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the United
States would protect the kingdom in return for special access to Saudi oil—a promise that governs U.S. foreign
policy today. This policy was formalized by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 when he announced that the
secure flow of oil from the Persian Gulf was in “the vital interests of the United States of
America” and that America would use “any means necessary, including military force” to
protect those interests from outside forces. This doctrine was expanded by President Ronald Reagan in 1981
to cover internal threats, and was used by the first President Bush to justify the Gulf War of 1990-91, and provided
a key, if unspoken rationale for the second President Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.ii The Carter/Reagan
Doctrine also led to the build up of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf on a permanent basis and to the establishment
of the Rapid Deployment Force and the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The United States now spends
over $50 Billion per year (in peacetime) to maintain our readiness to intervene in the Gulf. iii
America has tried to address its oil vulnerability by using our military to protect supply routes
and to prop up or install friendly regimes. But as Iraq shows the price is astronomical—$200 Billion and
counting. Moreover, it doesn’t work —Iraq is now producing less oil than it did before the
invasion. While the reasons behind the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq may be complex, can
anyone doubt that we would not be there today if Iraq exported coffee instead of oil? It is time for a new
approach. Americans are no longer willing to support U.S. misadventures in the Persian Gulf. Recent polls show
that almost two-thirds of Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the price in terms of blood and treasure. Lt.
Gen William Odom, director of the National Security Agency during President Reagan's second term, recently
said: "The invasion of Iraq will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history." The nation is
understandably split about what to do now in Iraq, but there appears to be widespread agreement that America
should not make the same mistake again—and we can take a giant step toward that goal by
reducing our dependence on oil.
48
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Middle East 1/3
Oil dependence increases the risk of attack in the Middle East
South China Morning, 2004 ( Post “World must avoid falling hostage to oil dependence,” Pg. 12,
South China Morning Post Ltd. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?, May 31,
2004)
The various nationalities of those who were captured or killed and the names of the companies found in the oil
compound attacked - Total, Lukoil, Sinopec and Royal Dutch/Shell among them - reveal much about how
important a constant flow of oil has become to continued global economic growth. The mainland's emergence as a
rapidly industrialising economy has only added to the competition for access to a resource
whose reserves are finite.
The recent breach of the US$ 40 per barrel price barrier had more to do with this international
dependence on oil than on any supply constraints. And while most analysts believe that a crisis can be
avoided unless the price of crude surpasses US$ 50 per barrel, the violence in Khobar is a timely
reminder of how political instability at the source can be just as perilous for consumer nations.
When the militants struck at Khobar, they struck at the heart of this interdependent system. And as
the bulk of the world's known oil reserves lie in the Middle East, the health of the international
economy will remain vulnerable and face limits that have more to do with geopolitics than with
anything else.
At the same time, renewable energy accounts for just 2 per cent of the world's total
consumption. At the current rate of development, these alternative fuel sources could account for
some 4 per cent of consumption by 2030. Even this minimal gain would mean little in the face
of a surge in demand from emerging economies such as China's.
The bleak prospect is for greater dependence on oil and greater vulnerability to terrorists who set out to
disrupt supplies - unless there is a radical change in approach to energy use and development .
For progress to be made, there will need to be leadership, investment and aggressive targets
from the world's largest economies. Unfortunately, the recent history has been one of back-pedalling and
increased oil dependence: the European Union has dropped its target of 22 per cent renewable energy use by
2010, while the mainland adds roads and cars.
49
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Middle East 2/3
The US’s dependence on oil is causing a huge national security threat in the
Middle East
Beddor, Chen, deLeon, Park, and Weiss, 2009 (Rudy deLeon is the Senior Vice President of
National Security and International Policy at American Progress in Washington, D.C, Daniel J.
Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress, where he
leads the Center's clean energy and climate advocacy campaign, Christopher Beddor, Winny
Chen“Securing America’s Future Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence
and Environmental Damage” www.americanprogress.org, 6/09)
The United States will remain vulnerable to volatile oil prices and supply shortages as long as
it heavily depends on other nations for fuel and energy . Its need for steady supplies of oil means
it must adjust its behavior and strategies in order to maintain relations with lessthan- savory
regimes including Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. These countries, as well as smaller nations such as
Angola, will therefore hold an increasingly disproportional amount of bilateral and regional power,
while the United States has diminished leverage and constrained policy options in strategic
regions such as the Middle East and Central Asia the United States to import more from antagonistic
countries in the future in order to offset the tapering supply.
Former military officials are speaking out on this issue. The CNA Military Advisory Board, a
group of distinguished retired military leaders, issued a report in May 2009 arguing that
America’s reliance on foreign oil poses a serious threat to U.S. national security. The report,
entitled “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security,” concluded that “U.S.
dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives, and
entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes.”29
America’s oil dependence has other indirect but no less serious impacts on U.S. interests.
For example, high rates of American consumption drive up global demand for oil, which fuels lofty
prices and helps to fund and to sustain undemocratic and corrupt regimes. Because of this anti-Western nations
such as Iran—with whom the United States by law cannot trade or buy oil—benefit regardless of who the end
buyer of the fuel is.
Last year, record oil prices driven by global demand and speculators flooded Iran’s treasury with oil money, which
helped keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad afloat. Prior to Iran’s presidential election The Economist noted, “The
president’s open-handed economic policies, 9 Center for American Progress | Securing America’s Future based on
a windfall of $250 billion in oil sales during his four-year term and intended to redistribute wealth, have won
friends among the poor.”30
Reducing U.S. oil demand in the world market would be a big financial hit to Iran and other
unfriendly petrostates. And it would have the added benefit of making more fuel from stable nations available
to countries such as China, which currently purchases from Iran and Sudan because U.S. demand dominates oil
trade with friendly sources. The revenues and power from oil exports also undermine American
interests in rule of law, good governance, development, and democracy promotion around the
world. Funds from oil exports are rarely distributed among the people of oil-exporting countries. They often stay
concentrated in the hands of a small group of ruling elites who exploit oil revenues to preserve their hold on
power.
50
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Middle East 3/3
Because of Oil Dependence, The US security is dependent upon the Middle East
Salameh, International Oil Economist, 2003 (Mamdouh G. Salameh Director International Oil
Economist / World Bank “Quest for Middle East oil: the US versus the Asia-Pacific region”, Oil
Market Consultancy Service, Spring Croft Sturt Avenue, Haslemere, Surrey GU27 3SJ, UK , 6
March
2003,
Copyright
©
2003
Elsevier
Science
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150200215X#m4.cor*)
Oil and security head the list of US interests in the Gulf and the two are obviously interconnected. Broadly what is
meant by security is the maintenance of a political order conducive to US access to the region's
oil supplies, markets and communication routes and protection of related US investments and
assets (Khalidzad, 1995).
The United States is the biggest consumer of oil in the world accounting for 25% of current
world consumption, and only 7.7% of world production. A steadily declining crude oil production in the US
coupled with steeply rising costs of finding and developing new oilfields, have combined to create a major
oil deficit in the country's oil balance forcing it to become increasingly dependent on oil
imports and this dependence is set to increase. In 2000 the US imported 56% of its needs, or
11.07 million barrels a day (mbd), almost half of which came from the Middle East. By the year
2010, the United States could be importing 79% of its oil needs, two-thirds of which will also
come from the Middle East (see Table 1).
51
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – China
Additionally, the resulting oil competition causes US China war – Lateral
pressure theory proves
Hatemi, professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Wedeman, associate professor and
chair of Asian Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2007 ( Peter Hatemi is a professor at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Andrew Wedeman is associate professor and chair of Asian
Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln., China Security, Vol. 3 No. 3 Summer 2007, pp. 95 118 2007 World Security Institute, “Oil and Conflict in Sino-American Relations” accessed 6/27/11
http://www.wsichina.org/cs7_5.pdf)
Power transition theory is not the only model that posits deteriorating SinoAmerican strategic relations. In recent
years, rapidly rising Chinese energy demand has led to speculation about the consequences of
increasing competition for oil imports. 4 China and the United States could find themselves at
strategic loggerheads not because of shifts in relative power, but over access to oil. This is “lateral
pressure theory,” which states that when a country is forced to look beyond its own borders for
new supplies, it will likely run into conflict with existing consumers of that resource . 5 Therefore,
as the United States and China move closer to power parity, intensifying “lateral pressures”
generated by competition for oil imports could become a significant and destabilizing factor in
Sino-American relations. It is not the simple combination of lateral pressures and power transition alone, but
their timing that will shape the future of Sino-American strategic relations. For example, before power parity
is reached between two states, a more powerful state may deter an energy-hungry but weaker
one from challenging it for greater access to energy supplies. However, after the point of power
parity, a state with a declining power may feel compelled to capitulate to the rising state’s
demand for greater access to energy. Conflict will most likely occur when lateral pressures
reach critical levels at roughly the same time as two states reach power parity. Despite its
inherently speculative nature, such analysis nevertheless suggests that lateral pressures will reach critical
levels well before China attains even a minimal level of strategic parity with the United State s. 6
As a result, China and the United States are likely to find themselves locked into a zero-sum
competition for energy at a point when the likely outcome of a Sino-American confrontation
would still favor the United States. In such a situation, China would face a difficult choice. It would have to
shy away from confrontation and risk the possibility that the United States could somehow restrict its access to
the energy resources. Or, it may opt for a high-risk strategy aimed at forcing the United States to
accept restraints on the consumption of imported energy. To further complicate this choice for
China, the United States might preemptively act while it retains a power advantage, seeking to
somehow deny China equal access to oil supplies.
52
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Terrorism
Dependence of oil drives up prices of consumer goods, prolongs the recession as
well as increase terrorist activity.
Major Brian R. Stuart, USAF (April 2007. “Oil and Security Don’t Mix: Why the US can’t Ignore
Dependency” pg 1-2)
The issue of United States (US) dependence on foreign oil impacts most Americans. Every time "prices rise at
the pump." Americans feel and recognize the impact on the economy and their income. However,
the price of gasoline is one very small aspect of the larger issues revolving around the amount of oil the US
consumes, and more precisely, the amount of oil the US imports. The American lifestyle is currently
dependent upon an uninterrupted flow of foreign oil into the US to meet the current and future
needs of the nation. Halting or interrupting the flow of oil would have a detrimental impact on
the US economy and way of life. From an economic perspective, the nation would sec an increase in
the price of transporting goods and services, which would drive higher prices for all consumer
goods without a corresponding increase in wages. Additionally, economists predict sharp spikes in
oil and gasoline prices could easily drive the US into a prolonged recession. "All economic
downturns in the United States since 1973...have been preceded by sharp increases in the price
of oil."1 "Even a relatively minor disruption of the global oil supply has the potential to cause
economic dislocation for tens of millions of Americans."2 But the economic implications are only part
of the issue. The US military would suffer from budgetary constraints. Reasonable forecasts for the price of
gasoline for tanks, airplanes, and vehicles establish the military fuel budget. A sharp and unexpected price
increase would wreak havoc on the military budget. The military could be forced to cut
spending in order to pay for gasoline required to maintain readiness and fight the Global War
on Terrorism (GWOT). The ability of the US to utilize all instruments of power depends upon an
uninterrupted supply of foreign oil. The United States dependence on foreign oil is significant national
security concern. Oil dependence erodes national security, constrains US actions and
diplomatic effectiveness, and retards global development by perpetuating corruption and
terrorist activity? Political influences in regions of the world that supply oil are limited, and this is no secret.
This fact inhibits the US' ability to promote its stated objectives and pursue national interests; at the same
time, it strengthens terrorist networks. "The US has been forced to coddle some of the world's worst
despots just because they held the key to our prosperity hence compromising American values and principles.'"1
Many Americans even believe that the US initiated a war in Iraq to gain control of oil resources for energy
security. This belief does not appear to have merit when one looks at the entire situation; however, it does
highlight the fact that oil dependence is a national problem. Senator Ken Salazar referred to it as a "major
national security issue,"5 and President George Bush called it a "foreign lax on the American dream.""
53
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Adventurism 1/2
Oil Shocks cause military adventurism – alternative energy key
Quinn, Staff writer for Newsweek, 2006 (Jane Bryant Quinn, 4/24/06, “The Price of Our
Addiction”
accessed
6/27/11
http://www.newsweek.com/2006/04/23/the-price-of-ouraddiction.html)
This throws our Iraq wars into a different light. To an extent that most Americans don't yet understand,
the U.S. military has become a "global oil-protection force," says Michael Klare, an expert on naturalresource wars and author of the book "Blood and Oil." President Jimmy Carter declared the free flow of oil from
the Persian Gulf to be a vital U.S. interest, enforced at the point of a gun, if necessary. Today, we patrol tanker
routes not only in the gulf, but in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Troops and advisers
help protect pipelines in chaotic countries such as Colombia and the Republic of Georgia.
We're planting military bases near oil supplies in Asia and Africa. Gulf War I was billed as a
war to save Saudi oilfields from Saddam Hussein. Gulf War II was elevated to a "war against
terror." But it's arguably still about oil--the Carter Doctrine reigns. One of the prizes in Iraq was to
have been British and American access to its huge and unexploited oil reserves, Klare says. What
does all this add up to? A future oil market drastically rationed by price. Farmers, truckers and people on
lower incomes who have to drive to work will be squeezed, especially if they also need oil to heat their homes. But
heating with natural gas won't save you either, says oil investment banker Matthew Simmons; natural-gas
supplies may grow even tighter and even higher priced. On paper, we have alternatives, such as liquefied coal, oil
sands from Canada and ethanol. But they're not anywhere close to production on a massive scale. For a smooth
transition, mega-energy projects need to get started at least 20 years before oil supplies
decline, writes Robert Hirsch of the consulting firm SAIC in a study prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
If we don't get a running start on the problem, he says, "the economic consequences will be
dire." We're probably already behind. It takes leadership to address a potential crisis in
advance. Unfortunately, we're investing in war, not in crash projects to develop new energy
sources. Maybe there's time to spare. But some events, like true civil war and collapse in Iraq, could change
everything in a day. We're running a faith-based energy policy--still addicted to oil. If something goes wrong, it
will go wrong big.
54
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Oil Dependence Bad – Adventurism 2/2
Adventurism causes war and extinction
Kellner, Social Sciences at UCLA, 2003 (Douglas Kellner is a professor of social sciences at UCLA,
“An Orwellian Nightmare: Critical Reflections on the Bush Administration” accessed 6/27/11
http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/orwelliannightmare.htm)
After the collapse of the Baath regime in April 2003, the Bush administration began threatening Syria and there have been reports that the neo-conservatives in the administration have
The Bush administration policy of Terror War raises the possibility that
Orwell's 1984 might provide the template for the new millennium, as the world is plunged into
endless wars, as freedom and democracy are being snuffed out in the name of freedom, as
language loses meaning, and as history is constantly revised (just as Bush and his scribes constantly rewrote his own personal
planned five more wars (see Clark 2003).
history). There is thus the danger that Orwell's dark grim dystopia may replace the (ideological) utopia of the "information society," the "new economy," and a prosperous and democratic
Will the Bush administration Terror War lead
the world to apocalypse and ruin through constant war and the erection of totalitarian police
states over the faÁade of fragile democracy? Or can more multilateral and global solutions be found to the dangers of terrorism that will strengthen
democracy and increase the chances for peace and security? There is indeed a danger that Terror War will be a force of
historical regression, and the motor of destruction of the global economy, liberal polity, and
democracy itself, all to be replaced by an aggressive militarism and totalitarian police state. It could
globalization that had been the dominant ideology and vision of the past decade. Questions arise:
well be that Orwell will be the prophet of a coming New Barbarism with endless war, state repression, and enforced control of thought and discourse, and that George W. Bush and his
minions are the architects of an Orwellian future. It could also be the case, however, that the Taliban, bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and the Bush administration represent obsolete
opposing sides in the current Terror
War of the Bush administration reactionaries and Al Qaeda could be perceived as representing
complementary poles of an atavistic and premodern version of Islam and nihilistic terrorism
confronted by reactionary rightwing conservatism and militarism.[12] In this scenario, both poles can be perceived as
and reactionary forces that will be swept away by the inexorable forces of globalization and liberal democracy. The
disruptive and regressive forces in a global world that need to be overcome to create genuine historical progress. If this is the case, Terror War would be a momentary interlude in which two
This is, of course, an optimistic scenario and
probably, for the foreseeable future, progressive forces will be forced to confront intense battles
between the opposing forces of Islamic terrorism and rightwing militarism. Yet if democracy
and the human species are to survive, global movements against militarism and for social
justice, ecology, and peace must emerge to combat and replace the atavistic forces of the
present. As a new millennium unfolds, the human race has regressed into a New Barbarism unforeseeable prior to September 11. If civilization is to survive,
individuals must perceive their enemies and organize to fight for a better future. And now is the time for
obsolete historical forces battle it out, ultimately to be replaced by more sane and democratic globalizing forces.
liberals, conservatives and those who believe in truth in politics to demand straight talk from the Bush administration and other politicians, and for the media and critics of the politics of
As the history of recent totalitarian regimes demonstrates,
systematic deception and lying rots the very fabric of a political society, and if U.S. democracy
is to find new life and a vigorous future there must be public commitments to truth and public
rejection of the politics of lying. To conclude: as a response to the September 11 terror attacks, the Bush administration has
answered with an intensified militarism that threatens to generate an era of Terror War, a new
arms race, accelerated military violence, U.S. support of authoritarian regimes, an assault on
human rights, constant threats to democracy, and destabilizing of the world economy . The Bush regime
lying to take the Bush administration to task for its Big Lies.
also provides political favors to its largest corporate and other supporters, unleashing unrestrained Wild West capitalism, exemplified in the Enron scandals, and a form of capitalist cronyism
whereby Bush administration family and friends are provided with government favors, while social welfare programs, environmental legislation, and protection of rights and freedoms are
rather the road to an
Orwellian nightmare in which democracy and freedom will be in dire peril and the future of the
human species will be in question. These are frightening times and it is essential that all citizens
become informed about the fateful conflicts of the present, gain clear understanding of what is
at stake, and realize that they must oppose at once international terrorism, Bushian militarism,
and an Orwellian police-state in order to preserve democracy and a life worthy of a human
being.
curtailed. Consequently, I would argue that Bush administration unilateralist militarism is not the way to fight international terrorism, but is
55
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Saudi Arabia
The Saudi economy is doomed – it’s do or die for a transition
Robert Looney, Professor in National Security Affairs, Center for Contemporary Conflict,
Strategic
Insights,
Volume
III,
Issue
1,
January
2004,
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jan/looneyJan04.asp
The composition of output between public/private consumption and investment has produced several interesting
patterns over time (Figure 3). The most stable series is private investment, averaging slightly above 10 percent of
total expenditures. Interestingly, the share of private sector investment was not significantly affected by the 19731974 oil price increases; nor did it expand while private sector activity grew as a share of GDP from 1973-1974 to
1985. In contrast, private consumption's share of expenditures dropped from a high of 70 percent in 1960 to
around 30 percent in 1973-1974. Since that time, private consumption, while fluctuating a bit, has moved
back up to approximately half of total expenditures. Public consumption gradually increased
from less than 20 percent of expenditures in 1960 to around 30 percent at the time of the oil price increases. Since
then, the public sector's consumption has fluctuated in the low 30s, with no particular trend. Of the four
expenditure variables, public investment has shown the most notable trends, gradually increasing
its share from near zero in 1960 to around 25 percent in 1975. Since then, public expenditures
gradually trended down, closing at near 5 percent by 2002. These patterns and trends suggest
that the kingdom is living on borrowed time: falling public and stagnant private investment
rates in the context of a rapidly growing population mean increased domestic bottlenecks and
capacity constraints that reduce the country's sustainable growth potential. Many of these
constraints, such as power shortages, are reported on a regular basis in the popular press.
56
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Russia Economy 1/3
Oil price is irrelevant to the Russian economy—economic reforms are key and low
oil prices create the impetus for them
Lannin, Reuters, 2001 (12/7, http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5585-12.cfm)
officials have also said the oil price/OPEC issue is a wrong focus. "Will Russia succeed in
avoiding a crash?" asked economist Andrei Illarionov in a comment in the English-language daily, the
Key
Moscow Times.
"The answer
to this question can be found not in the price of oil but in the quality of
government decisions, i.e. in the responsibility and consistency of government policy," said Illarionov, who is
an adviser to President Vladimir Putin.
" Whether there will be a crisis
or whether industrial growth will continue in
Russia depends primarily on the economic policies pursued, and not on oil
prices," Illarionov added .
He has said that lower oil prices would actually help Russia as they encourage the
government to work on reforms rather than simply sit back and reap the profits
of rising crude prices .
An oil centered economy drives up inflation—tanks the economy
Lelyveld, Economics Policy and Resource Center, 2003
(Feb 14, http://www.zeromillion.com/econ/lower-prices.html)
Although oil revenues have helped Russia to pump up its revenues and Central Bank reserves, they have also
strengthened the ruble in real terms, posing a risk for Russian manufacturers and exports.
The argument may be hard for Russian consumers to understand, but it is likely to have a profound effect
on their economy this year.
While reports have focused on the ruble's falling value in exchange with the dollar since the
start of last year, it has actually risen in comparative value when inflation is taken into account.
The reason is that ruble rates have depreciated only slightly, while inflation has raced ahead.
According to a report by the U.S.-Russia Business Council, the ruble rate fell only about 6.4
percent last year while inflation reached 18.6 percent, resulting in a real strengthening of about
12 percent against the dollar. In the United States, inflation was estimated at just 1.9 percent
last year.
Illarionov argues that a stronger ruble is not necessarily good for the economy because Russian
products are quickly losing their cost advantage over imports from abroad. Russia's recovery
has been driven by higher production since the huge devaluation during the ruble crisis of
August 1998. But Russia has been gradually losing the currency advantage as a result of real
appreciation and inflation.
In other words, while consumers are worried that the ruble looks like it is falling against the
dollar, Russian manufacturers have been worried because it has actually risen in real terms.
Russia halted the appreciation only in the second half of last year when it got inflation under
control.
Illarionov argues that lower oil prices this year will help rather than hurt. Part of the logic is that
high oil prices have been bringing in huge amounts of cash, which drive inflation higher, while
stimulating demand for more imports.
57
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Russia Economy 2/3
High oil prices cause Dutch disease in Russia- reforms to diversify the economy
empirically aren’t spurred by oil revenue
What the Papers Say, 8/30/2004
The presence of unlimited oil reserves is a serious threat for the economy, especially in terms of
high oil prices world-wide. This is an axiom. Piles of volumes of economic literature are dedicated
to the "commodities curse". Presidential advisor Andrei Illarionov, one of the most consistent
strugglers against the "oil dependence of Russia," explains, "The share of rent is very high in
the prices of oil and other energy resources artificially overvalued as a result of many years of
effect of the mechanism of their raising by OPEC countries. This rent redistributes the money
from the countries that import oil to the countries that export oil ".
Only at first glance, the money earned in such a way is useful for the economies of the exporter
countries. High prices of energy resources contribute to the development of the socalled Dutch disease, which is the degradation of processing industries and the growth of
the share of the commodities sector. Economic growth slows down and sometimes stops ."
In one of his interviews, Illarionov said instead of this, "Rent always has corrupting influence on its
recipient, primarily on political and economic elites and on the entire society ." Illarionov did not
say how it would be possible to solve this political problem. Meanwhile, without solving it, it is impossible to
implement the classic method of combating the Dutch disease. The commodities' rent represents almost an
irresistible persuasion for the authorities. Instead of freezing the authorities' part of the money in the stabilization
fund and creating conditions for investing that part of the money going to oil companies in production, it is easier
to establish complete state control over the strategic industry. Afterwards, it is possible to manage the rent on
behalf of and in the interests of the entire population building factories and plants, providing a decent living to
teachers, doctors and pensioners, defending the national interests in the Balkans and in the Persian Gulf zone.
That is what befits a super power. The population that firmly remembers the enormous wealth hidden in the
native land (in the last decade Russia has had the second place in the world in oil export) rightly expects these
actions from the authorities. Hence, there is a conclusion that a good state is a state that will share this wealth
"justly" and "fairly." Simply speaking, oil fields represent an ideal soil for populism in politics and paternalism in
society. However, not only for the reasons stated.
The authorities that re-divide the rent start surrendering to the temptation of prolonging their rule as long as
possible.
In any case, it seems that Russian authorities have not resisted the rent's temptations. The
disputes of whether the country needs an industrial policy and what kind of policy are over .
Back at the beginning of the year there was a hope that the government would encourage
diversification of the economy by available economic methods. Bills on increasing export duties on oil
and taxing the production of natural resources were worked out and passed through the Duma. In general, it was
decided to relieve the tax burden on the economy through lowering the uniform social tax and following-up by
lowering the value-added tax.
Since 2004, the government started accumulating the oil super revenues in the stabilization
fund. However, the wind's direction has changed. Already money from the stabilization fund will
be spent next year on the coverage of the deficit of the pension fund. Nobody is going to wait
anymore for the commodities companies to start investing in industries with a bigger degree of
processing. The slogan about the need to create marketing institutions (guarantees of property,
independent court and arbitration court) without which long-term investments resemble a roulette, is
no longer heard. The state is a guarantor for itself. The state will also build a modern economy that befits
a super power for its citizens independently. Separate areas of resistance in the government, which have recently
declared giving up economic activities by the government, are being eradicated.
58
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
SBSP Aff
Silent Nihilists
Note – Dutch disease is the argument that an increase in natural resources like gas make a country’s currency
stronger which means they export less of everything else because their goods become too expensive for other
countries to buy. This is net worse for a countries economy
59
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Russia Economy 3/3
Low oil prices don’t harm the Russian economy
Ahrend, senior economic expert for the Economic Development and Trade Ministry, 2001
(Moscow Times, 10/16, lexis)
eople worry about three negative effects of a sharp drop in oil prices. First, and most importantly, they
fear Russia's current account balance could turn negative, possibly leading to a repeat of the August 1998 financial crash. However, a
back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that this concern is not seriously founded. In 2000, Russia's yearly current
account surplus was running at roughly $ 46 billion. In 2001, given that imports are rising rapidly
and assuming oil prices on a par with 2000, the surplus would probably be down at around $
40 billion. If you subtract an estimated $ 8 billion to $ 12 billion of capital flight and $ 7 billion to $ 10 billion in debt principal repayments, you are left with a
surplus of around $ 20 billion. A one dollar drop in oil prices diminishes yearly export revenues by an estimated $ 1.5 billion to $ 2 billion. This means that oil
prices could almost halve and the current account surplus would still be sufficiently large for
Russian citizens to send huge amounts of capital abroad and for the Russian government to
service and pay back all of its maturing debts in the coming years. Even if oil prices were to fall to historic
lows and stay there for a prolonged period - something that is unlikely to happen - a moderate depreciation of the
ruble should be enough to keep the current account sufficiently in surplus . The second concern, that lower
oil prices will have a negative impact on economic growth, is equally unfounded . The share of
the Russian oil and gas industry in GDP is not very large in real terms. Moreover, a rapidly
appreciating exchange rate or fast increasing inflation would have a negative impact on the
whole economy. A full-scale macroeconomic model of the Russian economy, developed for the
Economic Development and Trade Ministry, confirms that decreases in oil prices have no
negative impact on real GDP growth. Third is the concern that with lower oil prices the Russian government will be unable to collect enough revenue to
Nevertheless, p
meet its budget obligations, and in particular to pay back its debt. Here, at least, there is a grain of truth. Falling oil prices decrease government revenues from oil and gas exports, by an
as long as a fall in oil prices is not extreme, the negative impact
on government revenues should not be too large and the necessary adjustment should be easy
to make. If there was a sharp drop in oil prices, the adjustment could be painful, but - provided the
political will was there - would be economically feasible. President Vladimir Putin and his entourage fully understand the crucial need for economic stability in
estimated 1/4 percentage point of GDP per dollar. However,
Russia. Furthermore, they comprehend the foolishness of undermining this hard-earned stability by overspending for populist purposes, with the attendant risk of then having to default on
the Putin administration has sufficient control over the State Duma to marshal
the necessary political support for making downward adjustment to budget spending, should it
become necessary. Finally, if things got really nasty - though there is no real reason that they should - the Paris Club, and
especially Germany, would probably not deny Russia a helping hand and reschedule bilateral
debt, something they rightly refused the Russian government in a period of affluence.
debt repayment. Importantly,
High oil prices cause inflation
Hurst, Reuters, 2003 (1/17, http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7021-1.cfm)
High oil prices will drive up the value of the rouble and could slow Russian
economic growth unless the government resists going on a spending binge that would further inflate its currency, the IMF's chief
representative in Russia said on Thursday. "The problem is that oil prices are much higher than assumed
in the 2003 budget, currently by about $8," said Poul Thomsen, who heads the International Monetary Fund's Moscow office. Oil prices have shot
MOSCOW, Jan 16 (Reuters) -
up in anticipation of a United States-led military strike to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Thomsen also said Russia needed to be ready to cut spending quickly if oil prices plunge should
Saddam Hussein be overthrown and replaced with a pro-western government. Russia's 2003 taxing and spending plans as contained in the state budget are based on the assumption of an
"High oil prices will cause pressure on
the rouble to appreciate and the resulting weakening in competitiveness of Russian producers
would have a negative impact on economic growth," Thomsen told Reuters in an interview. "But by saving the
windfall revenue gains associated with high oil prices, the government can do much to reduce
the pressures for rouble appreciation and thereby help sustain the economic recovery," he added.
average price of $21.5 per barrel of Urals oil. Russian Urals oil was quoted at around $31 a barrel on Thursday.
60
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Indonesia Economy
Oil production is dead in Indonesia- high oil prices are bad for the economy and
natural gas industries
Oil and Gas Journal, 2004 (10/25, lexis)
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono becomes president of Indonesia this week with the country facing a range of
energy challenges.
Widhyawan Prawiraatmadja, an analyst with FACTS Inc., Honolulu, says the challenges include
declining crude oil production, the country's becoming a net importer of oil products, the
burden of mounting subsidies on the government's budget, declining competitiveness in LNG
trade, and delays in adopting implementation rules and regulations for the 2001 oil and gas
law.
Questions also loom about how the new government will deal with the section of the 2001 law dealing with
opening the domestic market.
While the oil and gas industry remains important to Indonesia's economy, generating substantial government
revenues, oil now has become burdensome, and gas is playing the more important role as a revenue
generator, Prawiraatmadja said. By 2003, oil had become a negative trade value on a net basis,
although it remained a net oil exporter in terms of volumes bought and sold (Fig. 1). This year,
Indonesia probably will become a net oil importer on a volume basis.
With that new status, Indonesia will be hurt more than helped by high oil prices, and the fiscal
damage will be aggravated by subsidies, which will total $ 6 billion this fiscal year. Subsidized
prices also provide incentives for smuggling and product adulteration and hamper the
development of natural gas for domestic use, FACTS said.
Natural resource based markets cause corruption- steals money from the
economy
Oil Daily, 2004 (10/21, lexis)
Most oil-rich countries are burdened by corruption and oil companies contribute to the
problem by not publishing information on payments made to governments and state-owned oil
companies, according to a study by Berlin-based Transparency International (TI).
"Transparency International urges Western governments to oblige their oil companies to publish what they pay in
fees, royalties and other payments to host governments and state oil companies," said Peter Eigen, chairman of TI,
in a statement released on Wednesday. "Access to this vital information will minimize opportunities
for hiding the payment of kickbacks to secure oil tenders, a practice that has blighted the oil
industry in transition and post-war economies."
The survey's "Corruption Perceptions Index" for 2004 shows oil-rich Angola, Azerbaijan, Chad, Ecuador,
Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen all with extremely low
scores, suggesting significant crooked business practices.
"In these countries, public contracting in the oil sector is plagued by revenues vanishing into
the pockets of Western oil executives, middlemen and local officials," he said, adding that TI
estimates that at least $400 billion is lost worldwide in all business sectors each year due to bribery in
government procurement.
61
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Mexican Economy
Oil irrelevant to the Mexican economy
LA Times, 12/24/2004
Oil producers such as Mexico are in much better shape to withstand a drop in crude prices than
they were a couple of decades ago. Petroleum accounted for nearly 80% of Mexico's exports in
the early 1980s. The government borrowed heavily against its oil wealth to finance a spending
spree that ended in disaster when crude prices fell in 1982. Mexico couldn't pay its foreign
debt, and capital fled the country, leading to a currency devaluation and hyperinflation.
Thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexico's economy today is much more
diversified, with oil accounting for about 10% of exports. The federal government by law has to
share some of its 2004 windfall with Mexico's states, setting aside more than $1 billion for
them as of September. But it also has directed some funds toward improvements in the state oil
company and channeled some into a rainy-day fund as well.
Much of Mexico's oil is a heavy, "sour" crude with a high sulfur content that sells at a discount to light West Texas
Intermediate, the benchmark for oil pricing. Average prices for Mexican crude, peaking at just over $42 a barrel in
late October versus more than $55 for West Texas Intermediate, slid to $25.70 early this month before settling
back to $29.01 on Thursday.
The seesaw market has made Mexico's budget planners nervous. Fox wants to use a
conservative estimate of $23 a barrel for 2005.
High oil prices worse for the Mexican economy
Newsweek, 2004 (11/8, lexis)
Spirits have been high and coffers full in commodity-rich developing nations from West Africa to East Asia
recently, thanks to record-high oil prices. Countries like Nigeria, Venezuela, East Timor and, of course, the Middle
Eastern oil states are seeing record inflows as prices continue to spiral upward. Net exporter Mexico is growing
fat, too--oil has yielded an extra $12 billion in revenues so far this year. But far from being gleeful about the boom,
officials there are fretting about the impact of high oil prices on the country.
The paradox is a result of Mexico's unique place in the global economy. Unlike many oil states, Mexico has
a relatively diversified economy--only 10 percent of its exports come from oil. The problem is
that the other 90 percent, including things like electronics, textiles and medical supplies, go
almost wholly to the United States. And there, high oil prices are beginning to have a
dampening effect on the economy. What's more, non-oil exports are facing increasing
competition from China, which has siphoned off thousands of Mexican manufacturing jobs.
And a sclerotic state-controlled oil sector hasn't invested enough in homegrown refineries,
meaning that Mexico must buy refined petroleum from the United States, at the going prices. The
result, says Alejandro Werner, a senior adviser at the Finance Ministry, is a situation in which
"the Mexican economy may slow down, even as oil prices continue to go up."
How much it slows will depend on just how far the U.S. economy falls. According to Jonathan
Heath, chief Mexico economist for HSBC, for every $5 increase in the price of oil, U.S. growth is cut 0.4 percent.
Already there are signs that nosebleed oil prices are dampening American consumer enthusiasm. Two weeks ago
Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that high oil prices have cut into U.S. GDP growth this year, and
warned of worse to come. If that happens, the border area Mexico shares with the United States, where hundreds
of maquiladoras churn out goods for the U.S. market, would suffer. That's a concern; after all, it was the
maquiladora sector that helped wean Mexico off its historical dependence on oil.
This poses a problem precisely because Mexico no longer relies as much on oil as other big net exporters in the
region--only 35 percent of total government revenues come from Pemex, the state-owned oil company, compared
with 80 percent in Venezuela. Nevertheless, that's enough money to allow politicians to stall on
further economic reforms and diversification. More than 60 percent of Pemex's pretax revenues go to fill
state coffers, and the take rose four percentage points this year, crippling production, exploration and refinery
62
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
SBSP Aff
Silent Nihilists
capacity. Even with some $16 billion in oil exports to the United States last year, Mexico had to re-import nearly a
quarter of that amount in refined-petroleum products because it doesn't yet have the plants to do the job.
63
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Iraq Economy 1/2
Oil bad for Iraq—tanks the economy and too underdeveloped to benefit
Looney, Professor @ Naval Postgraduate School, 2003
(July,
Strategic
Insights,
Center
for
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/july03/middleEast2.asp
Contemporary
Conflict,
Iraq's vast hydrocarbon deposits help paint a bright future for that embattled country. President Bush best expressed this sentiment in March of 2003: "The nation of Iraq, with its proud
heritage, abundant resources, and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom."
The U.S. position is that the
oil wealth of Iraq is to be used "for the benefit of the Iraqi people"
(U.S. Department of State, 2003). Given that the cost of
reconstruction will run into tens of billions of dollars (Looney, June 2003), Iraq would be in a helpless situation without its hydrocarbon wealth. As the title of this essay suggests, however,
expanded oil production and revenues may not prove to be a panacea. Juan Pablo Parez Alfonso, a
founder of OPEC complained in 1975: "I call petroleum the devil's excrement. It brings trouble.
Look at all the waste, corruption, consumption, and public services falling apart. And debt,
debt we shall have for years"(Economist May 22, 2003). The problems faced by oil exporters has spanned a whole literature, laden with colorful terms such as "The
Dutch Disease," "the paradox of plenty," "flawed prosperity," and even "the banyan tree problem (Tsalik, 2003)." The unfortunate fact is that most oil-rich developing
countries are underperformers across a whole spectrum of economic, social, political and
governance standards (Tsalik 2003). Large windfall gains associated with a rapid increase in oil prices
have been a particular problem in that they "appear to create severe distortions in the working
of the economy and the political system with strongly negative socio-political consequences"
(Stevens 2002). In countries as diverse as Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Indonesia, the combination of state infancy and revenue
windfalls has proved overwhelming, undermining even the best efforts to develop each
country's non-oil economy, eradicate poverty and improve living standards for broad-based
segments of the population. In terms of state development and institutional formation, Iraq is
beginning its reconstruction and development from a weaker position than these countries.
64
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: High Oil Prices Good – Iraq Economy 2/2
Oil will cause authoritarianism in Iraq—crushes reconstruction
Looney, Professor @ Naval Postgraduate School, 2003
(July,
Strategic
Insights,
Center
for
Contemporary
Conflict,
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/july03/middleEast2.asp)
The second dimension of negative oil-related effects has to do with governmental decision-making. The
relatively "easy" availability of foreign exchange arising from large-scale oil exports is likely to
take the pressure off necessary institutional and other policy changes. It also can lead to the
development of a rentier society where there is a disconnect between effort and reward. A common result is the
creation of a dualistic economy where a vibrant oil, and gas sector coexists with a weak, poorly performing non-oil
economy.
Along these lines, Fred Halliday has noted that "the uniqueness of oil resides...in the peculiar form
of payment resulting from it, a rent to producer states that does not entail the forward and
backward linkages within the local economy that are characteristic of other primary production
in the third world. The collection of this 'rent' enables the producer state, and those controlling
it, to amass enormous sums of money without engaging in any form of production; it is this
which has generated such major social tensions within the producer states. These tensions
include growing income inequality, rampant corruption in the state, grandiose development
projects, and the neglect of productive activity and skills, especially in agriculture.
As in Iraq (al Khafaji, 2002) because oil infrastructure can be controlled easily by a few, it leads to
a concentration of political power—rentier states tend to be authoritarian (Table 1). There are
several reasons for this development (Ross 2001). First, an oil rich government can provide vast social
services without taxing the public. "Because there's no taxation, there's less demand for representation."
Rentier governments also tend to buy off the opposition and amass large internal security
forces capable of crushing dissent. Second, the skewed development of oil dependent states
means that they lack the working and middle-class citizens who historically have been a force
pushing for democracy. In short, while oil-exporters fall into a number of political categories, lack of
accountability and transparency is a common characteristic of the group. The net effect of
these factors has led (to one degree or another) to corruption, mismanagement and a colossal waste
of resources.
65
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Peak Oil Bad – Global Conflict 1/3
Oil shortages would reduce growth for all countries—increases risk of conflict
Macalister (Terry, energy editor of the Guardian. He has been employed at the paper and website
for 12 years and previously worked at The Independent and other national titles.) guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 11 April 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-productionsupply)
The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years
and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.
The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as
the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel. "By
2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall
in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a
senior commander, General James N Mattis. It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what
economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce
the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic
slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further
down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and
India."
66
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Peak Oil Bad – Global Conflict 2/3
Oil shocks coming now because of supply disruptions – perception of instability
in the mid east and supply disruptions causes oil prices to soar – that tanks the
global economy
Economist 2011 (3/3/11, “Oil and the economy The 2011 oil shock More of a threat to the world
economy
than
investors
seem
to
think”
accessed
6/27/11
http://www.economist.com/node/18281774)
THE price of oil has had an unnerving ability to blow up the world economy, and the Middle
East has often provided the spark. The Arab oil embargo of 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1978-79 and
Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 are all painful reminders of how the region’s combustible mix of
geopolitics and geology can wreak havoc. With protests cascading across Arabia, is the world in for another oil
shock? There are good reasons to worry. The Middle East and north Africa produce more than onethird of the world’s oil. Libya’s turmoil shows that a revolution can quickly disrupt oil supply.
Even while Muammar Qaddafi hangs on with delusional determination and Western countries debate whether to
enforce a no-fly zone (see article), Libya’s oil output has halved, as foreign workers flee and the country fragments.
The spread of unrest across the region threatens wider disruption. The markets’ reaction has
been surprisingly modest. The price of Brent crude jumped 15% as Libya’s violence flared up,
reaching $120 a barrel on February 24th. But the promise of more production from Saudi
Arabia pushed the price down again. It was $116 on March 2nd—20% higher than the beginning of the
year, but well below the peaks of 2008. Most economists are sanguine: global growth might slow by a few
tenths of a percentage point, they reckon, but not enough to jeopardise the rich world’s
recovery. That glosses over two big risks. First, a serious supply disruption, or even the fear of it,
could send the oil price soarin g (see article). Second, dearer oil could fuel inflation—and that
might prompt a monetary clampdown that throttles the recovery. A lot will depend on the skill of
central bankers. Of stocks, Saudis and stability So far, the shocks to supply have been tiny. Libya’s turmoil has
reduced global oil output by a mere 1%. In 1973 the figure was around 7.5%. Today’s oil market also has plenty of
buffers. Governments have stockpiles, which they didn’t in 1973. Commercial oil stocks are more ample than they
were when prices peaked in 2008. Saudi Arabia, the central bank of the oil market, technically has enough spare
capacity to replace Libya, Algeria and a clutch of other small producers. And the Saudis have made clear that they
are willing to pump. Yet more disruption cannot be ruled out. The oil industry is extremely
complex: getting the right sort of oil to the right place at the right time is crucial. And then
there is Saudi Arabia itself (see article). The kingdom has many of the characteristics that have
fuelled unrest elsewhere, including an army of disillusioned youths . Despite spending $36 billion so
far buying off dissent, a repressive regime faces demands for reform. A whiff of instability would
spread panic in the oil market. Even without a disruption to supply, prices are under pressure
from a second source: the gradual dwindling of spare capacity. With the world economy
growing strongly, oil demand is far outpacing increases in readily available supply. So any
jitters from the Middle East will accelerate and exaggerate a price rise that was already on the
way. What effect would that have? It is some comfort that the world economy is less vulnerable to damage from
higher oil prices than it was in the 1970s. Global output is less oil-intensive. Inflation is lower and wages are much
less likely to follow energy-induced price rises, so central banks need not respond as forcefully. But less
vulnerable does not mean immune. Dearer oil still implies a transfer from oil consumers to oil
producers, and since the latter tend to save more it spells a drop in global demand. A rule of
thumb is that a 10% increase in the price of oil will cut a quarter of a percentage point off global
growth. With the world economy currently growing at 4.5%, that suggests the oil price would
need to leap, probably above its 2008 peak of almost $150 a barrel, to fell the recovery. But
even a smaller increase would sap growth and raise inflation.
67
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Peak Oil Bad – Global Conflict 3/3
Sudden loss of key oil supplies independently kills 5 billion people
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, 2005 (The Party's Over : Oil, War
and the Fate of Industrial Societies, p. 33)
The third danger of the drawdown strategy is one that is discussed less frequently than either
pollution or global warming, though its ultimate implications for humankind may be even
more dire. This is our increasing dependency on energy resources that are depleting within
historically narrow time frames. There are now somewhere between two and five billion humans alive who
probably would not exist but for fossil fuels. Thus if the availability of these fuels were to decline
significantly without our having found effective replacements to maintain all their lifesustaining benefits, then the global human carrying capacity would plummet - perhaps even
below its pre-industrial levels. When the flow of fuels begins to diminish, everyone might
actually be worse off than they would have been had those fuels never been discovered because
our pre-industrial survival skills will have been lost and there will be an intense competition for
food and water among members of the now-unsupportable population (Chapter 5 provides a closer
look at the likely consequences of the anticipated petroleum depletion.)
68
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Peak Oil Bad – Economy
Peak oil leads to economy decline
Barrett 11 (Brendan, The Guardian, “What Japan's Disaster Tells Us about Peak Oil”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/04-6 DOA: 7/20/11)
Under a peak oil scenario, the entire world (not just one country) would be affected by a
continuous decline in global oil production. The rate of that decline is the key factor. If the rate is very
gradual (a few percent points each year), then economies and their food and energy production and
distribution systems in particular will have more time to adapt. In such circumstances, we could
envisage a significant decline in the flow of goods and people across the globe — a slowing or a
potentially grinding halt. For a country like Japan that relies heavily on the import of food, having only 40%
self-sufficiency, the real peak oil scenario would have dire impacts.
Oil peak will cause city collapse unless the nation depends on SBSP
Newman Professor of Sustainability 2007 (Peter Newman is the at Curtin University and is on the
Board of Infrastructure Australia that is funding infrastructure for the long term sustainability of
Australian cities. Journal of Urban Technology Volume: 14, Issue Number: 2, Publisher:
Routledge Journals, http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=839438, pp 15-30, Copyright © 2011.
National Academy of Sciences. Last Modified Oct 31 2007)
Global oil seems to be at or close to its full capacity, meaning that oil production is at its peak and soon
will begin to decline. This paper discusses what this decline in oil production and availability will mean for
the future of cities. Four possible scenarios are suggested: collapse, the ruralization of cities;
divided cities in which those with the most means will move to city centers while the dispersed
suburbs become the home of the poor; and the resilient, sustainable, solar city. To move toward
this last scenario, it is important to take the threat seriously and create peak-oil strategies. Cities
should be planned and built with reduced car dependence and peri-urban agricultures should be rebuilt. It is also
important to facilitate localism, regulate for the post-oil transition and prepare risk management scenarios for the
future.
69
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****WARMING ADVANTAGE*****
70
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Real 1/3
Scientific consensus proves warming is real and caused by humans. Neg authors
are paid off.
Suzuki 7/19/10 (David, Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist,
Environmentalist,
Science
deals
blow
to
deluded
climate
change
deniers,
http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/98758379.html)
It must be difficult, if not downright embarrassing, to be a climate change denier these day s.
After all, the scientists they’ve attacked have been exonerated, London’s Sunday Times newspaper ran a
retraction and apology for an article deniers were using to discredit climate change science, and more and more denier
“experts” are being exposed as shills for industry or just disingenuous clowns. (Naomi Oreskes’s
excellent book Merchants of Doubt offers insight into how the deniers operate.) Meanwhile, evidence that fossil fuel
emissions contribute to dangerous climate change just keeps building. We use the term deniers
deliberately. People who deny overwhelming scientific evidence without providing any
compelling evidence of their own and who remain steadfast in their beliefs even as every
argument they propose gets shot down do not demonstrate the intellectual rigour to be called skeptics. Mean-while,
evidence of the harm our fossil fuel addiction causes beyond climate change mounts every day,
as oil spews into the Gulf of Mexico and as industry and governments spend huge sums of
money to keep us hooked. Of course, the deniers will ignore the evidence. Nothing would please us more
than if they were right. Life really would be easier if fossil fuels like oil and coal did not cause environmental damage or pose
risks to life on our small planet. But this is the real world, with real scientific evidence pointing to the
urgent need to make changes in the way we live and get energy. We have many ways to
confront the threat of catastrophic climate change, from individual efforts to conserve energy and pollute less
to government initiatives to encourage research and development into clean energy technology.
And then we have the spectacle of the fossil fuel industry and petro-fuelled governments doing
all they can to prolong our addiction to nonrenewable and polluting sources of energy as oil
continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, threatening bird, marine, and human life, as well as
local economies.
71
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Real 2/3
Warming is real and human induced – drastic emissions reductions are key to
avoid dangerous climate disruptions
Somerville 11 – Professor of Oceanography @ UCSD Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor
Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of
California, San Diego, Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I for the 2007 Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3-8-2011, “CLIMATE
SCIENCE AND EPA'S GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS,” CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis
1n early 2007, at the time of the publication of WG1 of AR4, the mainstream global community of climate
scientists already understood from the most recent research that the latest observations of
climate change were disquieting. In the words of a research paper published at the same time as the release of AR4
WG1, a paper for which I am a co-author, "observational data underscore the concerns about global
climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in
some respects even have underestimated the change " (Rahmstorf et al. 2007). Now, in 2011, more
recent research and newer observations have demonstrated that climate change continues to
occur, and in several aspects the magnitude and rapidity of observed changes frequently
exceed the estimates of earlier projections , including those of AR4. In addition, the case for
attributing much observed recent climate change to human activities is even stronger now
than at the time of AR4. Several recent examples, drawn from many aspects of climate science, but especially
emphasizing atmospheric phenomena, support this conclusion. These include temperature, atmospheric
moisture content, precipitation, and other aspects of the hydrological cycle. Motivated by the rapid
progress in research, a recent scientific synthesis, The Copenhagen Diagnosis (Allison et al. 2009), has assessed recent
climate research findings, including: -- Measurements show that the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing
mass and contributing to sea level rise. -- Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate
models. -- Global sea level rise may attain or exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters
considered possible. -- In 2008, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were about
40% higher than those in 1990. -- At today's global emissions rates, if these rates were to be sustained
unchanged, after only about 20 more years, the world will no longer have a reasonable chance of
limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above 19th-century pre-industrial
temperature levels, This is a much- discussed goal for a maximum allowable degree of climate change, and this aspirational
target has now been formally adopted by the European Union and is supported by many other countries, as expressed, for
example, in statements by both the G-8 and G-20 groups of nations. The Copenhagen Diagnosis also cites research
supporting the position that, in order to have a reasonable likelihood of avoiding the risk of
dangerous climate disruption , defined by this 2 degree Celsius (or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit) limit, global
emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide must peak and then start to decline rapidly
within the next five to ten years, reaching near zero well within this century.
72
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Real 3/3
Prefer our scientific assessments over single scientists or fringe theories
Alley 10 – Professor of Geoscience @ Penn State Richard, Professor of Geoscience @ Penn State,
authored over 200 refereed scientific papers, which are "highly cited" according to a prominent
indexing service, erved with distinguished national and international teams on major scientific
assessment bodies, 11-17-2010, “CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE; COMMITTEE: HOUSE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY; SUBCOMMITTEE: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,” CQ Congressional
Testimony, Lexis
Background on Climate Change and Global Warming. Scientific assessments such as those of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States (e.g., National Research Council, 1975; 1979; 2001; 2006; 2008; 2010a;
2010b), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change have for decades consistently found with increasingly high scientific confidence that
human activities are raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, that this has a warming effect on the climate, that the climate is warming as
expected, and that the changes so far are small compared to those projected if humans burn
much of the fossil fuel on the planet. The basis for expecting and understanding warming from CO2 is the
fundamental physics of how energy interacts with gases in the atmosphere. This knowledge has been available for over a
century, was greatly refined by military research after World War II, and is directly confirmed by satellite
measurements and other data (e.g., American Institute of Physics, 2008; Harries et al., 2001; Griggs and Harries,
2007). Although a great range of ideas can be found in scientific papers and in statements by
individual scientists, the scientific assessments by bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences
consider the full range of available information. The major results brought forward are
based on multiple lines of evidence provided by different research groups with different
funding sources, and have repeatedly been tested and confirmed. Removing the work of any
scientist or small group of scientists would still leave a strong scientific basis for the main
conclusions. Ice Changes. There exists increasingly strong evidence for widespread, ongoing
reductions in the Earth's ice, including snow, river and lake ice, Arctic sea ice, permafrost and
seasonally frozen ground, mountain glaciers, and the great ice sheets of Greenland and
Antarctica. The trends from warming are modified by effects of changing precipitation and of natural variability, as I will
discuss soon, so not all ice everywhere is always shrinking. Nonetheless, warming is important in the
overall loss of ice , although changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation in response to natural or human causes
also have contributed and will continue to contribute to changes. The most recent assessment by the IPCC remains relevant
(Lemke et al., 2007). Also see the assessment of the long climatic history of the Arctic by the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP, 2009), showing that in the past warming has led to shrinkage of Arctic ice including
sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, and that sufficiently large warming has removed them
entirely.
73
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Energy Access
SBSP solves Climate change and provides hope for the sustainability of
civilization.
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
As more nations ascend into the "first world" and "second world" rankings in a fully realized
SBSP economy, their citizens will come to expect higher standards of living in access to
housing, commodities, information and healthcare made possible in part by easier access to
energy, and more efficient transportation, communications and data networking. A change of perspective is
possible. Rather than viewing tomorrow's world population as merely an expanding "grid" of energy users, that
population can be viewed as a renewable resource of creative ideas for tackling the world's
challenges. Instead of climate change causing a threat to the survival of life on earth, those additional minds and
bodies working collaboratively have the potential to prevent such a fate, especially when these minds and
bodies have equal access to resources world-wide. Such a scenario could exist with a fully
realized SBSP infrastructure. Modern civilization has come to depend on energy to support quality of life,
maintain global scale economies and sustain research. In the context of compromised fossil fuel reserves and
increased demand for renewable resources, we can look to space to meet, hopefully to exceed, our
energy demands of the future. With the implementation of SBSP, other industries will find a
home in space, delivering a new generation of goods and services that benefit humanity. At the
same time, new job and new careers will emerge to support these burgeoning businesses. As we
solve our energy needs through SBSP, we can think more confidently about ensuring the
sustainability of civilization. We can focus on addressing the important issues of tomorrow
with increased global cooperation.
74
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Energy Security
SBSP provides energy security, econ development and improved environment
stewardship
Lifsher May 17, 2009 (Marc Lifsher has been a business writer based in Sacramento since 2004.
He spent eight years as a foreign correspondent covering most of the nations of South America,
Central America and the Caribbean. He has a master's degree in journalism from the University of
Oregon and a bachelor's degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University.
“A giant leap toward space-based solar power” Pacific Gas & Electric has signed a contract to buy
power from an ambitious start-up that plans to launch solar power collectors into orbit to back
energy as radio waves. Pie in the sky? http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17/business/fispace-solar17
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at
more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern
and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now. But
executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that
constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away. "If our numbers are anywhere near where we think
they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth,
that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive. Spirnak points to a
2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved
environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national
security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability." He
acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed
power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors. The Public Utilities
Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with
ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by
2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
75
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Climate Change 1/2
SBSP solves Climate change and provides hope for the sustainability of
civilization.
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
As more nations ascend into the "first world" and "second world" rankings in a fully realized
SBSP economy, their citizens will come to expect higher standards of living in access to
housing, commodities, information and healthcare made possible in part by easier access to
energy, and more efficient transportation, communications and data networking. A change of perspective is
possible. Rather than viewing tomorrow's world population as merely an expanding "grid" of energy users, that
population can be viewed as a renewable resource of creative ideas for tackling the world's
challenges. Instead of climate change causing a threat to the survival of life on earth, those additional minds and
bodies working collaboratively have the potential to prevent such a fate, especially when these minds and
bodies have equal access to resources world-wide. Such a scenario could exist with a fully
realized SBSP infrastructure. Modern civilization has come to depend on energy to support quality of life,
maintain global scale economies and sustain research. In the context of compromised fossil fuel reserves and
increased demand for renewable resources, we can look to space to meet, hopefully to exceed, our
energy demands of the future. With the implementation of SBSP, other industries will find a
home in space, delivering a new generation of goods and services that benefit humanity. At the
same time, new job and new careers will emerge to support these burgeoning businesses. As we
solve our energy needs through SBSP, we can think more confidently about ensuring the
sustainability of civilization. We can focus on addressing the important issues of tomorrow
with increased global cooperation.
SPS solves warming entirely, it’s comparatively better than all other solutions.
NSS ’11, National Space Society June 3, 2011, “Space Solar Power: Limitless clean energy from
space”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/)
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from
sunlight in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas
emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power
can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental
impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The
lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one
space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available,
dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale,
combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the
electrical needs of our planet.
part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output,
76
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Climate Change 2/2
SBSP solves global warming
NSS 2007 (“National Space Society October 2007 - Space Solar Power: An Investment for Today –
An
Energy
Solution
for
Tomorrow
http://www.nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS-SSPPositionPaper.pdf)
The United States and the rest of the world need to find alternative sources of energy besides fossil fuels. The National
Space Society believes that one of the most important long-term solutions for meeting those
energy needs is Space Solar Power (SSP), which gathers energy from sunlight in space and
sends it to Earth. We believe that SSP can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems.
Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction; solve. SSP can provide large quantities of energy to each and
every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The NSS recommends that SSP be
considered along with ground-based solar collectors and wind turbines as a safe, renewable, and clean energy
option. Solar energy is routinely used on spacecraft today, and the solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than
we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4 to 5 billion years, making SSP a truly longterm energy solution. Space solar power can have an extremely small environmental footprint,
perhaps competitive with ground-solar and wind, because with sufficient investments in space
infrastructure, the SSP can be built from materials from space with zero terrestrial
environmental impact. Only energy receivers need be built on Earth. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3
billion of the sun's output, SSP is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing
all others combined. Development cost and time, of course, are considerable. This makes SSP a long-term solution rather than a
short-term stop-gap, although there are some intriguing near-term possibilities. In any case, SSP can potentially supply all the
electrical needs of our planet.
77
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
SBSP Solves – Efficient
SBSP is extremely efficient and solves better then alternatives
Fan Et al. 6/2 (William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok; 6/2/2011; Industry and
Technology
Assessment,
SPACE
BASED
SOLAR
POWER;
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf)A
M
Space solar power is thought to have several advantages over other forms of alternative energy,
particularly over terrestrial implementation of solar power. The chief general advantage is that the
SBSP satellite is that it is relatively isolated, neither taking up space on Earth nor being vulnerable
to degradation from nature. As will be addressed in following sections, deploying SBSP satellites do release
small amounts of pollution, and the effect of beaming large amounts of energy through the ionosphere is not yet
adequately documented. However, these effects are generally agreed[3] to be overshadowed by the potential
benefits, including the risk of hydroelectric damming, petroleum storage, coal mining, and nuclear waste. SBSP is
thought to be especially attractive against terrestrial solar power for the reason of persistence. Land based
solar panels are illuminated for only the daytime, subject to seasonal variation in daylight, as
well as the filtering of a large amount of solar energy through the atmosphere by the time it
reaches the land based panel no matter its efficiency. By contrast, an SBSP satellite is
illuminated for 99% of the day on most days, and 95% of the day even on seasonal
equinoxes[2]. Furthermore, SBSP satellites receive 450% [2]additional solar energy than terrestrial
solar panels, which couples particularly well with recent advances in metamorphic solar cells
that exceed the theoretical limit of conversion efficiency from solar power.
78
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Bad – Global Conflict 1/2
Climate change multiplies threats – makes conflict more likely
Shahan (Zachary, Writer, teacher, community organizer, and city planner) July 13, 2011 “UK
Climate
Secretary:
Threat
of
War
to
Increase
from
Climate
Change”
http://ecopolitology.org/2011/07/13/uk-climate-secretary-threat-of-war-to-increase-fromclimate-change/
"Climate change is a threat multiplier. It will make unstable states more unstable, poor nations
poorer, inequality more pronounced, and conflict more likely," according to Huhne. "And the
areas of most geopolitical risk are also most at risk of climate change." This risks reversing
progress made in prosperity and civilization since the industrial revolution and Huhne warned
that humans could increasingly suffer through "nasty, brutish and short" lives in a "Hobbesian"
world over the coming century if we don't address climate change quickly. While we have made
great societal strides forward over the past century, nothing can replace a livable climate and
access to food and water, all of which are currently threatened if we don't change course and
stop emitting global warming pollution fast. The effects of global warming go beyond
extinguishing more and more endangered plants and animals. They reach very clearly into the
everyday lives and security of humans.
Empirics prove – conflict has been linked to climate change for 500 years
Brahic (Catherine, New Scientist Online Environment Reporter United Kingdom) 19 November
2007
“War
has
historic
links
to
Global
Climate
Change”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12936-war-has-historic-links-to-global-climatechange.html
Climate change and conflict have gone hand-in-hand for the past 500 years, a study reveals. It
is the first time that a clear link between war and changing global temperatures has been
identified in historical data, according to the researchers involved. The results are also
significant because some experts predict that current and future climate change may result in
widespread global unrest and conflict.
Climate change is like World War Three
Clover (Charles, Environment Editor) Climate Change is Like World War Three 05 Nov 2007
Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, warned the agency's annual conference in London that
global warming was a challenge to security, migration, politics and economics as well as the
environment. Lady Young told the conference that Britain would face more droughts, flooding,
coastal erosion and loss of biodiversity as the climate altered.
She said measures such as improving the resilience of existing homes to flooding, not building
on floodplains and improving water use efficiency were needed. Rising sea levels and coastal
erosion threatened £130 billion worth of property around the coast, with the elderly and poor
communities most vulnerable, and seaside settlements must have help adapting, she said.
"This is World War Three - this is the biggest challenge to face the globe for many, many years.
We need the sorts of concerted, fast, integrated and above all huge efforts that went into many
actions in times of war.
"We're dealing with this as if it is peacetime, but the time for peace on climate change is gone we need to be seeing this as a crisis and emergency," she said.
79
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Bad – Global Conflict 2/2
Climate change increases the risk of violent conflict
Jon Barnetta, , and W. Neil Adgerb Political Geography Volume 26, Issue 6, August 2007, Pages
639-655 Climate Change and Conflict
There is now a significant body of research that demonstrates that climate change is and will
increasingly have dramatic impacts on ecological and social systems (summarised in [IPCC,
2001] and [IPCC, 2007]). The risks are such that the aim of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change is to avoid ‘dangerous’ interference in the climate system, and such impacts
have been defined as a threat to ‘security’ ([Barnett, 2003], [Barnett and Adger, 2003],
[Brown, 1989], [Edwards, 1999] and [Swart, 1996]). There has been some speculation about
the ways that climate change may increase the risk of violent conflict ([Brauch, 2002], [Gleick,
1992], [Homer-Dixon, 1991] and [van Ireland et al., 1996]). There are two broad ways in which
conflict might be stimulated by climate change. First, conflict could come about through
changes in the political economy of energy resources due to mitigative action to reduce
emissions from fossil fuels (Rifkin, 2002). The second issue is the prospect of conflict
stimulated by changes in social systems driven by actual or perceived climate impacts. This
paper is concerned with the second of these possible connections. It offers new insights into the
relationships between climate change, human security, and violent conflict by integrating three
disparate but well-founded bodies of research – on the vulnerability of local places and social
groups to climate change, on livelihoods and violent conflict, and the role of the state in
development and peacemaking. Human security is taken here to mean the condition where
people and communities have the capacity to manage stresses to their needs, rights, and values
(after Alkire, 2003) This paper has four principal sections. First, it explains that climate change
may undermine human security by reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources
that are important to sustain livelihoods. Second, it suggests that the kinds of human insecurity
that climate change may affect can in turn increase the risk of violent conflict. Third, it argues
that climate change may undermine the capacity of states to act in ways that promote human
security and peace. In sum, we suggest that, through direct effects on livelihoods and indirect
effects on state functions, climate change may in certain circumstances increase the risk of
violent conflict. Yet these connections between climate change, human security, the state and
violent conflict are not empirically proven. Hence, we finally outline a research agenda to guide
empirical investigations into the risks climate change poses to human security and peace.
Climate change increases risk of conflict
Evans (Crisis Group President Gareth) "Conflict Potential in a World of Climate Change", speech
given by to Bucerius Summer School on Global Governance 2008, on 29 August 2008
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/climate-change-and-conflict.aspx
The security implications of climate change are attracting increased attention, and for good reason.
Scientific evidence shows that the earth is warming due largely to human activities and at a
potentially unprecedented rate. Long-term changes in climate already have occurred and are projected to continue, including sea-level rises, more intense and
longer droughts, more intense tropical storms, and more frequent heat waves and heavy precipitation events. The potential consequences of these changes and of the environmental
food and water shortages, population shifts and economic losses.
These in turn may increase a range of risks to human security, including the risk of deadly
conflict. Yet the relationship between climate change and conflict is complex and not yet sufficiently understood. This is in part because climate projections are somewhat limited in
degradation associated with them are grave. They include
geographic and temporal specificity, and different societies have different capacities to adapt to changes and related effects. But it is also because the processes that produce violent conflict in
it can
contribute to conditions that make it more likely or severe. A key challenge today is to better
understand the relationship between climate change, environmental degradation and conflict
any particular situation are often complicated. Although environmental change likely never has been and never will be the sole or proximate cause of deadly conflict,
80
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
and to effectively manage associated risks through appropriate conflict prevention and
resolution mechanisms. To address this important issue, Crisis Group has created the following brief overview and resource page.
81
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Bad – Famine
Global warming causes extinction and famine Aff solves
Harvey
6/21/2011
((Reporter
for
yahoo
news
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans) ja
on
the
environment)
– Life in the oceans is at imminent risk of the worst spate of extinctions in millions
of years due to threats such as climate change and over-fishing, a study showed on Tuesday. Time was running
short to counter hazards such as a collapse of coral reefs or a spread of low-oxygen "dead zones," according to the
study led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). " We now face losing marine species and
entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation," according to the study by 27 experts
to be presented to the United Nations. "Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing,
OSLO (Reuters)
through the combined effects of climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in
the ocean," it said. Scientists list five mass extinctions over 600 million years -- most recently when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years
ago, apparently after an asteroid struck. Among others, the Permian period abruptly ended 250 million years ago. "The findings are shocking,"
Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, wrote of the conclusions from a 2011 workshop of ocean experts staged by IPSO and the International
Fish are the main source of protein for a fifth of the
world's population and the seas cycle oxygen and help absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities.
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at Oxford University.
OXYGEN Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and
A build-up of carbon dioxide, blamed
by the U.N. panel of climate scientists on human use of fossil fuels, is heating the planet.
Absorbed into the oceans, it causes acidification, while run-off of fertilizers and pollution stokes anoxia. "From a
lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had featured in several past mass extinctions.
geological point of view, mass extinctions happen overnight, but on human timescales we may not realize that we are in the middle of such an
countering global warming
means a shift from fossil fuels, for instance, toward cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.
"Unlike climate change, it can be directly, immediately and effectively tackled by policy
change,"
event," Bijma wrote. The study said that over-fishing is the easiest for governments to reverse --
82
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Bad – Extinction 1/2
Warming is an existential threat
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and
Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for
Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security
and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels,
depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst
'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from
3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global
temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the
century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the
second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security
of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could
even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on
effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries .' And although
they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated
climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation."
What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such
climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound
social, cultural and political changes.
83
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Warming Bad – Extinction 2/2
Global Warming Causes Extinction
Romm 10 – Editor of Climate Progress, Senior Fellow at the American Progress, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy,
Fellow
of
the
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science,
(Jon,
“Disputing
the
“consensus”
on
global
warming,” http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/16/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-climate-science/,)
A good example of how scientific evidence drives our understanding concerns
how we know that humans are the dominant cause of global warming . This is, of course, the
deniers’ favorite topic. Since it is increasingly obvious that the climate is changing and the planet is warming, the remaining deniers have coalesced to defend their Alamo — that human
There
is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any
measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers
rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind’s sinful
contribution.” In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying
emissions aren’t the cause of recent climate change and therefore that reducing those emissions is pointless. Last year, longtime Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote, “
feedbacks and other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized. The IPCC concluded last year: “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely (>90
This conclusion takes into account … the possibility that
the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models.” Scientists have come
to understand that “forcings” (natural and human-made) explain most of the changes in our
climate and temperature both in recent decades and over the past millions of years. The primary humanpercent) caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.
made forcings are the heat-trapping greenhouse gases we generate, particularly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas. The natural forcings include fluctuations in the intensity
of sunlight (which can increase or decrease warming), and major volcanoes that inject huge volumes of gases and aerosol particles into the stratosphere (which tend to block sunlight and
)…. Over and over again, scientists have demonstrated that observed
changes in the climate in recent decades can only be explained by taking into
account the observed combination of human and natural forcings. Natural forcings alone just don’t
cause
cooling
explain what is happening to this planet. For instance, in April 2005, one of the nation’s top climate scientists, NASA’s James Hansen, led a team of scientists that made “precise
measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years,” which revealed that the Earth is absorbing far more heat than it is emitting to space, confirming what earlier computer
models had shown about warming. Hansen called this energy imbalance the “smoking gun” of climate change, and said, “There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are
Another 2005 study, led by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the
Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded: A warming signal has
penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean;
the dominant cause of observed warming.”
it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically [human-caused] forced climate models. We conclude
that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Such studies are also done for many other observations: land-based temperature rise,
atmospheric temperature rise, sea level rise, arctic ice melt, inland glacier melt, Greeland and Antarctic ice sheet melt, expansion of the tropics (desertification) and changes in precipitation.
Studies compare every testable prediction from climate change theory and models (and suggested by paleoclimate research) to actual observations. How many studies? Well, the
IPCC’s definitive treatment of the subject, “Understanding and Attributing
Climate Change,” has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies.
This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual
observations reveal. And the science behind human attribution has gotten much
stronger in the past 2 years (see a recent literature review by the Met Office here). That brings us to another problem with the word “consensus.” It can
mean “unanimity” or “the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.” Many, if not most, people hear the second meaning: “consensus” as majority opinion. The scientific consensus
most people are familiar with is the IPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers” reports. But those aren’t a majority opinion. Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and
revision of these summaries. So China, Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism — the Bush administration — get to veto anything they don’t like. The deniers call this “politicized science,”
suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative or watereddown document. You could argue that rather than majority rules, this is “minority rules.” Last April, in an article titled “Conservative Climate,” Scientific American noted that objections by
Saudi Arabia and China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth’s recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun.
Then I discuss the evidence we had
even back in 2008 that the IPCC was underestimating key climate impacts, a point I update here.
The bottom line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly
faces a greater and more imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports. That’s why
climate scientists are so desperate. That’s why they keep begging for immediate action. And
that’s why the “consensus on global warming” is a phrase that should be forever retired from
the climate debate. The leading scientific organizations in this country and around the world, including all the major national academies of science, aren’t buying into some
In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England said, “The difference is really a factor of 10.”
sort of consensus of opinion. They have analyzed the science and observations and expressed their understanding of climate science and the likely impacts we face on our current emissions
path — an understanding that has grown increasingly dire in recent years (see “An illustrated guide to the latest climate science” and “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and
High Water“).
84
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Warming Inevitable
Global warming effects are not inevitable but currently we have nothing to stop it
David Hawkins, Oct. 30, 2006, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). REPORT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING'S IMPACTS ARE NOT INEVITABLE
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/061030.asp
"If we act swiftly, the devastating effects of global warming are not inevitable. By making our
vehicles, our homes and our buildings more efficient; and by speeding to the market the array
of cleaner and cheaper renewable sources of energy, we can bequeath to future generations a
clean and prosperous world. If only our elected leaders decide now to get on with the job.”
Global warming isn’t inevitable IPCC proves…
David Masur 2007-05-04 Director, PennEnvironment World's Scientists: Global Warming is
Solvable--if Governments Take Action http://www.pennenvironment.org/news-releases/globalwarming/global-warming-news/worlds-scientists-global-warming-is-solvable--if-governmentstake-action
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Also Would Improve Energy Security, Improve Health, and Create Jobs.
Philadelphia, PA—The pollution reductions needed to stave off the worst effects of global warming
can be achieved—if governments act now, according to a major consensus report released
today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a United
Nations body charged with assessing the scientific record on global warming.
We can stop global warming now, we just need leadership for the plan
Sen. Sanders 2007 (Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in
the House of Representatives. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964, and lectured
at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Hamilton College in upstate New
York.TheNation.com , “We Can Stop Global Warming, By implementing new technologies, we can
avert a potentially disastrous future. November 29, 2007)
Yet the situation is by no means hopeless. Major advances and technological breakthroughs are being
made in the United States and throughout the world that are giving us the tools to cut carbon
emissions dramatically, break our dependency on fossil fuels and move to energy efficiency and
sustainable energy. In fact, the truth rarely uttered in Washington is that with strong governmental
leadership the crisis of global warming is not only solvable; it can be done while improving the
standard of living of the people of this country and others around the world. And it can be done
with the knowledge and technology that we have today; future advances will only make the task easier.
85
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Long Timeframe 1/3
Tipping points prevent adaptation – significant emission cuts are key
Hansen 8 – Professor of Earth and Environmental Science James E. Hanson, head of the NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the Department of
Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University, Al Gore’s science advisor, “Briefing
before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming,” US House of
Representatives, 6-23-2008, “Twenty years later: tipping points near on global warming,”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Fast feedbacks—changes that occur quickly in response to temperature change—amplify the initial temperature change,
begetting additional warming. As the planet warms, fast feedbacks include more water vapor,
which traps additional heat, and less snow and sea ice, which exposes dark surfaces that absorb
more sunlight. Slower feedbacks also exist. Due to warming, forests and shrubs are moving poleward
into tundra regions. Expanding vegetation, darker than tundra, absorbs sunlight and warms the
environment. Another slow feedback is increasing wetness (i.e., darkness) of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice
sheets in the warm season. Finally, as tundra melts, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is
bubbling out. Paleoclimatic records confirm that the long-lived greenhouse gases— methane, carbon dioxide,
and nitrous oxide—all increase with the warming of oceans and land. These positive feedbacks amplify climate change over decades, centuries,
and longer. The predominance of positive feedbacks explains why Earth’s climate has historically undergone large swings: feedbacks work in both directions, amplifying cooling, as well as
warming, forcings. In the past, feedbacks have caused Earth to be whipsawed between colder and warmer climates, even in response to weak forcings, such as slight changes in the tilt of
Earth’s axis.2 The second fundamental property of Earth’s climate system, partnering with feedbacks, is the great inertia of oceans and ice sheets. Given the oceans’ capacity to absorb heat,
when a climate forcing (such as increased greenhouse gases) impacts global temperature, even after two or three decades, only about half of the eventual surface warming has occurred. Ice
sheets also change slowly, although accumulating evidence shows that they can disintegrate within centuries or perhaps even decades. The upshot of the combination of inertia and feedbacks
is that additional climate change is already “in the pipeline”: even if we stop increasing greenhouse gases today, more warming will occur. This is sobering when one considers the present
status of Earth’s climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past 12,000 years). It has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool
global temperature is at its warmest
level in the Holocene.3 The warming that has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and
the additional warming in the pipeline together have brought us to the precipice of a
planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate state includes
large, ready positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic ice sheet, and much of Greenland’s ice. Little additional
forcing is needed to trigger these feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will
transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and
there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of
enough for ice sheets to remain on Greenland and Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6°C in the past 30 years,
coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas through Oklahoma and both Dakotas
would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern Africa. Large populations
in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.
We will hit the brink by 2030
Stein 6/26/2011 ((Science editor for the magazine the Canadian)
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/26/01381.html) ja
released
greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of degrees higher than our norms
of human habitation and therefore extinction or very near extinction of humanity. "(T)he science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90%
cut by 2030 (1). Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the
atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of
preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as
Given time lags of 30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bo mbs exploding, their
the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands," George Monbiot says. Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson , a geologist writing in the Baltimore Sun, is the best and almost only mainstream media
"There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring
greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom
of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere.
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide." Stephen Connor reported in the
February 16, edition of The Independent that, "The long-term stability of the massive ice sheets of Antarctica, which
explanation of runaway global warming and how close we are to extinction.
86
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
have the potential to raise sea levels by hundreds of metres, has been called into question with
the discovery of fast-moving rivers of water sliding beneath their base."
87
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Long Timeframe 2/3
Tipping points now – on the brink of runaway warming
Speth 8 – Dean of Yale school of Forestry James, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Currently he serves the
school as the Carl W. Knobloch, Jr. Dean and Sara Shallenberger Brown Professor in the Practice
of Environmental Policy, The Bridge @ the Edge of the World, pg. 26
The possibility of abrupt climate change is linked to what may be the most problematic possibility of all—"positive"
feedback effects where the initial warming has effects that generate more warming. Several of these feedbacks are possible. First,
the land's ability to store carbon could weaken. Soils and forests can dry out or burn and release carbon; less plant growth can occur, thus
reducing nature's ability to remove carbon from the air. Second, carbon sinks in the oceans could also be reduced due to ocean warming
and other factors. Third, the potent greenhouse gas methane could be released from peat bogs,
wetlands, and thawing permafrost, and even from the methane hydrates in the oceans, as the
planet warms and changes. Finally, the earth's albedo, the reflectivity of the earth's surface, is
slated to be reduced as large areas now covered by ice and snow diminish or are covered by
meltwater. All these effects would tend to make warming self-reinforcing, possibly
leading to a greatly amplified greenhouse effect. The real possibility of these amplifying feedbacks has alarmed some of our top scientists.
James Hansen, the courageous NASA climate scientist, is becoming increasingly outspoken as his investigations lead him to more and more disturbing conclusions. He offered the following
Our home planet is now dangerously near a 'tipping point .' Human-made
greenhouse gases are near a level such that important climate changes may proceed mostly
under the climate system's own momentum. Impacts would include extermination of a
large fraction of species on the planet , shifting of climatic zones due to an intensified hydrologic cycle with effects on freshwater availability
assessment in 2007: "
and human health, and repeated worldwide coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level. .. . "Civilization developed during the Holocene, a period of relatively
tranquil climate now almost 12,000 years in duration. The planet has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets on Greenland and
This warming has
brought us to the precipice of a great 'tipping point” If we go over the edge, it will be a
transition to 'a different planet,' an environment far outside the range that has been
experienced by humanity. There will be no return within the lifetime of any generation that
can be imagined, and the trip will exterminate a large fraction of species on the planet .
Antarctica to be stable. Now, with rapid warming of o.6°C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the Holocene. "
Timeframe is now-warming will become irreversible in less than 100 months
Guardian Weekly, 8 (Andrew Simms, “Guardian Weekly: Just 100 months left to save Earth:
Andrew Simms on a New Green Deal that could forestall the climate change tipping point”, 8/15,
L/N)
we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of
runaway climate change. Let us be clear exactly what we mean. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today, the most prevalent greenhouse
In just 100 months' time, if we are lucky, and based on a conservative estimate,
gas, is the highest it has been for the past 650,000 years. In just 250 years, as a result of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution, and changes to land use such as the growth of cities and the
felling of forests, we have released more than 1,800bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Currently, approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the atmosphere every second, due
When these gases accumulate beyond a certain
level - a "tipping point" - global warming will accelerate, potentially beyond control. Faced with circumstances that
threaten human civilisation, scientists at least have the sense of humour to term what drives this process as "positive feedback". In climate change, a number of feedback
loops amplify warming through physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming, or the increase in greenhouse gases. One example is the melting of ice sheets. The
loss of ice cover reduces the ability of the Earth's surface to reflect heat and, by revealing darker
surfaces, increases the amount of heat absorbed. Other dynamics include the decreasing ability of oceans to absorb
CO2 due to higher wind strengths, linked to climate change. This has already been observed in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and adding to climate change. Because of such self-reinforcing feedbacks, once a critical
greenhouse concentration threshold is passed, global warming will continue even if we stop
releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If that happens, the Earth's climate will shift into a more volatile state, with different ocean circulation, wind and
rainfall patterns, the implications of which are potentially catastrophic for life on Earth. This is often
referred to as irreversible climate change. So, how do we arrive at the ticking clock of 100 months?
to human activity. Greenhouse gases trap incoming solar radiation, warming the atmosphere.
88
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Long Timeframe 3/3
Climate change happening faster than expected
Gamble (Dave, writer for Skeptical Science) January 21st, 2011 “Climate Change is Happening
Faster than Scientists Predicted” http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/climate-changehappening-faster-scientists-predicted/
Climate change is happening faster than scientists’ predicted. Meltdowns in Greenland and
Antarctica are well ahead of climate science projections and overall warming continues to
accelerate—we have just endured the hottest year and hottest decade on record. About the only
thing that isn’t happening faster than expected is increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, still steadily ticking upwards by roughly 2 parts-per-million (ppm) per year.
Climate change is accelerating
ABC News July 12, 2006 - http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2182824&page=1
Good scientists are always cautious scientists, and that chiefly explains their reticence. But now, nearly every
research institution involved in the study of global climate change -- from the American
Academy of Sciences to the atmospheric department at your local university -- has issued
reports citing overwhelming evidence that the planet is changing . But how much will it change? How
will that affect us? And how soon? Those are the tough questions, and some of the answers will remain elusive for
years to come. After all, predicting climate, even day to day, is foggy at best. Given the variables, it may be the
most difficult science of all. But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to
announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate. A cascading effect is now in place.
Rising temperatures cause greater releases of greenhouse gases, which in turn cause
temperatures to rise, resulting in even more gases being released, and so on.
89
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****SOLVENCY*****
90
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Technology Exists/Feasible 1/4
New technologic innovations allows for a quick and cheap way to deploy space
based solar power – Your authors assume a different approach then the
affirmative
Mankins ’8 [http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; space-based solar power; By
John C. Mankins (President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions LLC is an
internationally recognized leader in space systems and technology innovation); 2008; adAstra the
magazine of the Nation Space Society]
Lower-Cost Space Systems and Operations. The cost of space activities has several important
components, including the cost of the hardware (initial and recurring), the cost of the people involved in
operations and sustaining engineering, and the cost of launching the system (and its consumables)
into space. As a result of these factors, a major spacecraft development project can cost many tens,
if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. The International Space Station will have cost
approximately $35 billion dollars in hardware, and perhaps that much again in launch costs by
the time it is completed around 2010. (Fortunately, those costs have been spread across some 25 years and
shared by 16 international partners.) A new remarkable architectural concept called intelligent
modular systems makes space solar power development more feasible than ever. The concept is
a simple one: make very complex large systems by assembling a large number of smaller,
intelligent, and modular systems. This extremely simple idea finds numerous parallels in
nature: beehives, ant colonies, etc. This has only become feasible for space systems in the past
decade or so. These “aggregate space systems” must involve modular architectures in which
new system elements may be added, failed units removed and replaced, and configurations
changed seamlessly and autonomously from local human intervention or ground-based remote
control. In other words, future space solar power satellites will likely involve the concept of
‘intelligent modular systems’—just as modern, ground based commercial technologies do
pervasively in the world around us. Also, these systems must involve large numbers of
functionally redundant, not too large systems elements—hence, making possible the automated, highquality and low-cost mass production of the individual system elements that comprise the space solar power
satellite. The architecture of future solar power satellites must more closely resemble a
constellation of Global Positioning System satellites than it does the sophisticated, but
scarcely-affordable engineering of the International Space Station.
91
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Technology Exists/Feasible 2/4
The DoD has the resources and technology available to initiate SBSP, but they
need the funding to do so.
Fabey ‘6 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/; Michael Fabey [Michael is a defense
reporter specializing in Defense Department contract analysis and investigative reporting];
September 12, 2006; Aerospace Daily & Defense Report)AM
Harnessing the sun's energy from space for earthbound use would involve putting an extremely
large solar panel into space, capturing the energy and then beaming the power back to the
Earth's surface by microwaves or laser links. "The technology to build a Space Solar Power
System is available now," said Darel Preble, president of the Space Solar Power Institute, in briefing
documents reviewed recently by the Air Force. Perhaps the hardest technological hurdle needed to be
overcome would be developing a rocket capable of putting the panels into space , Preble and other
experts say. The currently planned expendable rockets won't be able to do the job. And space itself is
considered risky business. Nearly every U.S. Air Force or other quasi-military satellite program is now behind
schedule and over budget. "There are no company(s), however, prepared to assume the immense
financial risk of initiating construction of (a space solar power system), however. It would be
akin to asking a company to build Hoover Dam or the interstate system without federal
assistance," Preble says. "There are simply too many engineering, financial, regulatory and
managerial risks for any group we have been able to identify to undertake ...today ." Preble and
others say there are ways to spread the risk. "There is a tried and true vehicle that could initiate SSP
construction today," Preble said in his briefing. "A private congressionally-chartered
corporation analogous to Comsat Corp., which was chartered in 1962, has all the requisite
advantages. Comsat Corp. and its sister Intelsat opened space to the diverse $100 billion per
year communications satellite business of today." Preble and other experts also said the logical
candidates to prompt such an initiative would be the Air Force and the intelligence community,
which would benefit from development of rockets able to launch large spacecraft. The service and
the intelligence agencies need such rockets to put their bigger satellites into orbit.
92
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Technology Exists/Feasible 3/4
Solar power is possible now – We have the technology – what’s necessary is a
stepping stone.
Smith ‘8 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/; Harvest The Sun -- From Space; O.
Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and applications experiments for the International
Space Station at NASA's Johnson Space Center.; July 23, 2008 Wednesday)AM
AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources -- coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and
ground-based solar -- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage
systems or harm the environment. There is, however, one potential future energy source that is
environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost competitive with
any renewable source: space solar power. Science fiction? Actually, no -- the technology already
exists. A space solar power system would involve building large solar energy collectors in orbit
around the Earth. These panels would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are
hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes and, of course, the darkness of night. Once
collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radio transmission,
where it would be received by antennas near cities and other places where large amounts of
power are used. The received energy would then be converted to electric power for distribution
over the existing grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric power
generation from such a system could be as low as 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is
within the range of what consumers pay now. In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling
blocks for space solar power have been the expense of launching the collectors and the
efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the recent development of thinner, lighter and much
higher efficiency solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive and
return of energy much greater. Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies like
Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working in conjunction with NASA's
public-private Commercial Orbital Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the
capacity for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This same technology
could be adapted to sending up a solar power satellite system. Still, because building the first
operational space solar power system will be very costly, a practical first step would be to
conduct a test using the International Space Station as a ''construction shack'' to house the
astronauts and equipment. The station's existing solar panels could be used for the
demonstration project, and its robotic manipulator arms could assemble the large transmitting
antenna. While the station's location in orbit would permit only intermittent transmission of power back to
Earth, a successful test would serve as what scientists call ''proof of concept.''
The plan is possible
Michael Totty October 19, 2009 Five Technologies That Could Change Everything
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461342682276898.html
The technology may sound like science fiction, but it's simple: Solar panels in orbit about
22,000 miles up beam energy in the form of microwaves to earth, where it's turned into
electricity and plugged into the grid. (The low-powered beams are considered safe.) A ground
receiving station a mile in diameter could deliver about 1,000 megawatts—enough to power on
average about 1,000 U.S. homes. The cost of sending solar collectors into space is the biggest obstacle, so
it's necessary to design a system lightweight enough to require only a few launches. A handful of countries and
companies aim to deliver HAEL TOTTY space-based power as early as a decade from now.
93
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Technology Exists/Feasible 4/4
SBSP is the most efficient solar power ever
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
NASA's involvement in space solar power, or SSP for short, began after the oil embargo of the mid-1970's when
the space agency (working under the leadership of the US Department of Energy) began to study alternative
energy sources that might result in less dependence on foreign oil. Proposed space solar power systems
utilize well-known physical principles -- namely, the conversion of sunlight to electricity by means of
photovoltaic cells. (You can see such cells on many neighborhood rooftops and on small sidewalk lighting
fixtures.) Giant structures consisting of row after row of photovoltaic (PV) arrays could be placed either in a
geostationary Earth orbit or on the Moon. A complete system would collect solar energy in
space, convert it to microwaves, and transmit the microwave radiation to Earth where it would
be captured by a ground antenna and transformed to usable electricity. According to an April 2000
article in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Journal, photovoltaic arrays in a geostationary Earth
orbit (at an altitude of 22,300 miles) would receive, on average, eight times as much sunlight as they
would on Earth's surface. Such arrays would be unaffected by cloud cover, atmospheric dust or
by the Earth's day-night cycle. When the idea was first proposed more than 30 years ago, PV
technology was still in its infancy. The conversion efficiency rate -- the fraction of the sun's incident
energy converted into electricity -- was only 7 to 9 percent. "We now have the technology to
convert the sun's energy at the rate of 42 to 56 percent ," said Marzwell. "We have made tremendous
progress." Even so, launching thousands of tons of solar arrays into space will be expensive. But there may be a
way to reduce the needed area of the arrays -- by concentrating sunlight. "If you can concentrate the sun's
rays through the use of large mirrors or lenses you get more for your money because most of
the cost is in the PV arrays," said Marzwell.
We have the technology now
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
SBSP Study Group found that Space‐Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but
requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. Space‐
Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with substantial challenges and a
complex trade‐space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or
hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require
scientific discoveries to work. While the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is very
strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and affordability—this requires
even more stringent technical requirements
94
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Solves Environment/Economy
SBSP solves environmental and economic problems
Glaser
2005
The
World
Needs
Energy
from
Space
Wed,
19
Jan
2005
http://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/opinions/glaser_000223.html By Peter E. Glaser
Consider the energy situation now confronting the world. Industrialization and urbanization will
mean sharply increased energy
use. Reliance on fossil fuels could produce unprecedented environmental damage . Moreover,
such finite sources may soon be past
their peak availability, if they aren't already. The solution to this problem is to utilize terrestrial
renewable energy resources to the maximum extent possible, while at the same time
developing SSP as a global, 24-hour-a-day energy supply. The conversion of solar energy in
space to usable power on Earth is the most plausible global alternative to nuclear power plants,
with their attendant safety, decommissioning and plutonium proliferation issues. SSP can
also be an integral part of global development. It can help boost economic growth and improve
living standards. It is the only means toward increased energy supplies compatible with the
environment. Space solar power is a challenging, long-term opportunity to tap
space's unlimited resources rather than relying only on Earth's limited ones. It will help
sustain human life on Earth and, at a future time, in space.
95
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Satellites Vulnerable
SBSP is not completely vulnerable; a damaging attack would be hard to pull off.
Rouge ‘7 (Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study; Report to the Director, National Security Space
Office; Interim Assessment; Release 0.1; 10 October 2007; JOSEPH D. ROUGE, SES; Acting
Director, National Security Space Office)AM
Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of
energy infrastructure. However, it takes significantly more resources and sophistication to
attack an asset in geostationary orbit than it does to attack a nuclear power plant, oil refinery
or supertanker on Earth. The satellite is also very large and constructed of a number of similar
redundant parts, so the attack would need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving
antenna would probably be the least value‐added attack, since it is a diffuse and distributed
array of identical modular elements that can be quickly repaired while the receiving station
continues to operate. Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy of clean energy
sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable of damaging a SBSP system also
have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their own benefit.
SBSP satellites are safe from debris
Powersat 2010 ((international SBSP cooperation) http://www.powersat.com/faq.html) JA
Collision with space junk is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, PowerSat reside in a
geosynchronous orbit which is much higher than the low earth orbit debris band. Second, the surface
area of the powersat is thin-film solar cells. Thus, a piece of space junk would go right through the thin film and would affect only a fraction of the output of
that module, as there are many solar cells within a module. We could conceivably lose a module if a piece of junk collided with the core control system for
that module, but the output of one module is only 1/300th the output of the entire satellite and can be easily replaced.
96
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
US Key 1/2
US is key to solve
Solar High Study Group 2011, (Solar High: Energy for the 21st Century March 2011
http://solarhigh.org/resources/16KwordBrief.pdf)
A strong US commitment to SBSP could
permanently, in the USA
Restore the status of the United States as an energy-exporting nation
international markets for export of our technology as wel
Create large
Restore US preeminence in launch services
Open the solar system as the domain of our species, eliminating most concerns about resource exhaustion. Serious
studies of SBSP are under way in several countries, including Japan, China, India and the European Union.
Continued US neglect of this vital technology means that we will not only suffer all the
economic, political and strategic consequences of abdicating our leadership in space but also
abandon control of our energy future. What we do about these issues in the next few years will
determine whether we will restore American initiative or become a debt-ridden, second-rate
nation that must import electricity as well as petroleum.
USFG is key for the plan and spillover
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
The SBSP Study Group concluded that space‐based solar power does present a strategic
opportunity that could significantly advance US and partner security, capability, and freedom
of action and merits significant further attention on the part of both the US Government and
the private sector. • The SBSP Study Group concluded that while significant technical challenges
remain, Space‐Based Solar Power is more technically executable than ever before and current
technological vectors promise to further improve its viability. A government ‐led proof‐of‐
concept demonstration could serve to catalyze commercial sector development. The SBSP
Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high‐level
leadership and resourcing commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of fusion
energy research or International Space Station construction and operations
USFG Key
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
Current U.S. National Space Policy states: "In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will
enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do
not. Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea
power. In order to increase knowledge, discovery, economic prosperity, and to enhance the
national security, the United States must have robust, effective, and efficient space
capabilities.” (Emphasis added) Developing space‐based or space‐derived energy to meet the
United States’ needs for assured energy availability is one example of how space may be more
effectively utilized in the coming decades. To be able to successfully utilize space, however, the
nation’s current shortfall in achieving “robust, effective, and efficient space capabilities” must
first be corrected. The purpose of the logistics infrastructure breakout session was to identify near‐term
97
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
SBSP Aff
Silent Nihilists
technical concepts and an implementation strategy to provide American space enterprises with the needed robust,
effective, and efficient space operational capabilities
98
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
US Key 2/2
The US needs to take this step in development of space solar power
Shea 2010, (Karen Cramer, Master of Arts in Science Technology and Space Policy at George
Washington University, 2010 Online Space Journal of Communication, Why Has SPS R&D
Received So Little Funding? December 2010. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html
NP)
The time is now for the development of space solar power. If the U.S. government commits to it
as a matter of public policy, a new SPS industry will emerge, repaying the public investment many
times over. If the U.S. does not do so, Japan, China, India or Russia will take the lead in space
solar power development and the U.S. will continue to send billions of dollars a year abroad to
insure that our energy needs are met.
United States key to SBSP
Mankins, March 1st 2009John president of Space Power Association, a private, international
organization that promotes space solar power Space-based Solar Power Comes to Light
http://www.satellitetoday.com/commercial/distributorsdealers/29932.html)
John Mankins, president of Space Power Association, a private, international organization that promotes space
solar power, estimates with today’s technology the project would cost $10 billion and be in place by
2025. "Energy from a solar power satellite would be transmitted in a coherent beam of lowintensity radio or light energy. An individual receiver on the ground might receive anywhere
from 200 to 400 megawatts of power, up to 2,000 to 4,000 megawatts of power," he says.
According to Mankins, "the development of space solar power must be an international
undertaking and the U.S. should definitely play the leadership role in pulling together that
effort."
US action is key to advance us for other space missions
Snead 2009 The vital need for America to develop space solar power James M. (Mike) Monday,
May 4, The Space Review http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1
Successfully developing SSP and building the integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure
necessary to demonstrate SSP and prepare for serial production of the geostationary platforms
can only be successfully undertaken by a true spacefaring nation. The United States is not there yet
because, as the US National Space Policy emphasizes, we have not yet developed the “robust, effective, and
efficient space capabilities” needed for America to effectively utilize space this century. Planning and
executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the development of SSP will jump-start
America on the path to acquiring the mastery of industrial space operations we need to become
a true spacefaring nation. This path will follow our nation’s hard-earned success, as seafarers and aviators, of
building a world-leading maritime industry in the 18th and 19th centuries and an aviation industry in the 20th
century. With this new spacefaring mastery, today’s dreams of expanded human and robotic
exploration of space, of humans on Mars, of space colonies, of lunar settlements, and so on,
will all move from the realm of wishful daydreams into an exciting future of actionable
possibilities. The goal of nearly all American pro-space organizations is to make such a future a
reality. Energetically supporting the incorporation of SSP into US energy planning and strongly
advocating for the start of the development of SSP is how pro-space organizations can now take
action to make their vision part of America’s broad-based spacefaring future. This is, indeed, a
win-win opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.
99
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Congress Key
Congress Key—NASA and Department of Energy need Congressional action to
increase space based solar power.
Schubert, Ph.D., P.E., Packer Engineering, Inc., Naperville, IL, 2010 (Peter J., Online Space
Journal of Communication, December 2010. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html
At present, neither NASA, nor the US Department of Energy (DOE) conduct any appreciable
research on SSP. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) does not presently have any
budget for SSP. Although each of these three agencies would have a significant role to play in SSP
development, deployment, and security, none is currently doing so. In the case of NASA and
DOE, this is largely a political issue. They cannot take on such an initiative without direction
from Congress. Another consequence of the unpredictable miracle is that the US Congress
must have a champion or coalition to support SSP.
A recent surge in the number of conferences, meetings, and technical tracks related to SSP show that research is
being conducted in disparate locations, with different approaches, on limited budgets, and no overall cohesion.[111][14] It has been quipped that there are as many SSP architectures as there are principal
investigators (PIs) in this field.[12-15][17] Without a central organization to guide and combine research
efforts, SSP research is likely to remain fragmented and ineffective. A new organization is needed.
Coordinated national policy will ensure development of space based solar power.
This also means that your xo counterplan won’t work without the coordination
provided by the plan.
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 07
(Joseph D. Rogue, Phase O Architecture Feasibility Study)
<FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development
over the past 30 years has
made little progress because it “falls between the cracks” of currently‐defined responsibilities of
federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government .
The current bureaucratic lanes are drawn in such a way to exclude the likelihood of SBSP
development. NASA’s charter and focus is clearly on robotic and human exploration to execute
the Moon‐Mars Vision for Space Exploration, and is cognizant that it is not America’s Department of Energy
(DOE). DOE rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to SBSP all lie in spacefaring activities such as space
access, and space‐to‐Earth power‐beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would make it
dependent upon a space‐capable agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of
Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this mission, and no dedicated Space Development
Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary development expertise in‐house, and
clearly has a responsibility to look to the long term security of the United States, but it is also
not the country’s Department of Energy, and must focus itself on war prevention and
warfighting concerns.
A similar problem exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small launch
markets with the government as a primary customer and advocate, and do not have a
developed business model or speak in a common language with the energy companies. The
energy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the aerospace
sector. One requires a demonstrated market, while the other requires a demonstrated technical capability.
Without a trusted agent to mediate the collaboration and serve as an advocate for supportive
policy, progress is likely to be slow. >
100
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****A2*****
101
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Proliferation Disadvantage 1/3
SBSP dual-use is impossible, the microwave beam cannot focus enough to cause
damage.
Rouge ‘7 (Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study; Report to the Director, National Security Space
Office; Interim Assessment; Release 0.1; 10 October 2007; JOSEPH D. ROUGE, SES; Acting
Director, National Security Space Office)AM
The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale
make the beam very unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the
geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration
useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot
signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the microwave beam
would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cut ‐off mechanisms. The
likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if occurring would be extremely anti‐
climactic.
There is no danger from the SBSP
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at
densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land
usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be significantly less
than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage allowed and
accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low energy density and choice
of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small, comparable to the
heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire. • The physics of
electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale make the beam
very unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an inspection regime
and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the geostationary belt is so vast
that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be
designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak
level. Without the pilot signal the microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional
failsafe cut-off mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and
even if occurring would be extremely anti-climactic.
102
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Proliferation Disadvantage 2/3
It won’t be used as a weapon
NSS 7 – Joseph Rouge, SES Acting Director, National Security Space Office (“Space Based Solar
Power As An Opportunity or National Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/finalsbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, October 9, 2007)
The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale
make the beam very unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the geostationary belt is so vast
that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner
that it requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal
the microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cut ‐
off mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if
occurring would be extremely anti‐climactic. • Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of
energy infrastructure. However, it takes significantly more resources and sophistication to attack an asset in
geostationary orbit than it does to attack a nuclear power plant, oil refinery or supertanker on
Earth. The satellite is also very large and constructed of a number of similar redundant parts, so the attack would need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving antenna would
probably be the least value‐added attack, since it is a diffuse and distributed array of identical modular elements that can be quickly repaired while the receiving station continues to operate.
Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable of damaging a SBSP
system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their own benefit.
Political actions will be taken to make sure it’s not even perceived as one
NSS 7 – Joseph Rouge, SES Acting Director, National Security Space Office (“Space Based Solar
Power As An Opportunity or National Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/finalsbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, October 9, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that there is likely to be concern, both domestically and
internationally, that a SBSP system could be used as a “weapon in space,” which will be amplified because of the
interest shown by the DoD in SBSP. • Mitigating these concerns, developing trust, and building in verification
methods will be key to political consensus for sustainable development of SBSP . o Recommendation: The
SBSP Study Group recommends that the federal government should take reasonable and
appropriate steps to ensure that SBSP systems cannot be utilized as space‐based weapons
systems, and to dissuade and deter other nations from attacking these strategic power sources ,
including but not limited to: � Tasking a civilian federal agency to be the lead agency responsible for federal investments in SBSP and in the demonstration of key technologies needed by
Providing transparency and open public dialogue throughout the development and build‐
out phase to reduce the risk of public misperceptions regarding SBSP. � Encouraging all nations
to develop SBSP systems — either on their own or as partners, customers, suppliers, or co‐
owners with any U.S. development effort to maximize the stakeholder base and to minimize the
potential antagonist base. � Mandating open international inspections of SBSP systems before
launch from Earth to the extent necessary to ensure that the systems being launched are not
weapons. � Developing internationally approved on‐orbit inspection systems that can verify compliance with international agreements
industry. �
It won’t be weaponized
IAA
11
(April,
2011,
International
Academy
of
Aeronautics,
http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/Study%20Groups/SG%20Commission%203/sg311/sg
311finalreport.pdf)
Policy Issue Summary. The principal issue related to potential weaponization is related to the
wireless power transmission system of the SPS. In the 1970s, there was little or no issue
associated with the weaponization of SPS platforms for several reasons. For example, the 1979 SPS
Reference System involved a low intensity microwave power transmission system. Moreover, the
beam was incapable of being rapidly redirected due to the use of a huge mechanical gimballing
system for large angle point. And, all of the systems in the ERDA-NASA studies of the late 1970s were to be
positioned over the equator at the longitude of the US.
103
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Proliferation Disadvantage 3/3
No risk of space militarization from SSP
Smith, 08 – Air Force Colonel, PhD student in the strategic studies program under Professor
Colin Gray at the University of Reading in the UK, former Chief of Future Concepts for the
National Security Space Office at the Pentagon, and the Director of the Space Solar Power Study
(M.V., Message board post in response to a post by “Hsdebater”, 7/12,
http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/ad-astra-special-report-space-based-solarpower/#comment-2680)
We also advocate for the business sector to develop and operate SBSP systems, not
government(s). We much prefer the satellites to be ‘owned’ by international stock holders and
investors. Plus we’d like to see each satellite broadcast power into several nations. This way an
attack on an SBSP satellite will be an attack on all owners and customers and their nations.
This will serve as a deterrent against attacks, backed up by military force to suppress the threat to
SBSP satellites.
Another thing for you to think about:
With SBSP satellites on orbit nations such as Iran and North
Korea will not need nuclear power plants for their energy . Certainly safe, clean electrical power can be
broadcast to them at a market price below all the R&D that goes into building their first-ever nuclear reactors.
Here’s a comment which is always controversial; space is already weaponized. There already exists
in
space and on the Earth the types of systems that we use every day for routine civil, commerical,
and military space operations that can also be used as weapons to negate satellites . Everything
for ramming one satellite into another or merely jamming satellite signals is already in
place…it merely depends on how you use the systems we currently have. We’ve already witnessed a
number of episodes of hostile satellite jamming and bandwidth piracy around the globe. Fortunately, most space
faring states are highly motivated to use space peacefully. But if war between space faring nations breaks out here
on Earth I believe it is highly likely that those nations will negate each other’s satellites–the alternative to negating
uninhabited satellites may be the killing of more people on Earth. This places advocates of “space sanctuary” in a
strange moral dilemma. Unfortunately, achieving orbit does not place activities in space beyond the realm of
human affairs. It is really a matter of politics as usual, no matter where your assets lie; air, land, sea, or space.
Preventing battles in space depends on preventing wars on Earth.
So, with this in mind, the way to protect space-based solar power satellites is to ensure that the outcome from
attacking one of them is an unacceptable expansion of the war (militarily and/or legally) against the attacker. In
other words, the consequence outweighs the benefit. Plus , if SBSP is part of a proper mix of safe, clean
energy sources in use, the target value of such satellites drops.
104
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Spending Disadvantage 1/2
SBSP is not an impossible feat, recent private technological innovations allow for
80% efficiency and lighter materials for cheaper launches
Hsu ‘9 (Jeremy Hsu [Journalist who covers science, technology and storytelling];
http://www.space.com/7617-controversy-flares-space-based-solar-power-plans.html;
Controversy Flares Over Space-Based Solar Power Plans; 02 December 2009) AM
Solar panels in space can receive seven times more solar energy per unit than ones on Earth
and don't have to deal with weather or darkness. The challenge in harnessing that energy comes from the expensive
costs of launching material into space, as well as figuring out how to beam energy back down to Earth. Microwave beaming has
long been the favored delivery option for space solar power advocates. Space power stations
using this method would convert the electricity generated by solar panels into radio frequency
(RF) waves for beaming down to an Earth receiver several kilometers wide. A former NASA
scientist demonstrated the RF concept last year by beaming 20 watts between two Hawaiian
islands ? barely enough energy to power a dim light bulb. That experiment cost just $1 million. A full-scale space solar
power setup would require much bigger and more costly receivers. Another more recent choice
has arisen in the form of solid-state lasers. Such lasers now have enough power to deliver
energy as a tightly focused optical beam that requires much less costly equipment in space and
on the ground. But unlike RF, lasers can run into bigger problems with atmospheric interference and weather. "Microwaves can beam
through clouds, which lasers can't," Hoffert explained. "With lasers you're going to have to have receivers in desert sites that are cloud free,
and maybe backup receivers in several sites." Hoffert still favors lasers because of the lower costs required up front for a tech demonstration.
By contrast, Solaren weighed its choices and decided to go with RF technology. "Basically we chose RF because it is more efficient and has allweather capability for the reliable delivery of electricity to our customers," said Cal Boerman, Solaren's director of energy services. The cost of
space power Hoffert is wary of Solaren's latest step forward and the company's promise of delivering 200 megawatts to PG&E utility customers
Hoffert estimates that Solaren could manage to get about 50 percent
transmission efficiency in a best-case scenario, meaning that half of the energy collected by
space solar panels would be lost in the transfer down to Earth. Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel
array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the
equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert. But Solaren
says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25
metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on
developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that
help focus sunlight. "Solaren’s patented SSP [space solar power] system dramatically reduces
the SSP space segment mass compared to previous concepts," Boerman told SPACE.com. Solaren has not
provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar
power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar
conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in
California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground. Hoffert remains unconvinced without
in California by 2016.
knowing the details of Solaren's technology. He frets that "premature optimism" over unproven and perhaps scientifically implausible concepts
could end up ruining the reputation of space solar power, even as advocates desperately want to see their vision come true. "Too many space
power guys have been silent, perhaps to not give comfort to opponents," Hoffert noted in a recent e-mail to colleagues. "But scientists should
not do this." Beaming into the future Hoffert
still believes strongly in the promise of space solar power, and
has calculated that it can even prove as cost-effective as ground-based solar panels. That's
because solar farms on Earth must build expensive storage systems to hold energy reserves
during cloudy days or nighttime ? although Hoffert still sees solar farms as an ideal complement to space solar power. Space
solar power has to deal mainly with expensive launch costs of about $15,000 per kilogram, as well as the huge capital costs of building ground
arrays if RF technology is involved. Hoffert has pushed for the laser beaming approach as newly effective cost-cutting measure, and even
"The cost to first power doesn't
have to be in the hundreds of billions," Hoffert said. His proposal includes laser transmission
tests on the ground in an NYU lab, and then a space experiment launched to the International
Space Station.
submitted a proposal with his son to ARPA-E, the U.S. Department of Energy's new agency.
105
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Spending Disadvantage 2/2
We will pay off initial spending by new markets and new products
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to have significant growth potential in the
long run, and a national investment in SBSP may return many times its value. Most of America’s
spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP, however, may create new markets
and the need for new products that will provide many new, high ‐paying technical jobs and net
significant tax revenues. Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing
products and services not just to sell to themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space
are measured in billions of dollars. The energy market is trillions of dollars, and there are many
billions of people in the developing world that have yet to connect to the various global
markets. Such a large export market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and
our world. Investments to mature SBSP are similarly likely to have significant economic spin‐offs, each with their
own independent revenue stream, and open up or enable other new industries such as space industrial
processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use of off‐world resources. Not
all of the returns may be obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility. Estimating
the value of utilities is difficult since they benefit society as a whole more than any one user in
particular—consider what the contribution to productivity and GDP are by imagining what the world would be
like without electric lines, roads, railroads, fiber, or airports. Not all of the economic impact is
immediately captured in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the services and products that spring up
to support those workers and their communities. Historically such infrastructure projects have
received significant government support, from land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural
electrification, to development of atomic energy. While the initial ‐capability on‐ramp may be
slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very significant portion of the world energy portfolio by
mid‐century and beyond.
SBSP Pays itself off in 1.6 years
NSS October 2007 (Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment
Release 0.1 10 http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release01.pdf, Page 29.)
Even considering the energy cost of launch, SBSP systems do payback the energy to construct and
launch. In fact, SBSP systems have net energy payback times (<1 year except for very small 0.5
GW plants) well within their multi‐decade operational lifetimes. Payback times are equivalent
and perhaps faster than terrestrial solar thermal power (Zerta et al, 2004). The reason for this is
that an equivalent area in space receives 8‐10 times the energy flux for the annual average, and as much as 30‐40
times the energy flux in a given week than the same area located on a favorable place on the ground after
considering day/night, summer/winter, and dust/weather cycles. Prior analyses suggest that the resulting energy
payback (time to recover the energy used in deploying a power system) for SBSP is equivalent to or less
than (perhaps as little as ½) comparable ground solar baseload power systems (which includes
energy storage capacity for 24/7 usage, and pay back in 1.6 ‐ 1.7 years ).
106
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Obama Good Disadvantage 1/2
Plan is the most popular space policy
Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 2007
(Joseph D. Rogue National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Report to the Director
There is reason
to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey
indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where
they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting
energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second
most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space
exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%). How does one account for such significant
interest? Perhaps it is because SBSP lies “at the intersection of missionary and mercenary”—
appealing both to man’s idealism and pragmatism, the United States’ special mission in the
world and her citizens’ faith in business and technology. As an ambitious and optimistic project, it
excites the imagination with its scale and grandeur, besting America’s previous projects, and
opening new frontiers. Such interest goes directly to the concerns of the Aerospace commission, which stated, “The
aerospace industry has always been a reflection of the spirit of America. It has been, and continues to be, a
sector of pioneers drawn to the challenge of new frontiers in science, air, space, and engineering. For this nation to maintain its present proud
A healthy and
vigorous aerospace industry also holds a promise for the future, by kindling a passion within
our youth that beckons them to reach for the stars and thereby assure our nation’s destiny.”
heritage and leadership in the global arena, we must remain dedicated to a strong and prosperous aerospace industry.
Energy crisis and massive public support make the plan popular.
Jenkins ‘7, Lyle Jenkins is currently a consultant on development of the tornado-taming project.
He retired from NASA after 38 years, Issues in Development of Space Based Solar Power,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04839313&tag=1
Space solar power has been advocated on the basis of its value as a solution to the World’s
energy problems. This approach does not appear to be effective. Fossil fuels are sufficient to meet most of the needs in the immediate
future, hence the lack of support from policy makers for an expensive and complex program. SBSP development as a sustainable energy source
with benefit to the environment provides a basis for the initial investment and a transition to a profit making commercial enterprise. The
potential for clean renewable energy may induce the policy makers to assign resources to the technology development and demonstration.
Then, when investment risk is reduced, the burden of funding by the government may be replaced by private sources. The definition of space
solar power concepts that can be implemented with less initial investment also aids in the transition from government to private industry
funding[2].Through an emphasis on potential environmental change impacts, political
commitment to SBSP support will
be put into a context that most stakeholders, the general public, can understand and embrace [3].
Supporters of space-based solar power have been presenting the concepts as a means to help
meet world energy needs.
Perceived economic benefits mean massive governmental support.
Jenkins ‘7, Lyle Jenkins is currently a consultant on development of the tornado-taming project.
He retired from NASA after 38 years, Issues in Development of Space Based Solar Power,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04839313&tag=1
The prosperity of future generations is dependent on a stable global environment. To ensure environmental stability, a continued effort to
understand the effect of human activities must be a priority. The complex relationships of greenhouse gases, wind circulation, ocean currents
and atmospheric water vapor make the analysis extremely challenging. It is undisputed that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by
over thirty percent since the beginning of the industrial age. Fossil fuels are certainly a major contributor to that increase. By replacing fossil
fuel use, SBSP could reduce the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere and the consequent climate changes from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
There are economic returns from a space-based power source that will lead to commercial
management and operation of the system. There will continue to be an element of the political
community that is committed to the short-term view because of the immediate economic
impact. This reality is a factor that will have to be dealt with through facts and risk assessment for the long-term view. The anticipated
107
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
benefit to the Earth's environment is the overarching objective that may provide support for technology development and demonstration
toward space-based solar power for use on Earth.
108
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: Obama Good Disadvantage 2/2
We outweigh their links-support for SPS statistically outweighs opposition.
Preble, ‘6 – Darel, systems analyst, physicist and chair of the Space Solar Power Workshop
(http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf)
According to repeated surveys, public perception of America’s Space Goals places SSP
construction clearly as America’s top space priority1: 2002 2005 What should be America’s Goal in
Space? 32% 35% Build satellites in Earth orbit to collect solar energy to beam to utilities on
Earth 23% 17% Develop the technology to deflect asteroids or comets that might destroy the Earth 13% 10% No Opinion 4% 10% Send
humans to Mars 2% 7% Search for life on other planets 6% 7% Build a human colony in space 3% 6% Develop a passenger rocket to send
tourists into space 5% 4% Build a base on the moon for humans to use for moon exploration
11% 2% None of the above, we
should stop spending money on space
Congress supports the plan – it wants new competitiveness programs
Morring, 7 (Frank, Aviation Week & Space Technology “Space Solar Power: Climate, Economy,
National Security Drive Another Look At SSP; Experts see warming, economic concerns and
energy security as reasons to build SSP” August 20, 2007, Proquest Search)
Another factor that might build support in Congress and the Executive Branch is the effect
building an SSP system would have on competitiveness. "Here in the U.S. we continue to be
concerned about competitiveness, particularly in light of the migration of many high-tech
industries overseas, and how [to] provide long-term economic and science and technology
strength in the U.S. [It's] an ongoing challenge," Mankins says.
SPS has bipartisan support
Moore 2k (Taylor, “Renewed Interest in Space Solar Power”, EPRI Journal, Spring, academic
onefile)
As a result of bipartisan support from Congress and the Clinton administration, additional funding
for an SPS exploratory research and technology program was authorized for fiscal year 1999 and
is continuing in the current fiscal year. "Large power systems are likely to be essential for achieving ambitious
space science and exploration goals, including both extra-solar system robotic probes and the development of
large, permanent installations on the moon, Mars, or other targets, such as near-Earth and main-belt asteroids,"
says Mankins.
109
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC India Counterplan 1/4
The United States and India are working in immdiet Co-Op.
Morring 2010 (November 4th 2010 Frank Morring, Writer for Aviation Weakly. Recognize
exceptional strategy, heroism and leadership in aviation,
aerospace and defense.
https://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=AviationWeek.com&id=
news/awx/2010/11/04/awx_11_04_2010_p0266929.xml&headline=Indian,%20U.S.%20Experts%20Team%20On%20Space%20Solar%20Powe
r)
Former Indian President A.P.J. Kalam has lent his name to a new cooperative effort by experts in the
U.S. and India to advance space solar power (SSP) as a way to improve life on Earth . Kalam, 79, is
a space pioneer who served as the 11th president of India. He and his former associates at the Indian Space
Research Organization have teamed with the Washington-based National Space Society (NSS) for
an initiative aimed at accomplishing the work necessary to field a system of large satellites that
would collect solar energy and beam it safely to Earth’s surface.“A large mission like space
solar power will need the combined efforts of many nations,” Kalam said Thursday in a conference
call from India. “I am certain that harvesting solar power in space can upgrade the living standard
of the human race.
Perm do both in cooperation solves – India already wants to work the US on the
SBSP
Frank Morring, Jr Nov 4, 2010
Indian, U.S. Experts Team On Space Solar Power
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=AviationWeek.com&id=n
ews/awx/2010/11/04/awx_11_04_2010_p0266929.xml&headline=Indian,%20U.S.%20Experts%20Team%20On%20Space%20Solar%20Powe
r
Former Indian President A.P.J. Kalam has lent his name to a new cooperative effort by experts in the
U.S. and India to advance space solar power (SSP) as a way to improve life on Earth. Kalam, 79, is
a space pioneer who served as the 11th president of India . He and his former associates at the Indian
Space Research Organization have teamed with the Washington-based National Space Society
(NSS) for an initiative aimed at accomplishing the work necessary to field a system of large
satellites that would collect solar energy and beam it safely to Earth’s surface.
“A large mission like space solar power will need the combined efforts of many nations,” Kalam
said Thursday in a conference call from India. “I am certain that harvesting solar power in space can
upgrade the living standard of the human race.”
110
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC India Counterplan 2/4
Perm do the plan with the Republic of India
Perm solves best only cooperation solves
Tayler Dinerman ‘9 (a well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian
space activities since 1983, and a part-time consultant for the US Defense Department. “Should
India
and
the
US
cooperate
on
space
solar
power?”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1389/1, 5/8)
In Washington lots of people have complained that the Obama Administration has so far not
given the India-US relationship the attention it deserves. Others are waiting to see if this relatively new team is
going to follow up on the progress made by both the Clinton and the George W. Bush Administrations in building a real friendship between the
two democratic giants. The
one area in which there seems to be movement on, though, is a “renewable
energy partnership”. From India’s standpoint the government does take the energy problem very seriously. While they connect it
with the question of climate change, they have made it clear that they are not willing to inflict economic pain on their people in order to
appease those in the West who are demanding that they cease their current drive to climb out of mass poverty in the name of the environment.
Former External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee made this clear when he spoke at the Asia Society in New York last year and said, “It is
therefore completely one sided to target countries like India, whose emissions though modest are rising, but fail to bring to account those who
have been responsible for more than 70% of the accumulated emissions in the atmosphere.” Recognizing the potential weakness of a case
“even if there were no climate
change arguments, considerations of energy security alone would require a medium to long
term strategy of implementing a strategic shift from fossil fuels to non fossil fuels.” He called
for a “major R&D effort to develop applications that that can provide convenient, cost effective
large scale applications of solar energy.” Any analysis of the potential of terrestrial solar energy in India or elsewhere runs
based strictly on the question of climate change, Mukherjee was wise enough to add that
up against the awesome size of the future demand for power. Photovoltaic panels on rooftops and solar water heaters all make excellent smallscale contributions to the solution, but they cannot by any stretch of the imagination fulfill the requirements of a huge growing economy like
India’s. Only SSP, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year after year, can hope to meet this need. Fortunately
both India
and the US have space programs and technologies that could, if developed together and
possibly with other interested nations such as Japan, bring SSP systems into service sometime late next
decade or the early 2020s. With its commitment to develop a new low cost reusable
spaceplane, the India Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is already working on one of the key
technologies needed for an SSP system. Indian participation in both private and public SSP
programs should be welcomed by the US. Ehe US government should make an effort to facilitate this by helping with visas
and work permits for qualified Indian scientists and engineers. Recent moves towards reforming the notorious International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) should include ensuring that SSP systems are covered by the Department of Commerce regulators rather than by the State
In the near term the new Indo-US renewable
energy partnership would seem to be the right place to start this collaboration. Together the partners
Department, which has gained such a sorry reputation in this area.
can identify what will be needed in the way of technological and scientific investments over the next decade in order to make SSP a reality.
India has lots of talent that can be committed to this effort and so does the US. In fact, the kind of ambitious idealism that we saw at NASA
during the Apollo years could be engendered by this goal. Safe, clean, abundant energy from the Sun is not an impossible dream. The
technology has not been perfected and the need for new, low-cost Earth-to-orbit transportation systems is as urgent as ever, but there are no
requirements for any scientific breakthroughs. The Space Solar Power Study released by the US National Security Space Office (NSSO) in
October 2007 found that since the 1977 “Reference” study, there had been: (a) improvements in PV [photovoltaic] efficiency from about 10%
(1970s) to more than 40% (2007); (b) increases in robotics capabilities from simple tele-operated manipulators in a few degrees of freedom
(1970s) to fully autonomous robotics with insect-class intelligence and 30–100 degrees of freedom (2007); (c) increases in the efficiency of
solid state devices from around 20% (1970s) to as much as 70%–90% (2007); (d) improvements in materials for structures from simple
aluminum (1970s) to advanced composites including nanotechnology composites (2007) The 2007 NSSO study showed just how far the
technology had come and why space solar power is now a more viable alternative for very large-scale power generation than ever before.
India and the US are natural partners in the development of this technology and the
opportunity provided by the planned renewable energy partnership is a perfect place to begin.
111
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC India Counterplan 3/4
CP fails – India deal proves ITAR restricts US companies
NDIA 11 National Defense Industrial Association, “U.S. Industry Loses Big in India: Is ITAR to
Blame?”,
4/28/2011,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=402
Defense contractors and industry experts are trying to come to grips with India’s decision to
exclude The Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. from its $11 billion competition for a new fighter
jet. No specific rationale has yet been given by the Indian government for its determination to jettison Boeing's F/A-18, Lockheed F-16 and
Saab’s Gripen fighters, and proceed with a head-to-head contest only between two European offers — the Eurofighter and the Dassault Rafale.
“Companies are very concerned about the logic for the decision,” said a U.S. industry source. “There’s a bit of puzzlement.” India's decision was
very surprising, says Tom Captain, vice chairman of global and U.S. aerospace and defense leader at Deloitte LLP. If the selection was based on
technical merits, "It is difficult to explain how those two very capable aircraft were eliminated." In the absence of factual information about
how the selection was made, speculation is growing that restrictive U.S. export policies may have played a significant role in India’s evaluation
of fighter jet candidates. Analysts had predicted that at least one of the two U.S. contenders would have the inside track. U.S. technology is
considered more advanced, and more coveted by rising powers such as India. President Obama also raised the stakes by personally making a
pitch on behalf of U.S. industry to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his visit to India. He also sent Singh a letter reinforcing the
importance of India’s fighter program to the Obama administration. India is expected to buy up to 200 new aircraft. “ We
feel that our
products are the best possible available,” said the industry source.” India is projected to spend $80 billion on
new weapons and space systems over the next five years. It’s only a small fraction of what the United States spends, but the industry still
Defense industry analyst
Byron Callan contends that “technology transfer was a major consideration in this
competition.” Callan presumes that the U.S. government was “unwilling to see key AESA [active
electronically scanned array] radar and other avionics and electronic warfare technology made
available at the level India wanted,” Callan writes in a memo to industry investors. “Technology transfer has
also been a key consideration in Brazil’s FX fighter competition which has been delayed.” One
regards it as a promising region where, once you get a foot in the door, opportunities could blossom.
issue to watch as a result of this decision, says Callan, is “whether the U.S. further relaxes defense technology export restrictions in order to
keep domestic production lines open.” This is a major concern for U.S. manufacturers as Pentagon spending begins to contract next year. In
the past, Callan says, “when the U.S. restrained or reduced its defense spending, policy shifted to exporting advanced weapons to strategic
partners.” He notes that F/A-18 production “may still run through the end of this decade based on U.S. orders and from countries that had
hoped for F-35s and who operate earlier-generation F/A-18s.” The longevity of the F-16, meanwhile, “hinges on its ability to win in niche
markets in the Middle East, but it is less relevant to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman (which makes the radar) with F-35 and the new
bomber program ramping up.” For Boeing, losing India’s sales is a big blow because it needs foreign sales to keep the F/A-18 line open beyond
the coming decade, unlike Lockheed, which has a long-term lifeline in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter. “It will be interesting to see what
India does with combat fighter technology acquired from either Dassault or EADS and BAE Systems, and engine companies as well,” Callan
writes. Larry Christensen, an export controls attorney at Miller & Chevalier, in Washington, D.C., believes
the Indian decision
will have lasting implications for U.S. industry , even though he says he has not seen any proof that India’s
The fact
that an emerging power such as India would snub U.S. advanced weaponry offers further
evidence that the current export control system — which dates back to the Cold War — has
outlived its effectiveness, Christensen says. “The U.S. government cannot repeal the laws of
economics,” he says. As the United States denies access to some of its best technology, it leaves a
market void that, sooner or later, another country will fill. “When that happens, the U.S. export
control policy of denial, or policy of heavy restrictions, become ineffective” for the purposes of
barring potential enemies access to advanced weaponry, he says. It is conceivable that India
concluded that U.S. restrictions on technology sharing are not worth the hassle, Christensen suggests.
choice was influenced by ITAR, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations that restrict exports of sensitive U.S. technology.
Although the United States wanted India to buy its fighter jets, it was “putting strings on those sales” that would have curtailed India’s ability
ITAR would
have "restricted them in their ability to move forward with that platform.” On a smaller scale,
the same problem affects U.S. suppliers of less flashy products such as surveillance, lawenforcement and border protection technology, says Christensen. “I know small firms that feel the pain of commercial
to upgrade components, software or sensors, or collaborate with other countries, he says. If India had picked a U.S. aircraft,
customers saying that they like the U.S. product but they can’t live with the restrictions and the overhead that goes with ITAR controls.”
112
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC India Counterplan 4/4
Indian can’t succeed without US tech advancements
Kanter
9
James,
6-5-2009,
“Could
India
Become
a
Solar
Leader?.”
NYT,
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/could-india-become-a-solar-leader/
India may be gearing to turn itself into the global leader in solar power generation , a sign that
major developing nations could become renewable energy hubs to rival Germany and the United States. Called the
National Solar Mission, the Indian plan outlines a target for 20,000 megawatts of solar capacity by 2020,
according to a draft copy obtained by Greenpeace and posted to the Web. “ This would be the most ambitious
solar plan that any country has laid out so far,” said Siddharth Pathak, a climate and energy campaigner for
Greenpeace India. India would generate 100,000 megawatts of solar power by 2030 and 200,000 megawatts by
mid-century under the plan. The plan acknowledges the high cost of solar compared with other sources of energy,
and coal in particular. But it says costs could be driven down to between 4 and 5 rupees per kilowatt hour by the
period 2017-2020, making solar cost-competitive with fossil fuels. There would be one million rooftop systems
with an average capacity of 3 kilowatts by 2020 to cut the use of diesel for daytime power while generation parks
could be built in the “exclusion” zones around nuclear plants, where people are not allowed to live but solar
facilities could be safely installed. Crucial to the project would be building up local manufacturing capacity. The
plan envisages training 100,000 specialists by 2020. It also foresees the need for processing facilities for raw
materials, factories and technology parks for making components and equipment and generation parks to produce
electricity. India can now make 700 megawatts of photovoltaic modules each year, according to the plan. The aim
would be to make 20,000 megawatts of solar cells annually by 2017 and to establish expertise in solar thermal
technologies. Total costs would be 85,000 and 105,000 crores ($18.5 billion to $22.8 billion) over a 30-year
period. To help finance the project, the plan foresees a significant tax on gasoline and diesel — fuels the
government currently subsidizes. The plan also foresees a feed-in tariff, solar power purchase obligations for
Indian authorities, tax breaks for manufacturers, and exemptions on tariffs for imported equipment. A so-called
Solar Energy Authority of India would be set up to manage the system. But Greenpeace emphasized that help
from rich countries would be essential for India to meet its goals. “India needs
international support,” Mr. Pathak said. “The industrialized world needs to come up with solid
proposals on technology and finance to help developing countries deliver on ambitious plans like
this one,” he said.
113
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 1/10
IMF says Japan needs to spend their money on rebuilding from Tsunami
Lesley Wroughton ’11 (Reuters senior correspondent “Japan fiscal focus must be on rebuilding:
IMF” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-imf-japan-idUSTRE72G4UY20110317, 3/17)
(Reuters) - Japan has the financial capacity to meet humanitarian and infrastructure needs arising from a
devastating earthquake and tsunami, and fiscal policy should focus on rebuilding efforts, the
International Monetary Fund said on Thursday.
Japan focusing on rebuilding now before anything else
The
Washington
Post
‘11
(“Japan
government
shifts
focus
to
rebuilding”
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_17755736, 4/2)
TOKYO — Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan on Friday addressed his nation to say that although
disaster relief continues three weeks after the "Great East Japan Earthquake," the government will now
begin focusing on reconstruction, building a "bright and promising future."
Perm do the plan with Japan – solves best and promotes world peace
William Cox ’11 (Retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist “The
Race for Space-Solar Energy” http://www.truth-out.org/race-space-solar-energy/1304186557,
4/30)
Rather than a competition, however, the United States, China, Japan and perhaps Russia should
organize a public service consortium to cooperatively produce energy from outer space.
Such a consortium could take advantage of the unique abilities of each nation to collectively
produce space-solar energy, and it would avoid private corporate domination over the
distribution of a product that is essential to human civilization.
A space-solar energy consortium would be a giant step toward world peace and a small leap into
the universe of unlimited and unimaginable futures that surround and await us.
Non Unique Japan already has a plan for SBSP the US doesn’t
Ariel Schwartz ‘9 (“Japan Plans $21 Billion Solar Space Post to Power 294,000 Homes”
http://inhabitat.com/japan-plans-21-billion-solar-space-post-to-power-294000-homes/, 9/1)
The concept of space-based solar power was introduced way back in 1968, but it’s only recently that the world has
latched on to the idea. Japan is definitely getting in on the action with its latest spacey plan – a $21
billion solar-powered generator in the heavens to produce one gigawatt of energy, or
enough to power 294,000 homes . The Japanese government announced the plan back in
June, but there has been an important new development – Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and industrial design
company IHI Corp. are now teaming up in the race to develop new technology within four years that can beam
electricity back to Earth without the use of cables .
SBSP costs way too much
Ariel Schwartz ‘9 (“Japan Plans $21 Billion Solar Space Post to Power 294,000 Homes”
http://inhabitat.com/japan-plans-21-billion-solar-space-post-to-power-294000-homes/, 9/1)
to the idea. Japan is definitely getting in on the action with its latest spacey plan – a $21 billion solar-
powered generator in the heavens to produce one gigawatt of energy, or enough to power
294,000 homes. The Japanese government announced the plan back in June, but there has been an important
new development – Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and industrial design company IHI Corp. are now teaming up in the
race to develop new technology within four years that can beam electricity back to Earth without the use of cables.
114
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 2/10
Japan focusing their budget on rebuilding
Hiroko
Tabuchi
’11
(“Japan
Announces
Emergency
Budget
for
Rebuilding”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/world/asia/23japan.html, 4/22)
TOKYO — The Japanese government earmarked almost $50 billion in emergency spending on
Friday for the first step in the country’s largest reconstruction effort since World War II.
The $48.5 billion budget is likely to be followed by more spending as Japan takes on the
gargantuan task of rebuilding the section of its Pacific coastline ravaged by the March 11 earthquake and
tsunami. Parliament is expected to pass the budget next week.
Japan doesn’t have any extra money in their budget even before spending
enormous amounts on rebuilding
James Simms ’10 (“Japan’s Superbad Budget”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045232268132622.html, 12/28)
Japan's $1.1 trillion budget for next year is filled with unwanted superlatives: the nation's largest outlay
ever, the worst debt-to-GDP ratio among industrial nations and the second consecutive year
that debt issuance will exceed tax revenue. And those are just the headlines.
The details are even worse. They illustrate the impact of indecision, internal bickering and a loss of political power
by Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
The result? Rather than fundamental reform to Tokyo's notorious inability to spend wisely, the hallmarks of this
budget are the administration's scramble to secure revenue and fulfill unrealistic campaign pledges. Tokyo will
raid non-budget accounts and foreign-exchange reserves for $86 billion to fill its revenue shortfall. This kind of
budgeting just isn't sustainable.
SBSP improves national influence
National Space Society ‘7 (“Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, 10/10)
In March of 2007, the National Security Space Office (NSSO) Advanced Concepts Office (“Dreamworks”)
presented this idea to the agency director. Recognizing the potential for this concept to influence not
only energy, but also space, economic, environmental, and national security, the Director
instructed the Advanced Concepts Office to quickly collect as much information as possible on the feasibility of
this concept. Without the time or funds to contract for a traditional architecture study, Dreamworks turned to an
innovative solution: the creation on April 21, 2007, of an open source, internet-based, interactive collaboration
forum aimed at gathering the world’s SBSP experts into one particular cyberspace. Discussion grew
immediately and exponentially, such that there are now 170 active contributors as of the release of this report—
this study approach was an unequivocal success and should serve as a model for DoD when
considering other study topics. Study leaders organized discussions into five groups: 1) a common plenary session,
2) science & technology, 3) law & policy, 4) infrastructure and logistics, and 5) the business case, and challenged
the group to answer one fundamental question: Can the United States and partners enable the development and
deployment of a space-based solar power system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed
could provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, and expandable energy for its consumers? Discussion
results were summarized and presented at a two-day conference in Colorado on 6-7 September graciously hosted
by the U.S. Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies.
115
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 3/10
Kan resigning now
Japan
Probe
’11
(Naoto
Kan’s
Resignation
Announcement:
A
Huge
Scam?”
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/06/03/naoto-kans-resignation-announcement-a-huge-scam/,
6/3)
Yesterday morning, Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced his resignation. Although he didn’t specify
the exact date on which the resignation would take place, it was widely believed that he’d be leaving
within a few months. The resignation announcement was apparently a compromise between Kan and his
opponents within the DPJ. After saying he was going to quit, the anti-Kan group within the DPJ decided to vote
against yesterday’s no-confidence motion. Kan “survived” the no-confidence vote by telling everyone
he was going to be quitting soon.
Yesterday evening, Kan made an announcement saying that he would not be resigning this year. If he were to
resign, he would be doing so sometime next year, after the Fukushima nuclear reactors were completely cooled
down. Some who had decided to drop their support for the no-confidence motion were very surprised:
Switching to solar boosts Kan’s credibility
Jeff Hughes ’11 (“Japan considers national solar power to replace nuclear dependency”
http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/japan-considers-national-solar-power-to-replacenuclear-dependency/, 5/23)
Japan’s Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, is expected to announce the country’s energy plans at the upcoming G8
Summit in Deuville, France. Along with assurances about the current safety of Japan’s nuclear power plants which
they will continue using for now, Kan is also expected to unveil a plan for nation-wide renewable energy.
According to the Nikkei business daily, the Japanese government wants to make it compulsory for all buildings
and houses to be equipped with solar panels by 2030. If the mandate is successful, Japan would be home to
the world’s first national solar array.
This push for nation-wide clean energy comes in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster,
where a tsunami and earthquake caused a nuclear crises in the country. The No.1, No.2. and No.3 Fukushima
reactors all had meltdowns. According to Reuters, engineers are still fighting to bring radiation leaks under
control, months after the 9.0 earthquake of March 11. Scientists from the IAEA are currently at the Japan site to
investigate the crises.
Japan’s goals are for renewable energy and conservation. Naoto Kan believes that the push for
a national solar array would not only release Japan from dependency on nuclear power and create a cleaner
and safer energy source, but would also spur technological innovation in solar energy. The nation’s
massive solar focus would pour more money into the industry creating better efficiency and ultimately drive down
costs. Solar power could potentially be a solution, rather than a supplement.
Though it seems like such a massive project, Naoto Kan says that it would promote wider uses of
renewable energy, but it will also show Japan’s resolve. If accomplished, it would certainly
brighten the future.
116
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 4/10
JET on the chopping block – new spending tanks it – hurts US-Japan relations
Gannon 10 – Executive Director of the Japan Center for International Exchange
Jim, served as the Executive Director of the Japan Center for International Exchange, 7-2010,
““JET Program on the Chopping Block”,”
“JET Program on the Chopping Block” As part of Japan’s efforts to grapple with its massive
public debt, the JET Program may be cut. Soon after coming into power, the new DPJ government
launched a high profile effort to expose and cut wasteful government spending. This has featured jigyo shiwake–
budget review panels that were tasked with reviewing government programs and recommending whether they
should be continued or cut. (See Stacy Smith’s (Kumamoto-ken CIR, 2000-03) May 21 WITLife post that explains
jigyou shiwake and touches on the threat to the JET Program.) In May 2010, the JET Program and CLAIR came
up for review, and during the course of an hourlong hearing, the 11-member panel criticized the JET scheme,
ruling unanimously that a comprehensive examination should be undertaken to see if it should be pared back or
eliminated altogether.When the jigyo shiwake panels were launched in November 2009, the intent was to weed
out bloated spending and a wide range of government programs were put under review, from governmentaffiliated think tanks to host nation support for US military bases. Bureaucrats involved with each program were
directed to submit a brief report on program activities and testify before panels consisting of a handful of Diet
members and roughly a dozen private citizens from different walks of life. The defenders of each program were
given five minutes to explain why the program is worthwhile, the finance ministry then laid out the rationale for
cutting it, and then the panel held a 40 minute debate before issuing a recommendation whether the program
should live or die. This extraordinary spectacle made for great theater, becoming wildly popular with voters
disenchanted with a lack of government transparency and critical of recurring bureaucratic scandals. In
November 2009, the first round of jigyo shiwake panels dominated the newspapers’ front pages and the hearings
were streamed live by various online news sites. The process even gave rise to a new set of stars, most notably
Renho, a 42 year-old Taiwanese-Japanese announcer turned Diet member who relentlessly attacked the
bureaucrats who appeared before the panels. Despite this initial success, a backlash eventually began to brew
against the jigyo shiwake panels, with detractors labeling them as mindless populism, arguing that panel members
without any special expertise were unqualified to evaluate the programs and ridiculing the attempt to pass
judgment on complex, long-standing projects with such a cursory review. In one noteworthy development, a
group of Japanese Nobel laureates publicly rebuked the Hatoyama Goverment for jigyo shiwake
recommendations to gut government funding for basic scientific research. Renho herself met with ridicule for
arguing in one budget hearing, “What’s wrong with being the world’s number two?” On May 21, a diverse set of
programs including the JET Program were lumped together in one hourlong session and, during the course of the
proceedings, the JET Program was criticized as being ineffective in raising the level of Japan’s English education.
One of the more publicized comments called for the elimination of the Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) portion
of JET. The general sense was that the JET Program was being evaluated as an educational program with the
exchange component being given short shrift, since its impact is difficult to quantify and assess. (Click here for the
ruling on the JET Program in Japanese in PDF format.) A few Japanese intellectual and foreign policy
leaders have begun to push back against the attacks on the JET Program, noting how
important it is in terms of public diplomacy and in Japan’s engagement with a range of
countries. In its June meeting in Washington, D.C., the US-Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational
Exchange (CULCON), a joint US-Japan “wisemen’s commission” scathingly criticized the shortsightedness of any
move to cut the JET Program, issuing a statement that “CULCON strongly endorses the JET Program, especially
against the background of negative assessment expressed by some panelists of the screening process.” For its part,
the US State Department also seems to be taking the position that the JET Program makes valuable
contributions to the long-term underpinnings of US-Japan relations and cutting it will
be harmful . Meanwhile, a handful of articles have also started to appear in the Japanese press defending the
JET Program, although there have been only limited contributions to the debate so far by current and former JET
participants. The number of JET participants has already been cut back by almost 30 percent from the peak in
2002, but this is the most direct threat to its survival that the program has faced in its 23-year
history. The pattern that has emerged with the previous round of jigyo shiwake has been that programs receiving
this type of verdict will be scaled back significantly, absent any public outcry or political maneuvering by
important figures.
117
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 5/10
JET will tradeoff with any new spending
Hosaka, 10 (Tomoko A., “Budget cutters target JET,”
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100811f1.html)
Japan
Times
Online,
8/11/10,
Every year for the past two decades, legions of young Americans have descended on Japan to teach English. This government-sponsored
charm offensive was launched to counter anti-Japan sentiment in the United States and has since grown into one of the country's most
successful displays of soft power. Still involved: Monica Yuki, Steven Horowitz and Shree Kurlekar, all Japan Exchange and Teaching Program
alumni and still active in the group, pose July 21 in New York. JET is among the biggest international exchange programs in the world. AP
faced with stagnant growth and a massive public debt, lawmakers are aggressively
looking for ways to rein in spending. One target is the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program, or JET.
Versions of the JET program can be found in other countries. French embassies around the world help to recruit
PHOTO But
young people to teach their languages in France for a year. The U.S. Fulbright program, run by the State Department, works in both directions:
American graduates are sent abroad to study and teach, and foreigners are brought to the U.S. to do the same. But
JET's origins and
historical context make it unique. Having long pursued policies of isolation — with short bursts of imperialism — Japan
was looking for a new way to engage with the world in 1987, at the height of its economic rise. The country's
newfound wealth was viewed as a threat in the U.S., where anti-Japanese sentiment ran high. At the same time, Tokyo wanted to match its
economic power with political clout. JET emerged as one high-profile solution to ease trade friction, teach foreigners about Japan and open the
country to the world. Under the program, young people from English-speaking countries — mostly Americans — work in schools and
communities to teach their language and foster cultural exchange. They receive an after-tax salary of about ¥3.6 million, round-trip airfare to
Word about possible cuts began filtering through JET alumni
networks several weeks ago, and members of the New York group mobilized quickly, starting
an online signature campaign. Former JET — as the alums are known — Steven Horowitz, now living in Brooklyn, is devoting
Japan and help with living arrangements.
his Web sitejetwit.com to rally support. Another alumnus in Florida launched a Facebook page. Their message to Tokyo is that Japan's return
on investment in the program is priceless. Japan, they say, can't afford to lose this key link to the world, especially as its global relevance wanes
in the shadow of China. And the program, they argue, not only teaches the world about Japan but also teaches Japan about the world. "There
has been a benefit from the program that you can't measure," said New York native Anthony Bianchi. "People used to freak out when they'd see
a foreigner. Just the fact that that doesn't happen anymore is a big benefit." Bianchi's experience shows the power of the program to create
cultural ties. After working as a teacher for two years in Aichi Prefecture, he landed a job with the mayor in the city of Inuyama, an old castle
town in the area. He eventually adopted Japanese citizenship and ran for the assembly. Now in his second term, the 51-year-old is working to
persuade Diet members that JET is worth saving. Bianchi is not alone. Of the more than 52,000 people who have taken part, many are moving
into leadership at companies, government offices and nonprofits that make decisions affecting Japan, said David McConnell, an anthropology
"The JET program is, simply put, very
smart foreign policy," he said. James Gannon, executive director for the nonprofit Japan
Center for International Exchange in New York, describes JET as a pillar of the U.S.-Japan
relationship and the "best public diplomacy program that any country has run" in recent
decades. But taxpayers are asking if the program is worth the price — and criticism of JET has
become part of a larger political showdown about how much the government can afford. The
professor at The College of Wooster in Ohio and author of a book about JET.
organization that oversees JET, the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, has drawn the ire of lawmakers as a destination
where senior bureaucrats retire to plush jobs. The practice, known as "amakudari," or "descent from heaven," is viewed as a source of
corruption and waste. Motoyuki Odachi, a member of a "jigyo shiwake" budget review panel that examined JET, said taxpayers are getting
ripped off. "There's a problem with the organization itself," said Odachi, an Upper House member from the Chubu region. "This program has
continued in order to maintain amakudari." JET's administrators tried to defend themselves at a public hearing in late May and submitted
planned reforms, including a 15 percent slimmer budget this fiscal year. The council has allocated about ¥1 billion for the program, which
Several
government ministries cover other JET-related costs, including overseas recruitment. Odachi
expects his panel's recommendations will become formal policy later this year. "Whether that
means zero (money) or half, we don't know yet," he said. "But our opinion has been issued, so
(JET) will probably shrink." Kumiko Torikai, dean of Rikkyo University's graduate school of
intercultural communications and the author of several books on English education in Japan,
says JET has outgrown its usefulness and needs an overhaul. "Bringing thousands of JETs to Japan is not a
includes airfare, orientation costs and counseling services. Teachers' salaries are paid by the towns and cities that hire them.
good investment for the country's taxpayers in this day and age of an already globalized world," Torikai said.
118
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 6/10
JET is critical to overall US-Japan relations—it spills over into all sectors of the
alliance
Dooley,
11
(Ben,
“Former
JETs
defend
program,”
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110210f3.html)
Kyodo
News,
2/10/11,
WASHINGTON — When
current participants in the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program gather, the discussion
often focuses on English teaching methods. When the program's U.S. alumni get together,
however, talk often turns to a weightier subject: U.S. foreign policy toward Japan. Since the program was
established in 1987, it has brought tens of thousands of young Americans to Japan for cultural exchanges with a focus on teaching English.
the program has an uneven track record when it comes to improving Japanese students' English, it has quietly and
unexpectedly become a powerful tool for achieving another objective: grooming the next
generation of American leadership in U.S.-Japan relations. Michael Auslin, a former JET and
prominent Japan expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said recent attacks on the
program by Japanese budget screeners have focused on the quality of its English teaching while
ignoring the more important element that it is one of Japan's most valuable tools for
conducting "public diplomacy" both with the United States and other countries . The program's
success in this regard is perhaps best demonstrated by the number of former JETs occupying
Japan-related positions in both academia and in the U.S. government. The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo alone
employs 25 former JETs, and JET returnees have done Japan-related work at the highest levels of the U.S. government. "The JET
program created a fairly large cadre of people who had Japan experience," says Ben Dolven, a former JET
and current director of the East Asia division at the Congressional Research Service, the official think tank of the U.S. Congress. "You've
got a core of people who have had this experience all over, who are now part and parcel of
U.S. policymaking on Japan ," he said. Dolven's point is illustrated by an anecdote told by Michael Green, the head of
Although
Japan studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former head of the Asia team in President George W. Bush's National
Security Council. Green, who participated in a precursor to the JET program, was tasked with putting together a group to examine how the
2001 election of Junichiro Koizumi as prime minister might affect Japan's relations with the United States. The task force consisted of Japan
interesting thing about it
was that you had all of these people from all of these agencies, who had been JETs . . ." or, like
experts from various government agencies, ranging from the CIA to the Treasury Department. "The
Green, had participated in similar programs in Japan, he said. The group put together a set of recommendations that "became, in many ways, a
Dolven said that because JETs often work in
rural areas, the program gives them a more nuanced view of the "real" Japan, a background
that provides crucial context for better understanding the country and making informed
policy decisions. "There are lives being lived all over the country, and if you are just focused on Tokyo, you miss so much," Dolven
blueprint for President Bush's first meeting with Koizumi," Green said.
said. Auslin said the program is probably the most successful institutionalized and organized way to get young foreigners to obtain a deeper
understanding of the "real" Japan. This sentiment is embodied by Andrew Ou, a former JET now working in the U.S. Embassy's political
section. While in the program 10 years ago, Ou developed a relationship with Ichita Yamamoto, now a leading figure in the Liberal Democratic
Ou cites this connection, as well as his JET experience with Japan's local politics, as
invaluable to his current work analyzing Japanese politics. "You can't put that into an equation
and come out with a figure of how important it is for bilateral relations," he said. But he believes his
own and others' experiences in the program "add up to invaluable benefits for the U.S.Japan relationship." Recent criticism of the program comes at a time when many scholars have observed an increasing
Party.
tendency in Japan toward turning "inward," contributing to what the Japan Center for International Exchange, a New York-based think tank,
has called an erosion in the "the institutional base of U.S.-Japan policy dialogue and study." Ou finds criticism of the JET program especially
disappointing. "I
think as a group, JET alumni have a bigger impact on bilateral policy than
any other," he said. And that is what makes it essential to "emphasize how important the JET
program was and is for me and countless other diplomats," he said.
119
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 7/10
US-Japan relations solve Chinese belligerence and major regional war
Tkacik 10 John, retired officer in the U.S. Foreign Service who served in Beijing, Guangzhou,
Hong Kong and Taipei, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/5/china-tests-us-japanalliance/?page=2
The islands have strategic significance to Japan, not just for the putative seabed oil and gas resources but
also because, under international law, the Senkakus qualify as "islands" capable of "sustaining human habitation."
This is important because under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea - to which both China and Japan are
parties -an "island" brings to its owner a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone and sovereign claim to the
aquatic resources and seabed minerals therein. Without them, Chinese territorial waters would be about 200
miles closer to Japan than they are now. With China's navy getting more pushy than ever before, Japan has
reason to keep its maritime frontiers as far removed from its major islands as possible .
The Obama administration also sees China's territorial appetites elsewhere as a strategic risk for the
rest of Asia. This summer, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reasserted America's demand
thatChina's claims against Southeast Asian neighbors on the South China Sea littoral be
resolved peacefully and in an international context. Beijing's claims to the entire Indian state of
Arunachal Pradesh - an area of India bigger than Taiwan that no Chinese ever have inhabited raise the specter of armed clashes between the two Asian giants that also disturb Mrs. Clinton's sleep.
America's new firmness in support of its partners across democratic Asia will
oblige China to reassess its aggressiveness. Beijing certainly will regroup to test
Washington again, and soon. Let's hope President Obama is up to the task of organizing our
democratic partners in the region to balance China's rising power.
Chinese belligerence leads to nuclear war
Walton, PhD in IR, 7 C. Dale, Lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the
University of Reading, 2007, Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the 21st Century, p. 49
Obviously, it is of vital importance to the United States that the PRC does not become the
hegemon of Eastern Eurasia. As noted above, however, regardless of what Washington does, China's success
in such an endeavor is not as easily attainable as pessimists might assume. The PRC appears to be on track to be a
very great power indeed, but geopolitical conditions are not favorable for any Chinese effort to establish sole
hegemony; a robust multipolar system should suffice to keep China in check, even with only minimal American
intervention in local squabbles. The more worrisome danger is that Beijing will cooperate with a great
power partner, establishing a very muscular axis. Such an entity would present a critical danger
to the balance of power, thus both necessitating very active American intervention in Eastern
Eurasia and creating the underlying conditions for a massive, and probably nuclear, great power
war. Absent such a "super-threat," however, the demands on American leaders will be far more subtle: creating
the conditions for Washington's gentle decline from playing the role of unipolar quasi-hegemon to being "merely"
the greatest of the world's powers, while aiding in the creation of a healthy multipolar system that is not marked
by close great power alliances.
120
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 8/10
US-Japan relations solve Korean wars and resource conflicts that threaten Asian
instability
Funabashi 9-30 Yoichi, Asia Needs Japan to Flex Civilian Muscle, Jakarta Globe,
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/asia-needs-japan-to-flex-civilian-muscle/398937
We are witnessing a “brave, grave new world” — with the rise and fall of nations underway on a grand scale. China’s rise and India’s advance
The power shift to the Asia Pacific, however, will be a long transition,
Asia faces three major challenges over the next decade: first, the instability of the North Korean
regime in the process of leadership succession and the eventual unification of the Korean peninsula; second, maritime security in
the South China Sea, the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea; and third, energy and the environment. The United States will
are two of the most spectacular dynamics.
and
remain a superpower, but it will also become less stable as a “new world” emerges. This new world will be characterized by multipolarism
without multilateralism — power will be dispersed and centered in local clusters all over the world, but with a less unified front and less
effective global governance. Asia is not alone, and a fundamental question for the world is how to manage restructuring for this emerging
Instability on the Korean peninsula is likely to bring the most problems in
the next three to five years. Against the backdrop of a delicate leadership succession, economic crisis and further hardship unfold
for North Koreans. If North Korea implodes, there could be far-reaching ramifications for the stability of the
region. So the vision of a unified Korea is a priority. At the same time, Asia must devise a maritime security strategy as maritime issues
are a source of much tension. The United States has so far provided maritime stability for the Asia
Pacific but is increasingly challenged by China. India is also ambitious. Maritime issues could reach a peak within five
multipolar world.
to seven years. The South China Sea could prove to be extremely divisive as China increasingly perceives the area as its own and denies rival
claims to several chains of islands. Some Chinese call the sea their “core interest,” provoking controversy in other Asian nations. Of course,
China is not solely responsible for the dispute in the South China Sea. However, it is notable that at a recent Asean regional forum in Hanoi,
12 nations expressed unease about China’s activities in the South China Sea. Mishandling of East China’s maritime security issue could be a
game changer for East Asian geopolitics. This will be the first critical test for China’s much-heralded “peaceful rise” doctrine, and the country
could quickly lose the respect gained over the past 30 years. Some Chinese vehemently criticize use of the Yellow Sea for US aircraft exercises,
accusing the United States of bullying. General Luo Yuan has warned that China would not be fearful if other countries ignored China’s “core
interests,” which suggest the waters surrounding China. More worrying, the general implied that China considers the Yellow Sea part of its
“offshore area” — an absurdity as it would mean that even Incheon is part of China’s “offshore territories.” Finally, energy and environment
issues will come to a head in seven to 10 years. Energy use is rapidly rising. Every country in Asia depends on oil imports. Desperately trying
to catch up with developed economies, developing and emerging countries care little about environmental degradation and lack the safeguards
to prevent it. Almost all of Asia’s major rivers — the Yangtze, Yellow, Indus, Ganges and Mekong included — begin in the Tibetan
plateau. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers, partly responsible for the current floods, will wreak catastrophic consequences across the
entire continent if it continues at the present rate. China, India and Pakistan have the first, second and sixth largest populations in the world
Water security could become
Asia’s Achilles’ heel. Amid these new dynamics and challenges, Japan has a role as stabilizer, both
in its own right, as well as within in the framework of the US-Japan alliance. During the debacle that
and all are heavily dependent on the Himalayan glaciers for their water supply and livelihoods.
was the 10 short months that Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama was in power, many Asian nations expressed concern over the deterioration of
Asian countries increasingly regard the alliance as an essential
part of the “common good.” Maintaining the solid deterrence factor of the US-Japan alliance
regarding North Korea is even more critical as the latter displays increasing instability . That
US-Japanese security ties. This revealed how
contribution should be appreciated throughout the region, not least by the Japanese themselves. Japan must strength its relationship with
Asia in tandem with deepening its security tie with the United States. Widening the US-Japanese alliance with a third partner — such as China,
India, Korea, Australia or Indonesia — would be useful. This would answer both the critical need to strengthen the alliance on one hand and
enhance regional Asian frameworks on the other. If the two Koreas were to unify, this would give Japan an opportunity to forge a new
strategic relationship and improve stability in North East Asia. Trilateral cooperation between the United States, ROK and Japan and
Six-party talks or five-party talks in the future will also be useful. A new
framework to form a stable and democratic world within Korea could deliver an era of peace
and security.
between China, ROK and Japan is crucial for stability.
121
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 9/10
Japan is nearly 30 years away from successful SBSP
McCue 7/12/2011 (Dan McCue is an editor for Renewable Energy Magazine,
http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/index/pag/pv_solar/colleft/col
right/pv_solar/tip/articulo/pagid/16323/botid/71/)
Today, five months and a day after the cataclysmic earthquake and tsunami the brought chaos and destruction to Japan’s northern prefectures, Japanese officials have yet to send a clear
signal about whether they’ll continue what had been a robust nuclear power program, or whether they’ll instead seek to put their nation on a steady diet of renewables. Against this backdrop,
a dedicated band of engineers at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), along with
corporate, agency and university partners, quietly continue to work on a project that if
successful would not only solve Japan’s energy quandary by mid-century, but would
undoubtedly revolutionize the entire solar energy sector in the process. The project is a space
solar array that the engineers envision someday orbiting the Earth – staying in perpetual sunshine – and beaming
electricity from space in the form of either microwaves or lasers. The space agency’s best current estimates are that the effort
will take nearly 30 years to come to fruition. But when it does, the agency says, the solar array in space will send 1 GW of power back to the Earth. Based on the
assumption that the power demand of a single home is 3 KW, the system – known by the acronym SSPS (for satellite solar power system), will supply power for about 300,000 homes. Hoping to learn more about the project,
Renewable Energy Magazine reached out to Tatsuhito Fujita, Associate Senior Engineer with the Advanced Mission Research Group at the Japanese space agency’s Innovative Technology Research Centre, with whom we
exchanged questions and answers via email. “After the accident of the nuclear power plant, interview requests from TV, newspaper and publishing companies have increased remarkably,” Fujita said from his office, which is part
of Japan’s Aerospace Research and Development Directorate. Early published reports about SSPS put its price tag at about two trillion yen (roughly $21 billion) and said a total of 16 Japanese firms, including Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries Ltd, were participating in the project’s development. Fujita, however, indicated that the “clear cost” of the SSPS project is not yet known. “It’s something that we continue to study,” he explained. “Two trillion yen is the
target for the total cost of developing SSPS, but it must be studied to determine whether this cost is feasible or not.” Fujita went on to say that some of the original 16 companies involved in the effort are no longer participating,
but also said JAXA has firm contracts with the others. Right now, engineers in Tsukuba and at the Institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer (USEF) in Tokyo are deep into the developing the technology needed to
beam the electricity produced back to Earth. Fujita said experiments of transmitting energy by microwave and laser are now the primary studies conducted in relation to the SSPS. “Eventually, a determination will be made as to
the solar power station
will rely on a four km2 (approximately 2.5 square miles) array of photovoltaic panels to collect
solar rays while orbiting some 36,000 km (22,500 miles) above the earth's surface. Power will
then be beamed to a receiving site that will be constructed at an as yet undetermined site off
the Japanese coast. “That’s because Japan doesn’t have much flat [land] area,” Fujita said. From there the power will flow to the
which will be most effective for our purposes,” Fujita said. “However, the selection of which to use is something that must be done in the future.” To produce 1 GW of power,
existing commercial power network, he added. Of course, Japan isn’t the first country to consider the viability of the space-based collection of solar energy, nor is it the only country doing so
now. The concept, alternatively known as space-based solar power (SBSP) or satellite solar power system (SSPS), first gained currency in the late 1960s. Then, in 1973, Dr. Peter Glaser was
granted a US patent number for his method of transmitting power over long distances using microwaves from a very large antenna (up to one square kilometre) on the satellite to a much
larger one, now known as a rectenna, on the ground. Glaser’s work (he was then vice president of a firm called Arthur D. Little Inc.) caught the attention of the US space agency NASA, which
asked Glaser and ADL to take the lead on a broader study. While that study identified several barriers to the concept – including the expense of putting the required materials in orbit and the
lack of experience on projects of this scale in space -- space-based solar power collection nevertheless showed enough promise to merit further investigation. Between 1978 and 1981, the US
Congress authorized the Dept. of Energy and NASA to jointly investigate the concept, a study that became known as the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation
Program. Although that project was discontinued, interest in the space-based harvesting of solar power revived in the late 1990s, and in 1997 NASA was directed to take a fresh look at the
The group concluded that space
solar power concepts were no longer the stuff of science fiction as the price of sending such a
system, while still enormous, had come down considerably, and knowledge of solar power had
advanced considerably since the 1960s. Space solar power may well emerge as a serious
candidate among the options for meeting the energy demands of the 21st century ,” the study committee said.
concept. Two years later, NASA began its Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT).
In all the US is estimated to have spent about $80 million to explore the possibilities of a space based solar system. Japan entered the fray 15 to 20 years ago, after researchers at its National
Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA), the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) and some of its top university first proposed the country seriously consider solar as the
way to meet its future energy needs. Many of the first research projects undertaken by those entities involved microwave transmission, including the effects of the environment on the
microwaves and how the microwaves impacted the environment. NASDA and ISAS were merged into JAXA in 2003. More recently, Europe’s Astrium, an aerospace subsidiary of the
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), announced that it too is developing new systems and technologies for transferring orbital solar energy to Earth. For all that
space-based solar is about five orders
of magnitude more expensive than solar power gathered by panels in a desert, with a major
cost being the transportation of materials to orbit. Dr. Worden said as a result all possible
solutions are merely speculative, and would not be available for decades at the earliest. “Some people
activity, however, there are still those who, like Dr. Pete Worden, a participant in the NASA studies, maintain that
often say that,” Fujita said. “We explain that SSPS can supply solar power to the earth even at night and in rainy or cloudy day, while solar panel on the earth can not supply solar power in the
same situation. “SSPS can supply solar power to the earth more steadily than solar panel on the earth,” he said. The Japanese realize the cost of building the solar station in orbit would be
and that’s one reason for the methodical, but ceaseless work on the project.
“There are many technical challenges in order to realize SSPS,” Fujita said. “The main technical
problems to solve are how to assemble such a large structure, increasing of efficiency of
electrical equipment like the solar battery and the generator of microwave, and decreasing the
cost of transportation.” The first step in bringing the plans to fruition will be the launch in
around 2020 of the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) of the International Space Station. The module will be fitted with equipment that will beam electricity to
prohibitive at the moment,
Earth. But getting from there to having a full-blown orbiting space solar system operational by around 2035 won’t be easy. Like any other project needing government funding to go on,
JAXA’s SSPS project requires a regular renewal of support from Japanese officials. “In the case
of JAXA, that means the project can be carried out only if the budget for the project is accepted
by the government,” Fujita said, explaining that once all demonstration tests are completed, a board with be assembled to review the project in terms of its feasibility, its
122
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
cost and the perceived importance of the project. “If the board judge that the plan is appropriate and the budget is ensured, the government accepts this project,” he said. “If commercial SSPS
is realized, I think not only the solar power industry but also the space industry will become very active,” he added.
123
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Japan Counterplan 10/10
Japan’s economy can’t handle more spending
The Associated Press ’11 (Japan PM Naoto Kan survives no-confidence motion”
http://asiancorrespondent.com/56475/japan-pm-naoto-kan-survives-no-confidence-motion/,
6/2)
The disaster — believed to be the costliest in history — has been a huge drain on Japan’s already
fragile economy.
Japan’s government has said the cost of the earthquake and tsunami could reach $309 billion ,
making it the world’s most expensive natural disaster on record, with extensive damage to housing, roads, utilities
and businesses. Japan’s ballooning debt is already twice the size of the country’s gross domestic
product.
If Japan shifts to any kind of renewable is strengthens Kan
Akira Sato 6/30 2011 (“Rumored election about political power, not nuclear power, insiders say”
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106290182.html)
Prime Minister Naoto Kan has baffled many by continuing to reject growing calls for his immediate resignation.
But those who know the prime minister say his stubbornness was expected.
In fact, some say they wouldn't be surprised to see Kan resort to extreme measures to retain the
nation's top post, despite indicating on June 2 that he would step down after a certain level of progress was
made toward rebuilding after the Great East Japan Earthquake.
"Kan has been enamored of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, and what Kan is now seeking is to
hold a Lower House election on Sept. 11 revolving around the issue of moving away from
nuclear energy," said Shoji Nishida, an Upper House member of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party,
referring to speculation in Tokyo.
On Sept. 11, 2005, Koizumi held a Lower House election based around his pet project of postal privatization.
Koizumi's LDP won a landslide victory, which muzzled his opponents in the party. That is the
result that Kan is also seeking.
Under the scenario being whispered about, Kan would make a speech emphasizing his opposition to nuclear
weapons and his plan to move Japan away from nuclear energy.
The speech would be delivered on one of two dates--Aug. 6, when Hiroshima was devastated by an atomic bomb,
or Aug. 9, when Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.
Kan would play up his government's role in compiling a bill to promote renewable energy
sources as a means of shifting electricity supply in Japan to natural energy
124
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Alternative Energy Counterplan 1/4
SBSP solves better than any alternative
Betancourt 2010 (Kiantar Space Based Solar Power: Worth the effort? NASA Langley Research
Center,
Aerospace
Engineer
August
28
2010http://spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=56407)
One solar power satellite could provide 1 gigawatt of continuous power, enough to power
500’000 homes, also the equivalent of a large nuclear power plant. Like a nuclear power plant,
SBSP would do so without emitting any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Unlike a nuclear
power plant, SBSP would do so without any radioactive waste by-product or danger of nuclear
meltdown. Unlike ground-based solar, without the interference of the earth’s atmosphere a
solar power satellite could collect 7-10 times the amount of power.The sun’s rays would shine
continuously on a solar power satellite, thus this power could be supplied continuously without
interruption Solar power satellites could then transmit that power anywhere in the world.
These are 2 properties that set SBSP apart from other renewable energy sources. Ground-based
solar power requires a power storage system to supply power when the sun is blocked by bad
weather or during the night which adds to its cost and decreases its efficiency.Wind power is
often available only from remote or offshore locations. Even countries with minimal energy
infrastructure or people located in remote areas could install receivers to get a continuous
power supply from SBSP.
First, all other alternative energy takes up space for farm land-only SSP avoids
this.
NSS 7 [National Space Society, October, “Space Solar Power—Limitless clean energy from space”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm]
Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce
fresh water resources. Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for
increasingly valuable farm land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue
to be a major export instead of a fuel provider. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce
hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, space solar
power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities.
It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or
wind speed.
125
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Alternative Energy Counterplan 2/4
And, space solar panels are the best way to provide energy to remote areas of the
world and provide energy 24/7-that’s key to small farms, maximizes agricultural
productivity, and eliminates the need for pesticides.
McMahon ‘7, Robert McMahon-Founder of Mr. Solar Power, a prominent solar advocacy source,
Solar Powered Energy, Solar Power Energy, Solar Water Heating, Newsletter-June 2007,
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:aqklnz_MZdUJ:www.mrsolarenergy.com/index2.p
hp%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D35+%22space+solar+power%22+%22s
mall+farms%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgFj7mk58EZakIEY0ou45yuNbS5R8latGrpiv-xCTkAD9a-D1XX3np3caeWcq2FkLvD2NKTWLADPb8UMI_xI5Ssns_Yr4fYuaKtUJvqFIXcdAe_OP93U1viO5b5Vx6gcDZKp&sig=AHIEtbTEykZdUZTaRUVrPgCrbBIujeeKgQ
Experts predict that solar power will become the planet's dominant energy source during the next 50
years. This is largely driven by the world’s need to reduce greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. All countries are predicted to
greatly benefit (from the changes towards harnessing more renewable energy. However, the poorer
countries in the world stand to
see the greatest economic growth from the shift to renewable energy This growth will be driven by the manufacturing,
operation, and maintenance of many medium, small and micro-renewable energy projects in these countries analysis say. One of these experts
is Earth Day co-founder Denis Hayes who spoke at a lecture at Buffalo USA University. 4Wquo;We have so much sunshine hitting the earth;
said Denis Hayes every time we have doubled the production of solar panels, the cost has come down 20% and we see strong growth it we can
get the production cost down to $1 a Mr John Maina from Kenya has won the Energy Globe Award from the European Parliament a prize for
Maina has pioneered ways of increasing harvests of small farms
by SO% using solar power John Maina has developed a solar energy oven which allows (fruit and
vegetables to be dried and (hereby preserved. This has permitted higher yields on (arms without using
more water or pesticides. Australia - Heat Reflective Paint Used in Queensland Government Schools This commercial reflective roof
outstanding projects in energy efficiency. Mr
coating can lower the internal heat under a roof by up to 1BC according to the supplier. This can result in considerable power savings of up to
60% in aircondiboning usage costs. The lower temperatures inside industrial and commercial buildings results in lower air conditioning
power consumption and a higher level of personal comfort. The heat reflective paints are made of a co-polymer compound containing inert
pigments and special filters uniquely formulated to re-radiate 90% of solar infrared and 85% of ultraviolet rays back into the atmosphere says
the manufacturer. This effectively stops heat transfer through the roof. Examples of use are on the roofs of 431 Queensland schools resulting
in a significant increase in comfort for students and staff as well as lower maintenance costs. The Insultec membrane coating has also been
used effectively in large scale road construction projects in Saudi Arabia where extreme temperatures caused expansion and contraction gaps
on concrete road surfaces. India - Mumbai Introduces Compulsory Energy Audits 'or Government Buildings and Politicians Homes The
Public Works Deparlmenl in Mumbai now monitors the electricity bills of ministers and helps them bring down power consumption the
Minister for Alternative Energy Vinay Kore told the Mumbai News last week. Vinay Kore said that conference halls in his department have
been fitted with split air conditioners and CFL lamps and one wall has been replaced with frosted glass to let in natural light. The Public
Works Minister. Chhagan Bhrybal. said that he doesn't leave tights on when nobody is at home and he only uses CFL lamps and one air
conditioner at a time Legislator, Vinod Tawde, said that he arranged to switch off lights in his apartment complex and residents only use the
lift sparingly. No one uses it for going down and he only leaves his air conditioner on for one hour, he said. The mayor, Or Shubha Raul said
that he will be installing a solar cooker and CFL lamps and in the office he leaves the lights and air conditioner switched off. also he has
installed a solar energy unit in his bungalow. Switzerland • Solar Powered Football Stadium. Swiss architect Renato Marazzi has designed the
world's biggest solar power installation ever (o be incorporated into the roof ol a football stadium. The Stade de Suisse at Wankdorf will be
hosbng the 2006 Football Championships. The stadium has 5.152 solar panels and generates 700.000kw hours of electricity per annum
supplying energy to the nabonal power grid. This corresponds to the energy used by 260 households a year, explained Renato Marazzi
speaking in Doha, Qatar where his firm Marazzi and Paul was poinbng out that Qatar enjoys more sunshine than Switzerland. Marazzi and
Paul are currently working on other European solar powered football stadiums and arenas in Belgrade. Vienna. Budapest and Lucerne. USA Space Solar Power Study Proposed John Mankins president of the Space Solar Power Association in Washington DC is reported in
a study of satellite based solar power devices for supplying energy to remote
areas on earth. Mr Mankins reported to Fox News that space based solar power generation could offer a
massive improvement over earth based collectors because the sun shines 24 hours a day in
space.
Washington as proposing
126
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Alternative Energy Counterplan 3/4
Small farms are key to sustain genetic diversity-impact is extinction.
they’re key to food security.
AND,
Boyce ‘4 – dept. of Economics & Political Economy Research and Environmental research at the
University of Massachusetts (James K, July, “A Future for Small Farms? Biodiversity and
Sustainable
Agriculture”.
Political
Economic
Research
Institute,
http://ideas.repec.org/p/uma/periwp/wp86.html, RG)
small farms. Or, to be more precise, there can be and should be a future for them. Given the
dependence of ‘modern’ low-diversity agriculture on ‘traditional’ high-diversity agriculture, the
long-term food security of humankind will depend on small farms and their continued
provision of the environmental service of in situ conservation of crop genetic diversity. Policies
to support small farms can be advocated, therefore, not merely as a matter of sympathy, or nostalgia, or equity. Such policies are
also a matter of human survival. The diversity that underpins the sustainability of world
agriculture did not fall from the sky. It was bequeathed to us by the 400 generations of farmers who have carried on the
There is a future for
process of artificial selection since plants were first domesticated. Until recently, we took this diversity for granted. The ancient reservoirs of
crop genetic diversity, plant geneticist Jack Harlan (1975, p. 619) wrote three decades ago, ‘seemed to most people as inexhaustible as oil in
Arabia.’ Yet, Harlan warned, ‘the
speed which enormous crop diversity can be essentially wiped out is
astonishing.’ The central thesis of this essay is that efforts to conserve in situ diversity must go hand-inhand with efforts to support the small farmers around the world who sustain this diversity .
Economists and environmentalists alike by and large have neglected this issue. In thrall to a myopic notion of efficiency, many economists fail
diversity is the sine qua non of resilience and sustainability. In thrall to a romantic notion of
environmentalists fail to appreciate that agricultural biodiversity is just as
valuable – indeed, arguably more valuable from the standpoint of human well-being – as the diversity found in tropical
rainforests or the spotted owls found in the ancient forests of the northwestern United States.
to appreciate that
‘wilderness,’ many
Small farms minimize the magnitude of inevitable agricultural diseases-large
scale farms ensure its spread.
Kohnen 2K, Anne Kohnen, Responding to the threat of Agro-terrorism: Specific
Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture, Published by Harvard,
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TPLGcqWqp1IJ:belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/
responding_to_the_threat_of_agroterrorism.pdf+%22small+farms
Trends in the agricultural sector toward more intensive farming of both animals and crops have
helped keep food prices low in America, but these practices have also increased the risk of disease or pest
introduction through facility management techniques that increase farm biosecurity . Intensive
Farming Conditions Five of the top ten agricultural commodities come from animals that are raised in highly
concentrated conditions: cattle, dairy products, boilers, hogs, and eggs. Figure 3 demonstrates the increase in
intensive farming practices for boilers. Figure 3 shows that in 1987 about 50 percent of the broilers sold each year
came from large farms (those that sold 300,000 per year). Ten years later, 75 percent came from these farms.
Only nine farm produce 59 percent of the nation's broiler inventory. Likewise, the number of large
hog and cattle herds has increased. Just 2 percent of the nation's feedlots supply three quarters of its cattle. The
increased density of animal per farm heightens the epidemiological risk: one infected animal
can expose several thousand others.
127
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
2AC Alternative Energy Counterplan 4/4
No other actor solves spillover-the U.S. is key and causes other nations to model.
Feng Hsu, Ph.D. and Ken Cox, Ph.D. 2009 NASA GSFC Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working
Group and Founder & Director
Aerospace Technology Working Group, respectively. “Sustainable Space Exploration and Space
Development ••• A Unified Strategic Vision” Aerospace Technology Working group.
So while some might argue that RLV or SBSP are too expensive or too difficult to realize, we must not forget that what makes a nation and its
people thrive and prosper are not what they do for easy or short-term gain, but what they accomplish that others dare not do or cannot do.
How many of history’s great endeavors have brought profound benefits to humanity across the economic, scientific and social fronts? It is
precisely such an opportunity that lies before us today. Hence, we recommend the new paradigm of a strategic vision for space development
(VSD) be considered by the new administration, consisting of the following key strategic elements, as a roadmap for propelling America and
humanity’s outward expansion into space-based economic and commercial frontiers: 1. Set the goal of a low-cost, reliable space transportation
infrastructure development within the Earth-moon system as the highest priority to be implemented by the proposed new Department of
Space. The U.S. should build strong support and invite global participation from the entire international community.
In this effort to achieve the proposed VSD, the U.S. and its international partners In this effort to achieve the proposed VSD, the U.S. and its
international partners should focus heavily on the development of RLVs, such as crew & cargo transport and launch vehicle systems with toplevel requirements of low-cost, low system complexity, and aircraft-like reliability, maintainability and operability. 3. We should develop and
establish an international Fuel-Depot and Orbital Staging or Service point (station) in the LEO environment to support and service
commercial space-transportation traffic, including space tourism, Lunar and Earth orbital transfers, and commercial satellite services. 4. We
should also promote and support the establishment and construction of spaceport infrastructure in several strategic locations within the U.S.
and around the globe, which will meet the emerging demand for increased commercial launch and spacetransport economic activities. 5. We
must develop enabling space infrastructure observation and tracking capabilities for planetary defense. In particular, develop ground and
orbital systems, in close collaboration with international partners, for monitoring, tracking and deflecting asteroids, comets, and other cosmic
objects in near-Earth orbit, which threaten the safety of our home planet. And we must invest in projects with multiple benefits such as
funding a series of space-to-space or spaceto-Earth SBSP demonstration projects. Technology demonstrations, such as wireless power transmission (WPT),
space-based solar power (SBSP) research and development, which would be developed by first
highefficiency microwave beam generation and control, system safety and reliability, onorbit robotic assembly technology, and deployment of
large-scale orbital solar structures would also be advisable to help reduce risks, thus triggering large-scale investments by
private industries. The upside potential, if successful, would ultimately lead to the capacity to harness
solar energy from space to alleviate Earth’s dependence on fossil fuels, thereby addressing global climate-change
concerns.
128
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****ADD-ONS*****
129
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Disease Add-on
SBSP solves for Disease, space advancement, advancement of nanotechnology,
and biochemistry
Medin Winter 2010, (Kristin Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs “Disruptive
Technology:
A
Space-Based
Solar
Power
Industry
Forecast”
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites.)
There will always be a need for space research, so a government space agenda will always be
needed. But the focus will be on private sector initiatives, as has been true in Research industries in
agriculture and transportation, medicine and information technology. The advance guard of
space-bound research may be the pharmaceuticals industry because of the possibility of spacebased materials being valuable to curing terrestrial diseases and the micro and zero gravity
conditions of space being necessary to the growing of larger crystals with which to make
medicines.[8] Emerging nanotechnology and biochemistry related research may find increased
purpose in space as well. All of these are enabled by a fully realized SBSP
infrastructure.
130
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
China Add-on
Solar energy is crucial to China’s future – Space Based Solar provides United
States with a bargaining chip against China.
AsiaPulse News June 6, 2011 (SOLAR ENERGY IMPORTANT TO ASIA'S ECON GROWTH: ADB
VICE PRESIDENT. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-258121724.html)
JAKARTA, June 6 Asia pulse - Increasing the use of solar energy is important to the economic
growth of the Asian region, including Indonesia, Asian Development Bank (ADB) Vice President Xiaoyu
Zhao said. "Asia should increasingly use solar energy to reduce carbon emission if the region
wants to remain a strong economic corridor," Xiaoyu Zhao said in a written statement obtained by Antara
here on Friday. He said Asia could account for half of the world`s output in trade and global
investment in the next 2050, and therefore the region should also maintain the momentum of
its economic growth and make innovations from its traditional high-carbon to sustainable lowcarbon.
That causes World War Three
Plate, Prof at UCLA, 6-28-2K3 (Tom, “Neo-Cons A Bigger Risk to Bush Than China”, Straits Times)
But imagine a China disintegrating - on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency
prompting, much less outright military invasion - because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly
collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other
places with poor border controls, which don't want them and can't handle them; some in Japan might lick
their lips at the prospect of World War II Revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That
would send Singapore and Malaysia - once occupied by Japan - into nervous breakdowns.
Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say
hello to World War III, Asia-style. That's why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security
and economic growth - the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.
That’s the biggest risk of nuclear war
Knight Ridder 3-10-2K (“Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S. are high in Asian
conflicts”)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to
fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy
and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North
Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships
that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the
stakes as high and relationships so fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at
the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "We see the convergence of great power interest
overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are
elements for potential disaster."
131
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
China Add-on Extensions
Lack of Chinese imports causes global economic collapse, nationalism, and war
over Taiwan
Lewis, Research Director of the Economic Research Council, ’07 (Dan, April 19, “The nightmare of
a
Chines
economic
collapse”
World
Finance,
http://www.worldfinance.com/news/137/ARTICLE/1144/2007-04-19.html)
A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a decline in China’s
economic growth rate. That is alarming. It has been calculated that to keep China’s society stable – ie
to manage the transition from a rural to an urban society without devastating unemployment - the minimum
growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than that and unemployment will rise and the massive
shift in population from the country to the cities becomes unsustainable. This is when real
discontent with communist party rule becomes vocal and hard to ignore. It doesn’t end there. That
will at best bring a global recession. The crucial point is that communist authoritarian states have at least
had some success in keeping a lid on ethnic tensions – so far. But when multi-ethnic communist countries
fall apart from economic stress and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they don’t
become successful democracies overnight. Far from it. There’s a very real chance that China might go
the way of Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union – chaos, civil unrest and internecine war. In the
very worst case scenario, a Chinese government might seek to maintain national cohesion by
going to war with Taiwan – whom America is pledged to defend.
Nuclear war
Kennedy, Professor of History at Yale University, ’00 (Paul, January 10, “21st Century – Dialogues
on the Future/Globalization’s Sway in Evolution for State Put in Focus” Daily Yomiuri, p. 1)
Kennedy: I do not think that we should discuss only positive aspects of globalization. Today, there is an arms
race going among many Asian countries. There is also a nationalist passion at work in the
region. All this comes with incredible pressure in the form of environmental problems,
population growth and ethnic violence. This might well mean that some nuclear weapons could
be let off in Asia, while a very big war could occur in the area by 2010 or 2015.
132
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Colonization Add-on
SBSP is the only energy source that can provide energy to future human outposts
Royce Jones 31.10.2010 21:43 (Danny, who is the founder of Exploration Partners, LLC, US, which
is a space technology development company specializing in space energy. The company was
founded in 2005 by Royce Jones. “SBSP Economics and Why We Have No Chickens,
http://www.earthspaceagency.org/space-articles/space-analysis/sbsp-economics-and-why-wehave-no-chickens.html)
When you consider that all of the alternative energy sources combined including wind, biomass, ground solar, etc., together cannot meet current energy demand and certainly not future
SBSP has the potential to supply sufficient clean and zero emission
power not only for Earth but for off Earth colonies as well. No other near term power
source has that potential. The US Department of Energy invested zero funds into this potential energy source but approved over $4.6 billion for “clean coal”.
energy demand what other “green” option is there?
(Feldman, 2009) The European Union is spending some $140 annually on alternative energy via cap and trade and in 2010 spent zero on SBSP development.
And, We solve the terminal impact of all of their disads – Space solves all war
Asimov, Super Smart Visionary Genious, 85 (Isaac, “Our Future in the Cosmos – Space,” A speech
given by Isaac Asimov at Rutgers University, http://www.wronkiewicz.net/asimov.html)
if we really expanded into space
I have a feeling that
with all our might and made it a global project, this would be the equivalent of the winning of the West.
It's not just a matter of idealism or preaching brotherhood. If we can build power stations in space that will supply all the energy the world needs, then the rest of the world will want that
energy too. The only way that each country will be able to get that energy will be to make sure these stations are maintained. It won't be easy to build and maintain them; it will be quite
expensive and time-consuming. But if the whole world wants energy and if the price is world cooperation, then I think people are going to do it. We already cooperate on things that the whole
world needs. International organizations monitor the world's weather and pollution and deal with things like the oceans and with Antarctica. Perhaps if we see that it is to our advantage to
although we as nations will
retain our suspicions and mutual hatreds, we will find it to our advantage to cooperate in developing
space. In doing so, we will be able to adopt a globalist view of our situation. The internal strife
between Earthlings, the little quarrels over this or that patch of the Earth, and the magnified memories of past injustices will
diminish before the much greater task of developing a new, much larger world. I think that the development of
space is the great positive project that will force cooperation, a new outlook that may bring
peace to the Earth, and a kind of federalized world government. In such a government, each region will be concerned with those matters that concern itself alone, but the
entire world would act as a unit on matters that affect the entire world. Only in such a way will we be able to survive and to avoid the
kind of wars that will either gradually destroy our civilization or develop into a war that will
suddenly destroy it. There are so many benefits to be derived from space exploration and exploitation; why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is
cooperate, then only the real maniacs will avoid cooperating and they will be left out in the cold when the undoubted benefits come in. I think that,
otherwise the sure destruction of all that humanity has struggled to achieve for 50,000 years? That is one of the reasons, by the way, that I have come from New York to Hampton despite the
fact that I have a hatred of traveling and I faced 8 hours on the train with a great deal of fear and trembling. It was not only The College of William and Mary that invited me, but NASA as
well, and it is difficult for me to resist NASA, knowing full well that it symbolizes what I believe in too.
One hundred trillion humans are lost every second of delayed colonization
Bostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Yale & Oxford, 2K4 (Nick, “Astronomical Waste: The
Opportunity
Cost
of
Delayed
Technological
Development,”
http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html)
our great common endowment
of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale. These are resources that an
advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentient beings living worthwhile lives. The rate of
"As I write these words, suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms, unused energy is being flushed down black holes, and
this loss boggles the mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential human lives in our own
galactic supercluster is at least ~10^46 per century of delayed colonization.[1] This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been used for productive purposes, although no
currently known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that. Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this radically unconservative assumption is undesirable.
We can, however, get a lower bound more straightforwardly by simply counting the number or stars in our galactic supercluster and multiplying this number with the amount of computing
power that the resources of each star could be used to generate using technologies for whose feasibility a strong case has already been made. We can then divide this total with the estimated
amount of computing power needed to simulate one human life. As a rough approximation, let us say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power
extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology[2], is 10^42 operations per second.[3] A typical estimate of
the human brain's processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second or less.[4] Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient
detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences.[5] Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately
10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second. While this estimate is
conservative in that it assumes only computational mechanisms whose implementation has been at least outlined in the literature, it is useful to have an even more conservative estimate that
. Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be
sustained around an average star. Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to about
10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization. What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the
most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillion
does not assume a non-biological instantiation of the potential persons
133
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
potential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our
supercluster.[6]"
134
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
US-India Relations Add-on
SBSP is the key internal link to relations.
Garretson ‘9, Peter A. Garretson was a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in
India, and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) New Delhi.
He is an active duty Air Force officer on sabbatical as an Air Force Fellow. He was previously the
Chief of Future Science and Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of
Strategic Plans and Programs, and is a former DARPA Service Chiefs’ Intern, and former Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Service Academy Research Associate. He is a published
author on Space Grand Strategy, and is a recipient of the National Space Society’s (NSS) Space
Pioneer Award, Sky’s No Limit: Space Based Solar Power the Next Major Step in the U.S.-Indo
Strategic Partnership, http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
This paper sought to evaluate space-based solar power, a highly scalable, revolutionary renewable energy
technology, in the context of the Indo-US bilateral strategic partnership, and determine if US and Indian interests
and amities were sufficiently aligned to allow forward motion on such a project, and if so, what would be an
actionable form for policymakers. It is the conclusion of the researcher that SBSP does appear to be a good
fit for the US domestic, Indian domestic and bilateral agendas, and there is adequate political
space and precursor agreements to begin a bilateral programme, should policymakers desire it. Given
that SBSP appears to fit the articulated Indian criteria for suitability of energy source and to offer a
better long-term energy security solution, and that the evaluation of the current energy-climate
situation is so unhopeful, with a lack of promising and scalable solutions emerging, a no-regret,
due-diligence effort in space-based solar power seems a justified and strategic1 investment. An
actionable, three-tiered programme, with threshold criteria/goals, has been proposed, moving from basic
technology and capacity building to a multi-lateral demo, and ultimately to an international commercial publicprivate-partnership entity to supply commercial power in the 2025 timeframe.
Nuclear war
New York Times, ‘2 (June 10, “Wider Military Tires with India Offer U.S. Diplomatic Leverage”)
Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11,
with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level
visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will
be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into
some influence and trust, though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't
want to predict this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a
pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take steps
to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months -- and the process of
resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency there and has presented
its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United
States after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the
estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and
the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in
hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some
influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power
deeper
military and political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India
and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan. The
was seen as a potential strategic threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism. The United States is hoping its
military relationship has certainly accelerated in recent months. "We've moved from crawling to walking and we're preparing to run," said an
American military official. American warships have been docking in the Indian cities of Bombay, Cochin and Madras. The first major sale of
military equipment to India -- $140 million of artillery-finding radar made by Raytheon -- has been approved by Congress. Aircraft engines,
submarine combat systems and helicopter parts are in the pipeline. In the largest-ever joint ground and air operations, American and Indian
paratroopers jumped last month from the same aircraft over the city of Agra. Later this year, for the first time, Indian troops will venture to the
United States for exercises in Alaska. American and Indian naval ships are jointly patrolling the Strait of Malacca to protect commercial
shipping, while the number of Indian military officers training in the United States has jumped to 150 this year from 25 in 1998. A parade of
military brass has been marching through each other's capitals. "The current level of military to military cooperation between our nations is
unprecedented," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said upon arriving in New Delhi in February.
135
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Asteroids Add-on
Space solar power can be the anchor for a system to deflect an asteroid collision
that could lead to the extinction of humanity.
Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global
catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host,
JDC)
Large near-Earth
object impacts, while they are comparatively rare compared to calderia volcanoes as a natural initiator of global
sufficient space capability would enable deflection of destruction of
the incoming object—thus fully preventing the catastrophe. This has been the subject of considerable recent
catastrophes, are of special interest as
literature and while many different approaches have been proposed all of them require a considerably greater space infrastructure than
currently available. The size of asteroid required to create a global catastrophe is a matter of some debate. Harrison et al. [21] suggest that 1
km size object is just below a threshold where global effects could cause a catastrophe level event. Whereas Rigby
et al. [22] argue a 1
km object could have caused the Dark Ages in the 6th Century AD . So a system capable of
handling a 1 km object would be the minimum required to deal with potential global
catastrophe level events. The size of system that could deflect a NEO sufficiently to avoid collision with the Earth is also uncertain
and is strongly dependent upon the assumptions made on size, orbit and timescale. A small asteroid with centuries until the potential impact
may be deflected sufficiently by a single nuclear device (e.g. [23]), which is probably just about possible with the current space infrastructure.
a large comet with only a year or two warning would require systems well beyond
current capability. There have been proposals for large orbital systems to deflect asteroids for
example that outlined by Campbell et al. [24]. To deflect an iron asteroid using a pulsed laser was estimated to
need peak powers of 200 GW, which would correspond to a continuous power supply requirement in the order of 20 GW. This is
the output of two reference SPS satellites giving a good indication of the size of system required
for this technique. One suggested location was a Sun Earth Lagrange point.
However,
SSP key to stopping inevitable asteroids that cause extinction and civilization
collapse.
Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global
catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host)
Large near-Earth object impacts, while they are comparatively rare compared to calderia volcanoes as a natural
initiator of global catastrophes, are of special interest as sufficient space capability would enable deflection of
destruction of the incoming object—thus fully preventing the catastrophe. This has been the subject of
considerable recent literature and while many different approaches have been proposed all of them require a
considerably greater space infrastructure than currently available. The size of asteroid required to create a global
catastrophe is a matter of some debate. Harrison et al. [21] suggest that 1 km size object is just below a threshold
where global effects could cause a catastrophe level event. Whereas Rigby et al . [22] argue a 1 km object
could have caused the Dark Ages in the 6th Century AD. So a system capable of handling a 1 km
object would be the minimum required to deal with potential global catastrophe level
events. The size of system that could deflect a NEO sufficiently to avoid collision with the Earth is also uncertain
and is strongly dependent upon the assumptions made on size, orbit and timescale. A small asteroid with
centuries until the potential impact may be deflected sufficiently by a single nuclear device (e.g. [23]), which is
probably just about possible with the current space infrastructure. However, a large comet with only a year
or two warning would require systems well beyond current capability. There have been
proposals for large orbital systems to deflect asteroids for example that outlined by Campbell et al. [24].
To deflect an iron asteroid using a pulsed laser was estimated to need peak powers of 200 GW,
which would correspond to a continuous power supply requirement in the order of 20 GW. This is the output
of two reference SPS satellites giving a good indication of the size of system required for this
technique. One suggested location was a Sun Earth Lagrange point.
136
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Proliferation Add-on 1/2
SBSP solves nuclear proliferation and conflicts
NSSO 2007 [SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STRATEGY SECURITY,
National Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01.pdf , Date Accessed: 7/9/08, TJD]
The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease
mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of
nuclear materials that will almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear
power with enrichment in an effort to meet their energy needs with carbon neutral sources….Both fossil and fissile
sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be carefully
managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of nuclear power is not of
particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it may
be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges of
wide proliferation of enrichment-based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that
fills a comparable niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile
fuel dependence. SBSP will avoid energy shortages and great power conflict If traditional fossil fuel
production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency has
predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on-line
fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global
economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum
requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and
poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in
tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative in the third
dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
137
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Proliferation Add-on 2/2
Proliferation causes extinction
Krieger, President, NAPF, 2009 David 9/4, Still Loving the Bomb After All These Years,
https://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2009/09/04_krieger_newsweek_response.php?krieger
Jonathan Tepperman’s article in the September 7, 2009 issue of Newsweek, “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” provides a novel
but frivolous argument that nuclear weapons “may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous….” Rather, in Tepperman’s world, “The bomb
may actually make us safer.” Tepperman shares this world with Kenneth Waltz, a University of California professor emeritus of political
science, who Tepperman describes as “the leading ‘nuclear optimist.’” Waltz expresses his optimism in this way: “We’ve now had 64 years of
experience since Hiroshima. It’s striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war
among nuclear states.” Actually, there were a number of proxy wars between nuclear weapons states, such as those in Korea, Vietnam and
Waltz’s logic is akin to observing
a man falling from a high rise building, and noting that he had already fallen for 64 floors without
anything bad happening to him, and concluding that so far it looked so good that others should try it. Dangerous
logic! Tepperman builds upon Waltz’s logic, and concludes “that all states are rational,” even though their leaders may have a lot of bad
qualities, including being “stupid, petty, venal, even evil….” He asks us to trust that rationality will always prevail
when there is a risk of nuclear retaliation, because these weapons make “the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and
Afghanistan, and some near disasters, the most notable being the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
unacceptable.” Actually, he is asking us to do more than trust in the rationality of leaders; he is asking us to gamble the future on this
proposition. “The iron logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction is so compelling,” Tepperman argues, “it’s led to what’s known as
this is a peace worthy of the name, which it isn’t, it certainly is not one on
which to risk the future of civilization. One irrational leader with control over a nuclear arsenal
could start a nuclear conflagration, resulting in a global Hiroshima. Tepperman celebrates “the iron logic of
the nuclear peace….” But if
deterrence,” but deterrence is a theory that is far from rooted in “iron logic.” It is a theory based upon threats that must be effectively
communicated and believed. Leaders of Country A with nuclear weapons must communicate to other countries (B, C, etc.) the conditions
under which A will retaliate with nuclear weapons. The leaders of the other countries must understand and believe the threat from Country A
The longer that nuclear weapons are not used, the more other countries may
come to believe that they can challenge Country A with impunity from nuclear retaliation. The
more that Country A bullies other countries, the greater the incentive for these countries to
develop their own nuclear arsenals. Deterrence is unstable and therefore precarious. Most of the countries in the
will, in fact, be carried out.
world reject the argument, made most prominently by Kenneth Waltz, that the spread of nuclear weapons makes the world safer. These
countries joined together in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but they never agreed to
maintain indefinitely a system of nuclear apartheid in which some states possess nuclear weapons and others are prohibited from doing so.
The principal bargain of the NPT requires the five NPT nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to engage in good faith
negotiations for nuclear disarmament, and the International Court of Justice interpreted this to mean complete nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects. Tepperman seems to be arguing that seeking to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad policy, and that nuclear weapons,
because of their threat, make efforts at non-proliferation unnecessary and even unwise. If some additional states, including Iran, developed
nuclear arsenals, he concludes that wouldn’t be so bad “given the way that bombs tend to mellow behavior.” Those who oppose Tepperman’s
favorable disposition toward the bomb, he refers to as “nuclear pessimists.” These would be the people, and I would certainly be one of them,
who see nuclear weapons as presenting an urgent danger to our security, our species and our future. Tepperman finds that when viewed from
his “nuclear optimist” perspective, “nuclear weapons start to seem a lot less frightening.” “Nuclear
peace,” he tells us, “rests
on a scary bargain: you accept a small chance that something extremely bad will happen in
exchange for a much bigger chance that something very bad – conventional war – won’t
happen.” But the “extremely bad” thing he asks us to accept is the end of the human species .
Yes, that would be serious. He also doesn’t make the case that in a world without nuclear weapons, the prospects of conventional war would
it is only an unproven supposition that nuclear weapons have prevented
wars, or would do so in the future. We have certainly come far too close to the precipice of catastrophic nuclear war. As an ultimate
increase dramatically. After all,
celebration of the faulty logic of deterrence, Tepperman calls for providing any nuclear weapons state with a “survivable second strike option.”
Thus, he not only favors nuclear weapons, but finds the security of these weapons to trump human security. Presumably he would have
President Obama providing new and secure nuclear weapons to North Korea, Pakistan and any other nuclear weapons states that come along
so that they will feel secure enough not to use their weapons in a first-strike attack. Do we really want to bet the human future that Kim JongIl and his successors are more rational than Mr. Tepperman?
138
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Natural Disasters Add-on
SPS can provide quick response to devastating natural disasters.
Business Recorder, 2007 (“Pentagon Examines Use of Solar Panels in Space” December 25, lexis)
But it remains to be seen whether companies are willing to invest in research for space-based solar power because, even if the considerable
Hopkins
acknowledges the real technical challenges space-based solar power would face, but said
investment is needed now to develop clean and renewable energy. The system would include building
technical challenges of building and deploying a system can be overcome, profits would remain years - if not decades - away.
kilometre-sized arrays that would float in space and feed energy into a satellite that would beam it back to earth with a laser or microwave.
Antennas on the ground would collect it and turn it into electricity. One of the major challenges would be building a satellite that would have
to be many times larger than the International Space Station and launching it into space. The NSSO, in a recent study, concluded that
Congress should spend 10 billion dollars over the next 10 years to build a test satellite . The
Pentagon's interest in the system also has simple strategic implications. The NSSO study said fuel in
Iraq is expensive and US soldiers lose their lives guarding fuel convoys. With space-based
solar power US bases would simply get the energy they need from space. "This may provide troops abroad
in unfriendly or ill-equipped territory with power," the study said. Space-based solar power could also support
humanitarian or peacekeeping missions in remote regions of the world, and could respond to
areas where power has been knocked out by natural disasters, the NSSO said. The US government first began
exploring generating solar power from arrays in space in the late 1960s, but the idea was abandoned because it was thought to be too expensive
and the necessary technology was not available.
Natural Disasters culminate in extinction
SID-AHMED 2005 (Mohamed, Al-Ahram Online, Jan 6-12, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm,
DeFilippis)
The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the
Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in
general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species
has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters
of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it
spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But
now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing
place for human life. Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation
between [Humanity] Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end of the
human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human
societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any
harm it can inflict on itself. Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to
arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our
planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This
perception has changed following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal
regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26 December. This cataclysmic event has
underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine
belief that the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort
ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a longterm future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any
way. We are now forced to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.
ecological equivalent of 9/11.
139
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Clean Tech Leadership Add-on 1/2
SSP is key to U.S. clean tech leadership.
NSS 7 [National Space Society, October, “Space Solar Power—Limitless clean energy from space”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm]
the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers
can solve our energy and greenhouse gas
emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide
large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental
impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use
today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's
The United States and
energy from sunlight in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power
output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on
a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is to
move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers few vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the
grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation — but only if we can generate the enormous
quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to generate the electricity to power those vehicles.
Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric transportation system. While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a
number of substantial advantages over other energy sources. Advantages of Space Solar Power (also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP) Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants,
space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources. Unlike
bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead
of a fuel provider. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar
and wind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or wind speed. Unlike nuclear power
plants, space solar power does not provide easy targets for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, space solar power does not require environmentally problematic mining operations.
Space solar power will provide true energy independence for the nations that develop
it, source of national competition for limited Earth-based energy resources. Space solar power
will not require dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs ,
enabling us to expend resources in other ways. Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the
world, and its energy can be converted for local needs — such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there
eliminating a major
are no electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace
expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change. Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the
low-cost space transportation system that is required for its deployment .
This, in turn, will also bring the resources of the solar system
within economic reach.
140
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Clean Tech Leadership Add-on 2/2
Clean tech deters Chinese and Russian aggression-impact is great power war.
Klarevas 9 (Louis, Professor at the Center for Global Affairs – New York University, “Securing
American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony”,
Huffington Post, 12-15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-klarevas/securing-americanprimacy_b_393223.html)
By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global
the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world
escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the
planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power rivals
seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of American strategy must occur soon. The U.S.,
primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though,
however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting
action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is
instead one between realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing
national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the
other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national
interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests. What both sides need to
understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation,
while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future. To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green
hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international
institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War
II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum
where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current)
liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests.
The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the
dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of
fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however. With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the
horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current
competition for oil is fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of
oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a
limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a
contest which threatens American primacy and global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national
problem is two-fold. First, the
economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oil-dependent,
a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in
means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires,
floods, and storms. In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not
undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability. Oil arguably has been
greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as
the next twenty-five years. That likely
the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like
wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of
petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and environmental research
and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By
promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel
standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing
board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion.
If the U.S. is able to produce
technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually
have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously
providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check.
Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony.
141
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
*****NEGATIVE*****
142
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Space Elevators Turn
Space Elevators are necessary for Space Based Solar Power
Marks 09 (Paul Marks is the chief technology correspondent for the New Scientist)
(http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/space-elevators-needed-forspa.html)
It might sound like the piling of one unlikely science fiction idea on top of another - but the small band of
enthusiasts who believe machines called space elevators could one day become a reality say their technology could
one day save the planet. The reason? They say a space elevator - which would theoretically ride between Earth
and geostationary orbit on a 1-metre-wide ultratough ribbon - is the only affordable way to place the vast
solar arrays of a space-based solar power (SBSP) system in Earth orbit. Many space scientists
agree that cleanly supplying the Earth's energy needs by placing vast solar arrays in space - and
beaming down the energy they collect in the form of microwaves for conversion to electricity - is eminently
possible with today's technology (though it may not - as yet - be highly efficient). And the idea is so
promising it has hit the US political agenda in recent weeks with the issue getting play on www.change.gov Barack Obama's policy discussion site - and also within NASA amongst members of the Obama transition team.
The problem is that getting the massive arrays into geostationary orbit is unaffordable with any known chemical
rocket technology. To match the electricity output of a single fossil-fuel power station, an SBSP satellite would
weigh around 3 million kilograms (3000 tonnes). And it currently costs between $10,000 and $25,000
to launch every kilogram of payload into geostationary orbit. "Half the cost of everything you
put in space is down to the launch cost," former spaceflight engineer Peter Swan told the International
Astronautical Congress in Glasgow, UK, in October 2008. "The economics of space-based solar power don't work
with current launch costs. So we have to figure out how to do it without chemical launch." Enter the elevator,
Swan says. He's a former spaceflight engineer and is now a leading light and a coordinator in the global space
elevator advocacy community. "One of the major issues is power. How do we distribute power? Do we continue to
burn carbon? In the event of a space elevator becoming operational, we could change the
condition of humanity," Swan told IAC delegates.
SBSP is not a useable source of energy – a space elevator or other mode of cheap
orbital transportation is key.
Fan Et al. 6/2 (William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok; 6/2/2011; Industry and
Technology
Assessment,
SPACE
BASED
SOLAR
POWER;
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf)A
M
Right now, SPSP is not viable as a mainstream source of energy. In fact, even when accounting
for the most optimal effects, we would need to wait at least 30 more years before beginning a
large attempt at adopting space based solar power. In order for SBSP to be feasible before then,
we would require some sort of disruptive technology in orbital launch, such as a space elevator .
Another case might be where the Earth’s atmosphere suddenly prevented more of the sunlight from reaching the
Earth, increasing the efficiency gains from using SBSP.
143
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
China Turn
Solar energy is crucial to China’s future – Space Based Solar provides United
States with a bargaining chip against China.
AsiaPulse News June 6, 2011 (SOLAR ENERGY IMPORTANT TO ASIA'S ECON GROWTH: ADB
VICE PRESIDENT. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-258121724.html)
JAKARTA, June 6 Asia pulse - Increasing the use of solar energy is important to the economic
growth of the Asian region, including Indonesia, Asian Development Bank (ADB) Vice President Xiaoyu
Zhao said. "Asia should increasingly use solar energy to reduce carbon emission if the region
wants to remain a strong economic corridor," Xiaoyu Zhao said in a written statement obtained by Antara
here on Friday. He said Asia could account for half of the world`s output in trade and global
investment in the next 2050, and therefore the region should also maintain the momentum of
its economic growth and make innovations from its traditional high-carbon to sustainable lowcarbon
US - China mistrust solved through smart – power cooperation
Cruz
5/22
(“ADB
says
Asia
solar
energy
needs
$10
bln
investment,”
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7HM0PZ20110622 )
The ADB wants Asia, home to about two-thirds of the world's population, to add 3,000 megawatts of
solar energy capacity by the end of 2013. Already this year it has helped countries add 500 megawatts,
doubling the region's solar capacity. It will launch the Asia Accelerated Solar Energy Development
Fund with $2.25 billion as it targets solar power projects in countries including China , India,
Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Thailand to add another 1,000 MW next year and 1,500 MW in 2013.
144
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Shale Gas Turn 1/3
As alternative energy fails, Shale gas’ abundance and location provide great
economic opportunity for the US
Sorman 11 “The End Of Green Ideology” Guy Sorman, a French philosopher and economist, is the
author of Economics Does Not Lie He is the global advisor of the South Korean President and he
has held many government positions in France. Posted 20 June 2011 http://www.thegwpf.org
Germany's nuclear plants will be replaced by more thermal plants, implying a large increase in
German carbon emissions – so much for Green concern with global warming! And so much for
intellectual honesty, because a Germany without nuclear power of its own will be compelled to buy it from France,
which has no intention of closing its nuclear plants. In the US, the ideological aftershock is closer to Germany's
than to France's: the US may not be overly prone to romanticism, but a cult of nature remains part of the
American psyche. This may go some way toward explaining why the Democrats, who control the presidency and
the Senate, are so committed to so-called alternative energies. President Barack Obama's administration
has thrown billions of dollars at wind, solar, ethanol, and other alternative-energy resources.
Now the Fukushima tragedy is being used to justify continuing these economically dubious programs . We can
bet that none of these alternative energies will easily replace oil, gas, and nuclear power in the
foreseeable future. At market prices, without public subsidies, a unit of energy produced by
solar or wind in the US costs five times more than a unit produced by oil, gas, or nuclear plants.
Moreover, supporters of alternative energies systematically downplay their negative
environmental impact. A wind turbine requires 50 tons of steel and half a square mile of
ground space. If California were to rely on solar power for its electricity consumption, the
entire state would have to be covered with photovoltaic cells. The great irony of the current situation
is that real innovation and entrepreneurial activity, without government support, is taking place in the field of
energy generation, such as in the creation of miniaturized nuclear reactors. The most promising breakthrough
may well be the discovery of huge reserves of shale gas all over the planet. Indeed, thanks to the new
techniques in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, shale gas may well become the
dominant energy resource of the future. Shale gas could thus reduce dependency on OPEC oil
and gas while reducing carbon emission. Gas generates ten times less carbon than biomass or
ethanol, which ecologists so heavily promote. Beyond Fukushima, future energy supplies will
most likely rely more and more on miniaturized nuclear plants and shale gas – a mix capable of
responding to a rapidly urbanizing world population's growing demand for electricity. Such a
renewed energy balance would impact the current global balance of power. Shale gas is
abundant in Europe and North America, in contrast to oil and gas. Thus, the energy of
tomorrow could well reinforce the world's democracies and weaken its most repressive
regimes, where most oil is to be found nowadays. Within this new geopolitical framework,
green ideology will survive like a cult or a recipe for economic suicide.
145
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Shale Gas Turn 2/3
The shale gas revolution and the world’s dependency on oil make alternative
energy not viable
Wynn 11 “Shale Gas Revolution Is Killing Green Energy In Price War” Gerard Wynn the Senior
Environmental Markets Correspondent of Reuters - Thursday, 16 June 2011 20:52 on the Global
Warming Policy Foundation website http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/3229-shale-gasrevolution-is-killing-green-energy-in-price-war.html
A widening shale gas revolution is killing the economics of renewable energy, even as falling
costs allow wind and solar to overtake fossil fuels in niche areas, say energy executives and
analysts. Solar panel prices are down about 10 percent this year, but chasing a moving target as discovery of
cheap shale gas spreads beyond the United States, experts told Reuters energy and climate summit. Even big
renewables investors, such as French energy company Total, see solar as a tiny part of the
picture decades out, compared with gas. Total paid $1.4 billion for a majority stake in U.S.-based
SunPower Corp. "You have one energy that represents today more than 20 percent of the energy
mix, and solar today is close to zero and will represent maybe 1 or 1.5 percent in 20 years from
now," said Jean-Jacques Mosconi, Total head of strategy. The trouble is that a new "golden age of gas,"
as the International Energy Agency dubbed it, has created massive over-capacity in a key rival
fuel for power generation. "The economic viability of a lot of the renewables are getting killed
because we have too much gas in the world right now," said Jeff Currie, global head of commodities
research at Goldman Sachs. "It's made a lot of these other projects like solar and wind struggle in
terms of their economic viability, and coal too." Building new gas plants was half the price of new
nuclear, and much cheaper than wind and solar, said John Rowe, chairman of U.S. power company
Exelon Corp. Shale gas has especially suppressed prices in the United States . Energy ripples from
a Japan quake, where some countries are now rolling back nuclear plans after the Fukushima
crisis, would favor coal and gas as much as renewables, said International Energy Agency chief
economist Fatih Birol. "When Germany say they are going to use alternative energy sources, I just
don't see it, if you try to switch now to solar power it will cost them 20 times more ," said Peter
Csoregh at Robeco's Natural Resource equities fund , expecting instead greater use in Germany of gas,
coal and imported nuclear.
146
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Shale Gas Turn 3/3
Shale gas provides a solution to the gas shortage
Lyons 11 “Shale Gas - A Welcome Energy Shock” by Rob Lyons Deputy Editor at Spiked Ltd
Thursday, 05 May 2011 14:32 Spiked
Last month, I got my energy bills for the past quarter. They hurt. After the combination of a bitterly cold winter and rising energy prices, the cost of keeping warm the Victorian terraced house I live in is becoming eye-watering.
And with the UK government determined to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions further by bumping up fuel costs through renewable energy subsidies and carbon taxes, things are only going to get worse. This is the lack-of-energy
we are desperately throwing money at
inefficient renewable energy sources like wind and solar that just aren’t developed enough or
reliable enough to take up the slack. Maybe we should all start wearing cardigans, just like US president Jimmy Carter did when he told the American
people about apparently looming energy shortages back in 1977. Wouldn’t it be great if a new, cheap, reliable and wellunderstood energy source came along and helped us out of this chilly, expensive problem. Well,
it looks like it has – and in time honoured fashion, there are queues of vested interests trying to strangle the new upstart at birth. The new kid on the block is shale
gas and the potential for this new energy source – and the numerous important ramifications of its exploitation – are explored in his typically clear-headed fashion by science writer Matt Ridley in a new report, The Shale
future that environmentalists have long warned about. Just as we seem to be hitting peak everything – peak oil, peak gas, you name it –
Gas Shock. For example, hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) has been around since the 1940s. Essentially it means digging deep underground, setting off small charges along the length of the subterranean pipe, then forcing water
and sand into the gaps created to release the gas or oil from the rock. On the other hand, horizontal drilling at large depths was first developed only in the 1970s and was much improved in the 1990s. In conventional oil or gas
extraction, you dig down to a reservoir of fuel, so only vertical drilling is required; once you hit one part of the reservoir you can easily pull up the fuel within it. With shale rocks, you need to be able to stretch out into rock
Through the combination of fracking, horizontal drilling and
sophisticated exploration techniques, US firms have been making huge strides in extracting gas
ever more efficiently, so that the cost of shale gas can be as cheap as conventional gas – and
could become even cheaper. Lots of gas, everywhere And what is becoming clear is that there is a lot of gas
down there. Estimates of just how much gas there is have been zooming upwards in recent
years. For example, in the Marcellus shale which lies partly under the US state of Pennsylvania,
estimates in 2007 suggested there could be 50 trillion cubic feet (tcf). Given that the US uses
just over 20 tcf per year, that seemed like a handy new resource. But by 2011, some estimates put the amount of gas
recoverable from the Marcellus shale at 516 tcf – equivalent to about 25 years worth of total US gas consumption from
just one (admittedly enormous) gas field. In 2010, Ridley notes, total US estimated shale gas resources stood at 2,000 tcf (discovered) and 3,000 tcf (‘expected’) according to
one report. That’s 150 years’ supply at current levels. As Ridley notes, one of the best things about shale gas is not just
that there is a lot of it, but that it’s widely spread. While conventional gas supplies are
concentrated in a few big fields, like the one shared by Qatar and Iran, many countries will
have some shale gas supplies and others could be on the verge of a bonanza . For example, Poland – which has for a
long time been reliant on Russian energy supplies – could be sitting on a major shale gas field. This ubiquity means that gas supplies will often be much
nearer to the point of use, obviating the need to exploit supplies in a far-off wilderness like Alaska.
That keeps such isolated environments pristine and reduces the need for new pipelines . It also has
formations in a wide area around the vertical drill shaft. That’s now possible .
geopolitical implications for those who currently supply the world’s gas. Russia, rich with conventional gas supplies, is none too keen on this new-fangled technology which threatens to drive down gas prices. One useful feature of
Ridley’s report is that it gives space to the sceptics. We are, says Ridley, in the midst of a shale-gas bubble. For every company making a fortune, another will go to the wall. It may turn out that the larger estimates for shale-gas
supplies are fanciful, or prove not to be economic to exploit. We could just be harvesting the low-hanging fruit. Clearing the air But, as he notes, there are lots of good reasons to believe that shale gas will have a major impact, for a
Firstly, the obvious one that it could greatly postpone any possible ‘peak’ in fossil fuel
energy. Secondly, it is relatively ‘clean’, in a low-carbon sense. Ridley notes that the world has been decarbonising since the days
of Queen Victoria and Abraham Lincoln because the fuels we use – from wood to coal to oil to gas – have steadily less carbon and more hydrogen in them. Even those who
are sceptical about climate-change alarmism will appreciate the fact that gas is cleaner than
other fossil fuels in other ways. Coal and, to a lesser extent, oil produce a lot of other pollutants when they are burned that we’d rather do without. That’s why smog-laden China, while
number of reasons.
knowing that coal-fired power stations have been essential to rapid economic growth, is now encouraging the rapid development of gas resources. In his foreword to The Shale Gas Shock, veteran physicist Freeman Dyson
reminisces about an incident in the days before the Clean Air Act when he was sat in a fug in the Royal Albert Hall, one not produced by the patrons inside but by the coal fires burning across the city. ‘London is no longer the place
Switching some of these
vehicles from oil to compressed natural gas (CNG) would be relatively easy and would help to
reduce air pollution. Taxis running on natural gas are already common in bustling, fast-growing major cities like Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Rio de Janeiro. Plugging the
where your shirt-collar is black with soot at the end of each day’, he writes. But London still has some air pollution thanks to all those cars, buses, lorries and taxis .
gas leak So why would anyone be against shale gas? For one thing, there are plenty of commercial interests in coal, oil and renewable energies that could lose out if gas takes off. More threatening is the green backlash
There is much talk about how fracking will pollute water supplies (Ridley accepts
and involves the use of many dangerous chemicals. As Ridley points out, what goes
against gas, as epitomised in the scaremongering, Oscar-nominated movie Gasland.
this is possible but unlikely)
down the well is typically 99.86 per cent water and sand, and the other chemicals used are widely used elsewhere
in society without ill effect. These scare stories are at best misplaced or exaggerated and at worst deliberately
misleading. What shale gas really does is screw up a major environmentalist narrative: ‘We’re running out of fossil fuels, they’re really polluting anyway, so we should just use less energy or use renewables instead.’ In
practice, fledgling wind and solar power aren’t up to the job, so the upshot of this argument is that we should retreat to a low-energy society. But if there is a lot of potential energy out there, and it is also less polluting and more
flexible than current energy supplies, where does that leave the greens? The shiver-in-the-dark alarmism is ruined.
In the rest of the world, it is quite likely that
147
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
this option of clean, cheap energy will be warmly embraced. In Europe, however, where politics is ruled by the regressive notions of sustainability
and the precautionary principle, we can expect great efforts to try to stop shale gas from being developed. While there are some genuine uncertainties about just how important shale gas will be, it would be a tragedy if European
politicians are allowed to suffocate the potential of this new energy source.
148
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
A2: US Key
No single country can solve the problem.
David Houle (Author, speaker and strategist who advises organizations about dynamic trends).
Global Warming and Peace. 16 Oct. 2007.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/david_houle/global_warming_and_peace
The second reason that global warming is a peace issue is that it is a major issue of survival that
necessitates a global solution. There is no single country or even groups of countries that can
solve the problem by themselves. We are now in the global stage of human evolution and we
now have the first problem to solve as a species. The collaboration between countries, among
populations and all marketplace businesses is essential for a solution. Humanity either solves the problem
as one or we might well die separately. The human species is being served up an issue for all of us. The
inherent opportunity is to create a unity among all of us in facing this issue that will bring us
together in a common cause. Having a common cause that is global in scope is certainly a step
toward world peace.
149
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Oil Advantage
Russian economy dependent on oil
Kopinski (Mark, Chief Investment Officer) International Equity CIO Insights: 1st Quarter 2011
http://americancenturyblog.com/2011/01/russia’s-push-for-economic-diversificationandmodernization/
“One of the biggest problems facing Russia, however, is its lack of economic diversification and
overreliance on revenues from oil and gas exports.” Since the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades
ago, Russia has transformed itself from a centrally planned to a market-based economy. Along the way, however,
the country’s push for economic diversification and modernization hasn’t been easy. Russia is
contending with a host of issues, including a crumbling infrastructure, an aging workforce and
inadequate pension system, and the development of new gas and oil fields to replace depleting
current ones. Property rights remain weak and state interference in the private sector is also
problematic. One of the biggest problems facing Russia, however, is its lack of economic
diversification and overreliance on revenues from oil and gas exports.
25% of the Russian economy is dependent on oil
Kopinski (Mark, Chief Investment Officer) International Equity CIO Insights: 1st Quarter 2011
http://americancenturyblog.com/2011/01/russia’s-push-for-economic-diversificationandmodernization/
About 25% of the government’s operating budget is linked to oil and gas revenues, so Russia’s
goal of economic diversification will not be an easy task. Yet its leadership is becoming
increasingly aware of the fact that it must endure some short-term pain—weaning itself off the
windfalls from commodity exports—to ensure long-term economic growth and prosperity. In
the meantime, however, Russia is trying to improve its investment climate by fostering better relations with the
West, becoming more cognizant of property and intellectual rights, and reducing the state’s influence in the
economy
Oil prices significantly affect Russian economy
Jouko Rautava 04 Institute for Economies in Transition (BOFIT), Bank of Finland, PO Box 160,
FIN-00101, Helsinki, Finland Received 12 March 2003; Revised 25 February 2004. Available
online 15 April 2004. Journal of Comparative Economics Volume 32, Issue 2, June 2004, Pages
315-327
Despite a lively debate on the importance of oil prices and the real exchange rate for Russia, little empirical
research exists on this topic. In this paper, the impact of international oil prices and the real exchange rate on the
Russian economy and its fiscal policy are analyzed using vector autoregressive (VAR) modeling and cointegration
techniques. The results imply that the Russian economy is influenced significantly by
fluctuations in oil prices and the real exchange rate through both long-run equilibrium
conditions and short-run direct impacts. Although the underlying growth trend indicates the
Russian economy has strengthened in recent years, we find no evidence that the role of oil
prices has diminished.
150
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Warming Advantage 1/3
Most warming is natural.
Walter Williams. (PhD. Economics UCLA). "Global Warming Heresy.", Capitalism Magazine. 27
March. 2007. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4941
Among the many findings those dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions
are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying
vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of
mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to
environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other
words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the
greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is the bulk of scientific
evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk. Throughout the Earth's
billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in
the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer
than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when
there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.
Temperature increase won’t be significant.
Marc Morano (Staffwriter) "'Alarmist' Global Warming Claims Unfounded Says Climatologist."
CNN News. 14 Jul. 2003. (Climatologist and research professor of environmental sciences at The
University of Virginia and the Marshall Institute, he used to be the President of the American
Association of State) http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200307/CUL20030714c.html
Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels told a Capitol Hill luncheon Friday tha t the fears of catastrophic global
warming are scientifically unfounded and 'alarmist.' Michaels also declared that any climate change
that does occur would not impact the Earth or its inhabitants in any significant way. "The
science is settled in a very non-alarmist way," Michaels told CNSNews.com. Michaels predicted that his message
would not be well received by many in the climate debate. "A non-alarmist way is politically very unpopular in
Washington, D.C.," he said. Michaels, author of the book Satanic Gasses: Clearing the Air about Global Warming
and an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia, was the featured speaker at a luncheon
sponsored by the Cato Institute on Friday. "Scientific data really tells us how much it is going to warm
over the next 100 years, and it's going to be at the low end of the projections, and people will
adapt as long as their economies are free. We have been adapting for a long time," Michaels
explained. Michaels said he expects a negligible warm-up and pointed to the past 100 years as proof that any
effects of potential increased global temperatures are going to be negligible. "As the planet warmed up about
one degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, the life span in the industrialized democracies
went from 40 to 80 [years], and crop yields doubled. Global warming did not cause that, but it
didn't stop it either Michaels said.,"
151
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Warming Advantage 2/3
Warming is inevitable – renewable tuition can’t solve
Mark Hertsgaard. "It's much too lake to sweat global warming." The San Francisco Chronicle. 13
Feb. 2005. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL
At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: It is already
too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it sets off. Environmentalists won't say
this for fear of sounding alarmist or defeatist. Politicians won't say it because then they'd have to do something
about it. The world's top climate scientists have been sending this message, however, with increasing urgency for
many years.
Since 1988, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
comprised of more than 2,000 scientific and technical experts from around the world, has
conducted the most extensive peer-reviewed scientific inquiry in history. In its 2001 report,
the panel said that human-caused global warming had already begun, and much sooner than
expected. What's more, the problem is bound to get worse, perhaps a lot worse, before it gets
better. Last month, the climate change panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, upped the ante. Although Pachauri
was installed after the Bush administration forced out his predecessor, Robert Watson, for pushing too hard for
action, the accumulation of evidence led Pachauri to embrace apocalyptic language: "We are risking the
ability of the human race to survive," he said. Until now, most public discussion about global warming has
focused on how to prevent it -- for example, by implementing the Kyoto Protocol, which comes into force
internationally (but without U.S. participation) on Wednesday. But prevention is no longer a sufficient option. No
matter how many "green" cars and solar panels Kyoto eventually calls into existence, the hard
fact is that a certain amount of global warming is inevitable.
Warming is caused by sunspots
RNA (Russian News and Information Agency). "Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for
global warming." Jan. 15 2007. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by
scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global
warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday. Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research
laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase
in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is
attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation. "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost
throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.
Ice cores prove - GHG concentrations are a result of warming not a cause.
RNA (Russian News and Information Agency). "Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for
global warming." Jan. 15 2007.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
Scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of
greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane
released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher
water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up. Abdusamatov, a doctor
of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the
view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies. He said
an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and
the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the
industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).
152
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Warming Advantage 3/3
Scientists agree – water vapor and underwater volcanoes.
Meta
tech.
"Global
Warming
Will
Cause
the
http://www.metatech.org/07/ice_age_global_warming.html
Coming
Ice
Age."
2007.
We are not the cause of Global Warming. Somewhere between 85% and 95% of greenhouse
gases are WATER VAPOR. At most, only 3% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air results from
human activity. The amount of CO2 presently in the air absorbs nearly all available radiation at its peaks of
2.7, 4.3 and 15 µM; so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Seventeen thousand scientists signed a
petition saying humans producing CO2 is not the cause of global warming. The 30% increase
in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years is from oceans releasing CO2 because they are
heating up. Oceans heat the air, not the other way around. The oceans are heating because of
undersea volcanoes, because of the movement of the earth's crust. Scientists recently discovered over
1,100 volcanoes near Easter Island! Some are huge - over 1.5 miles high. And we have only mapped 5% of
the ocean so far! Scientists estimate there are THREE MILLION undersea volcanoes.
Temperatures wouldn’t rise if we burned everything we have.
Marc Morano (Staffwriter) "'Alarmist' Global Warming Claims Unfounded Says Climatolgist."
CNN News. 14 Jul. 2003. Climatologist and research professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia and the Marshall Institute Who used to be the President of the American
Association
of
State
Climatologist,
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200307/CUL20030714c.html
The real scientific proof that man could not impact our environment with greenhouse gas
emissions in any catastrophic way already exits, Michaels believes. Paleo records indicate that the
concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was up to 14 times
higher than it is today when the Earth was but 8 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today,"
Michaels said, referring to the climate of millions of years ago. There is no way we can get the
Earth that hot again, he said -- even "if we burn everything as fast as we could," he added. And
the Earth was not unpleasant during the period of high CO2 concentrations and higher
temperatures, according to Michaels. "The planet was greener than a [casino] crap table. That is where
all that coal came from that we are burning now," he explained.
Even if we stopped pumping all carbon dioxide tomorrow – we would not see
change for 100 years.
Mark Hertsgaard. "It's much too lake to sweat global warming." The San Francisco Chronicle. 13
Feb. 2005. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL
Contrary to the impression given by some news reports, global warming is not like a light switch that can
be turned off if we simply stop burning so much oil, coal and gas. There is a lag effect of about
50 to 100 years. That's how long carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere after
it is emitted from auto tailpipes, home furnaces and industrial smokestacks. So even if humanity stopped
burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the planet would continue warming for decades.
153
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Solvency 1/3
We are no closer to SBSP then we were in the 1970’s and the DoD is not interested
in SBSP
Day, 2008 (“American space historian and policy analyst and served as an investigator for the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board”,[Dwayne A. Day; “Knights in shining armor”, The Space
Review; 6/9/2008t; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)
You may not have noticed, but the space activist community is all worked up about space solar power (see “A
renaissance for space solar power?”, The Space Review, August 13, 2007). It is now the topic of much conversation whenever a group of space enthusiasts get together.
It was recently on the cover of the National Space Society’s magazine Ad Astra. The upcoming NewSpace 2008 conference will feature a panel on it. The International Space Development
Conference in Washington, DC featured no less than three—yes, three—sessions on space solar power, or SSP, to use the shorthand term, plus a dinner speaker who addressed the same
With all of this attention, one would suspect that there has been a fundamental
technological breakthrough that now makes SSP possible, or a major private or government
initiative to begin at least preliminary work on a demonstration project. But there has been
none of this. In fact, from a technological standpoint, we are not much closer to space solar
power today than we were when NASA conducted a big study of it in the 1970s
The reason
that SSP has gained nearly religious fervor in the activist community can be attributed to two
things, neither having to do with technical viability. The first reason is increased public and media attention
on environmentalism and energy coupled with the high price of gasoline. When even Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups are
subject.
advertised with a global warming message, it’s clear that the issue has reached the saturation point and everybody wants to link their pet project to the global warming discussion. SSP, its
The second
reason is a 2007 study produced by the National Security Space Office (NSSO) on SSP. The space activist
community has determined that the Department of Defense is the knight in shining armor that
will deliver them to their shining castles in the sky. Space activists, who are motivated by the desire to personally live and work in space, do
advocates point out, is “green” energy, with no emissions—other than the hundreds, or probably thousands, of rocket launches needed to build solar power satellites.
not care about SSP per se. Although all of them are impacted by high gasoline prices, many of them do not believe that global climate change is occurring; or if they do believe it, they doubt
that humans contribute to it. Instead, they have latched on to SSP because it is expedient. Environmental and energy issues provide the general backdrop to their new enthusiasm, and the
. Many people now claim that “the Department of Defense is interested in
space solar power.” But it is not true. The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed
and states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP and that it is not a viable solution
for even the military’s limited requirements. It states that the technology to implement space
solar power does not currently exist… and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years.
Substantial technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the report
makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer
seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). The
activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger. But in this case, the activists touting the
NSSO study serves as their focal point
National Security Space Office
NSSO study do not understand where the NSSO fits into the larger military space bureaucracy. The
was created in 2004 and “facilitates the
integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities.” But any office that “facilitates” the activities of other organizations has limited influence,
The NSSO has a minimal staff
and budget and does not command any assets—it does not fly any satellites, launch any
rockets, or procure any hardware, all of which are measures of power within the military space
realm. Simply put, the NSSO exists essentially as a policy shop that is readily ignored by the
major military space actors such as Strategic Command, Air Force Space Command, and the
National Reconnaissance Office whenever it suits them. As one former NSSO staffer explained,
the office consists of many smart, hardworking people who have no discernible influence on
military space at all. In fact, for several years there have been persistent rumors that the NSSO was about to be abolished as unnecessary, irrelevant, and toothless. Add to
especially when those other organizations are much bigger and have their own interests and connections to the senior leadership.
this the way in which the NSSO’s solar power satellite study was pursued—the study itself had no budget. In Washington, studies cost money. If the Department of Defense wants advice on,
say, options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct the study such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their existing advisory groups such as the Air Force
Scientific Advisory Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform the work. Even if the study is performed by a committee of volunteers, there are still travel, printing,
staff support, overhead, and other expenses. Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in the many tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few million dollars. In contrast, the
NSSO study of space solar power had no actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and labor. This reflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by the Pentagon
why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is
not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for space solar power is abysmal.
The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even
leadership. If all this is true,
154
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly change
the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other
is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly “falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor the
Department of Energy wants responsibility. If the military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home.
155
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Solvency 2/3
There are many challenges facing SBSP
Phase Zero ‘07“Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” Phase 0
Architecture Feasibility Study report to the National Security Space Office
October 10, 2007 Phase 0 Design is an innovative design firm offering architectural, design and
planning services
Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the
creation of low-cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space.
Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space
tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not
a
repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish
three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks.
This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space-borne proof-ofconcept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to
gigawatts-class systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory,
legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and
relationships
(commercial-commercial,
government-commercial,
and
governmentgovernment) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter
want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities,
and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on-line today.
SPSP not coming any time soon, numerous technical barriers
Henry Andrew Dec 5, 2009 (Andrew is a
(http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/562)
writer
for
Reliable
Power
news)
Only recently the US company Solaren Corp. was prepared to complete an agreement with PG&E, Pacific Gas and Electric. The contract stated
the former was required to provide the latter with power from a space based solar installation by 2016. The plan was brought up by California
regulators during one of their sessions. That
objective seems unreachable given that logistically they cannot
deploy a complex unit of this type at this time. There is also no transportation available like a
space shuttle from which space technicians could begin their extra vehicular activity or [EVA]
while they put together the solar unit. With a plan to utilize interlocking components that fit automatically, there should
have been research undertaken some time ago. Having acquired experience from different space agencies over
the years, an undertaking like this one cannot be expected to be competed in only five or six
years, but having said that, nothing is beyond reach. JAXA for instance, has a much more achievable objective for
their plan, stating their initial power project in space would be good to go in the 2030’s . Some
experts suggest that we are treating space based solar power generation as if it is in a desperate race against coal. The multifarious
challenge to harnessing the sun’s energy from space based platforms comes from the fact that
the unit cannot be secured to earth. It requires a means of power transmission for the
electricity back to the earth stations. Scientists involved believe this can happen using lasers [highly capable, but face
challenges from cloud cover] or microwave technology which transmit less electricity but are able to infiltrate the cloud cover. A final decision
on power transport will be made eventually. The exciting thing is that a space based solar plant would alleviate the problem of the day-night
issue of solar power as well as inconsistent weather
Launch costs must be cheap for SBSP to be economically viable
John C. Mankins September 7, 2K (Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,
NASA) (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-JohnMankins.htm)
Affordable, large-scale Earth-to-orbit transportation is a key capability for any substantial
future activities relating to the exploration and development of space, including SSP systems.
How low these costs must be depends entirely on the type of future missions and markets that are contemplated.
SERT results suggest that recurring launch costs in the range of $100-$200 per kilogram of
payload to low-Earth orbit are needed if SPS are to be economically viable. The current National
Space Transportation Policy as implemented in NASA’s Integrated Space Transportation Plan and Space Launch
156
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
SBSP Aff
Silent Nihilists
Initiative, provide a solid strategic and programmatic foundation for achieving launch costs in the range that is
projected to be required during the coming 20 years.
157
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
1NC Solvency 3/3
But, Current costs are nowhere near cheap enough
Michio Kaku 09, (Michio Kaku is a professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New
York of City University of New York,and the co-founder of string field theory) 07.16.09
(http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/apollo-moon-landing-anniversary-opinions-contributorscost-money.html)
We will always remember July 20, 1969, as a glorious moment, when humanity stood on the brink of an exciting new era. For the first time in human history, humans walked on the surface of
another extraterrestrial body. It was a technological tour de force. Scientists talked knowingly about setting their sights on Mars and beyond. The universe seemed within our grasp. But
historians will also recognize the irony of this magnificent feat. Today, in 2009, we are actually behind where we were back then. Back then, we had a huge industrial infrastructure designed
to send astronauts to the moon. We had a fleet of colossal Saturn booster rockets emerging from our factories. We had a cadre of fiercely loyal, dedicated and highly skilled engineers intensely
focused on one mission. We had a public mesmerized and unified by the space age. Today, all of that is gone. Only ghosts of that era remain, mainly in museums and dusty history books.
Now, we are haunted by these memories as we painfully try to reach for the moon once again--in 2020, 60 years after the first moon landing. What went wrong? Part of the reason is that the
space race was ill-conceived from the start. Back in the mid-1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower actually laid down a sober and methodical timetable for space exploration. He envisioned a
fleet of robotic probes that would scout out the moon and beyond. Astronauts would join them later, launched on small, fast space planes. Like fighter pilots, our astronauts would be able to
blast into space at the drop of a hat. But when Sputnik's launch was splashed over every front page in October 1957, all of that changed. Suddenly, the race to the moon was all about proving
the superiority of capitalism over communism. Arthur C. Clarke, the British author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, once commented that he would have never imagined there would be a push to
put men on the moon if it hadn't became the focus of competition between two nations. At the height of the Cold War, the superpowers spared no expense in funding the latest space
spectacular. Dazzling stunts in space, not cost-cutting, were the order of the day. No one bothered to read their price tag .But after 1969, the Soviets dropped out of the race to the moon and,
like a cancer, the land war in Asia began to devour the budget. The wind gradually came out of the sails of the space program; the Nielsen ratings for each moon landing began to fall. The last
manned mission to the moon was Apollo 17, in 1972.As Isaac Asimov once commented, we scored a touchdown, then took our football and went home. After all is said and done about what
It's about $10,000 to put a pound of anything into a near-earth orbit.
It costs $500 to $700
million every time the shuttle flies. Billionaire space tourists have flown to the space station at a reputed price of $20 million per head. And to
put a pound of anything on the moon costs about 10 times as much. (To reach Mars, imagine your body made of diamonds.)
We are 50 years into the space age , and yet space travel is just as expensive as it always was. We can debate
endlessly over what went wrong; there is probably no one correct answer. But a few observations can be made. The space shuttle, the workhorse of the space program,
proved to be somewhat of a disappointment, with large cost overruns and long delays. It was bloated and
probably did not need to have seven astronauts on board. (The Soviet copy of the space shuttle, a near-clone called the Buran, actually flew into outer
went wrong, the bottom line is simple: money.
(Imagine John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, made of solid gold, and you can appreciate the enormous cost of space travel.)
space fully automated, without any astronauts whatsoever.) An alternative to the space shuttle was the original space plane of the Eisenhower era. It was to be small and compact, but provide
easy access to space on a moment's notice, instead of the long months to prepare each shuttle launch. It was to take off and land like a plane, but soar into outer space like a rocket. President
Ronald Reagan called one version of it the "Orient Express." (Ironically, now there will be a hiatus as the space shuttle is mothballed next year. Instead of fast and cheap access to space, for
five years we will have no access to space at all. We'll have to beg the Europeans and Russians to piggy-back off their rockets.)One of the primary missions of NASA should have been to drive
down the cost of space travel. Instead of spending half a billion dollars on each shuttle mission, it should have diverted some of the funds to make research and development a primary focus.
New materials, new fuels and innovative concepts, which would make space exploration less expensive, should have been prioritized. (Today, some of that entrepreneurial spirit still lives in
The space station costs upward of $100 billion, yet its
critics call it a "station to nowhere." It has no clearly defined scientific purpose. Once, President George H.W.
the commercial sector, as it tries to nourish a fledgling space tourism industry.)
Bush's science adviser was asked about the benefits of doing experiments in weightlessness and microgravity. His response was, "Microgravity is of microimportance." Its supporters have
justified the space station as a terminal for the space shuttle. But the space shuttle has been justified as a vehicle to reach the space station, which is a completely circular and illogical
argument.Now, NASA is painfully reconstructing the infrastructure that it dismantled back in the 1970s as it prepares to send astronauts to the moon via the Orion crew vehicle and the Ares
launch rocket in 2020. This time, though, there could be a traffic jam on the moon, since China, India and Japan have all publicly announced that by then they too will have sent astronauts to
the moon. Let's hope someone will map out a methodical plan for space exploration, like the one Eisenhower drew up, instead of wasting time and money with more fits-and-starts. Then, at
the next milestone anniversary, we won't have to ask ourselves, "What if?"
And, launch isn’t the only cost. The Satellites have to be moved to GEO as well.
John C. Mankins September 7, 2K (Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,
NASA) (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-JohnMankins.htm)
Affordable and timely in-space transportation beyond low-Earth orbit is of equal importance to
ETO transport for many exploration and development of space goals, such as SSP. There remains
a significant challenge in achieving very low-cost, highly reliable and timely in-space transportation beyond lowEarth orbit. SERT results suggest that recurring in-space transportation costs in the range of
$100-$200 per kilogram of payload from low-Earth orbit to geostationary-Earth orbit are
needed if SPS delivering power to terrestrial markets are to be economically viable . Several
approaches continue to be examined as part of the Integrated Space Transportation Plan and the NASA Aerospace
Base technology program.
158
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Japan Counterplan
Japan is the best actor for SBSP
Ramos 2k (US Air Force Major, Thesis submitted for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL
MAXWELL Air Force Base (Kim, “Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States
Air Force,” April, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928)
Japan is the leader in solar power satellite technology today. They are working on several proofs
of concept for solar power satellites. The three main projects are the space flyer unit, ISYMETS, and solar power satellite 2000 (SPS2000). The space flyer unit deployed on the 8 shuttle and
tested various solar power to electricity generating schemes.23 The ISY-METS, mentioned earlier, proved that one
spacecraft could supply power to another in space using wireless power transmission. The SPS2000 experiment
has two parts. The first part demonstrated a solar power satellite, suspended several feet off the ground, which
beamed 4 watts of power to a rectenna. The rectenna powered a water pump, fan, and lights.24 The second part
will be a small solar power satellite in orbit beaming power to five locations.25 Current predictions as to when
solar power satellites will be available vary somewhat. An article in Space Business News indicated that they expected
solar power satellite demonstrations by 2006, and expected functioning capital earning models by 2010.26 Ralph
Nansen, who worked on the first government sponsored solar power satellite studies, and is the author of Sun Power:
The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crisis, also expects the first units in 2006.27 However, Peter Glaser the founding
father of solar power satellites believes that it will take 15 to 20 years once investors make the
commitment to build solar power satellites before they become a realit y.28 Solar power satellites
harness the energy of the sun, convert that energy into electricity, and beam the electricity to a rectenna. The
beam may be a laser or a microwave. The rectenna may be located on earth, on another satellite, or on an aircraft.
A power relay satellite receives a beam of energy from earth and reflects it to another location on the planet. A
rectenna receives the beam, from either a solar power satellite or a power relay satellite, converts it back into
electricity and feeds it into the local power grid. Solar power satellites possess the potential to 9 continuously
supply much of the world’s current and future energy needs with power that is environmentally benign and
renewable. The main feature of solar power satellites is wireless power transmission. Several engineers in
different parts of the world have demonstrated this concept as technologically feasible and it only requires
implementation. Lasers and microwaves are the contenders for use in the beam. Most of the studies thus far
focused on the microwave as the means to propagate the beam because they attenuate less in the atmosphere and
are less hazardous than lasers. The cost is the main barrier to implementation. Although engineers in
Europe, the Ukraine, and the United States research solar power satellites, engineers in Japan
posses the most robust program with the supporting technological demonstrations. Several
predictions to when solar power satellites will become commercially available exist. They range
anywhere from the next decade to mid-century.
159
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten
SCFI 2011
Silent Nihilists
SBSP Aff
Spending Link
Alternative energy on a massive scale is overwhelmingly expensive
Hoffman 11 “The Cost of Running the World on Renewable Power” Wednesday, 09 March 2011
17:27 Doug L Hoffman author of The Resilient Earth found at the Global Warming Policy
Foundation
http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/2611-the-cost-of-running-the-world-onrenewable-power.html
Green advocates and climate change alarmists alike insist that the world shift to using only non-polluting, renewable energy sources, and the
What is seldom mentioned is the enormous cost of retooling the world's energy
infrastructure to use intermittent, unreliable wind and solar energy. A recent two part paper,
appearing in Energy Policy, makes a reasonable attempt at stating the requirements to fix
humanity's fossil fuel addiction and go all green. The analysis found that, to provide roughly
84% of the world's energy needs in 2030, would require around 4 million 5 MW wind turbines
and 90,000 300 MW solar power plants, with the remaining 16% coming from solar
photovoltaic rooftop systems, geothermal, tidal, wave and hydroelectric sources. Some quick
back-of-the-envelope calculations show why the world economy cannot afford to go totally
green. Most of the financial figures given for renewable energy are carefully chosen to show green energy in a positive light. The facts
are renewable energy is still much more expensive than conventional electrical generation. And
to be accurate, government subsidies and grants cannot be used to discount the cost because,
in the end, it is the total cost to society that counts. Whether a power company, the government
or consumers pay it all costs the economy. Looking at generation costs without considering
initial purchase, installation and integration costs are also misleading. Quite frankly, there is
no way the cost of WWS would be similar to energy cost today based on initial purchase cost
alone. The solar component calls for the use of industrial scale concentrating solar plants, the most cost efficient form of solar power.
sooner the better.
Abengoa Solar, a company currently constructing solar thermal plants, put the cost of a 300 MW plant at 1.2 billion euros in 2007. In 2009,
$1.56 billion
per plant. Calculating the total cost for world solar power: 90,000 * $1,560,000,000 = $140 Trillion It
should also be noted that the above costs are without the necessary, continent spanning power
grids needed to match spotty wind and solar power with demand. It has been estimated that to
upgrade the US power grid to accommodate renewable energy sources will cost $2 trillion over
the next 20 years. While a system using nuclear power will undoubtedly need to be expanded in the future, because nuclear is
baseload power (i.e. steady), it would not require the extra expense of intermittent sources such as wind,
solar or wave. If we use total population as an indication of demand, and hence grid infrastructure
need, this adds another $45 trillion to the WWS requirements. The total bill for WWS comes to
around $225 trillion over the next 20 years. That is nearly the entire output of the world's
largest economy every year for two decades. Greens will say that once the system has been converted the energy costs
the Arizona state government announced a 200 MW plant for 1 billion US dollars so let's split the difference and estimate
drop, after all wind and sunshine are free. True, but fuel costs for nuclear power are also very low, and $150 Trillion will by a lot of uranium
and thorium. And we know nuclear power works safely and reliably, the same cannot be said of renewable power generation on the scale being
WWS, as proposed by Jacobson and Delucchi, requires new, unproven
technologies, rapidly falling manufacturing prices, and international cooperation unheard of
today. Given the havoc caused by natural gas supply interruptions caused by Russia, would any sovereign
nation trust a power grid that spans three continents and thousands of miles? A power grid
that could be disrupted by terrorists or maniacal despots anywhere along its major arteries?
Any way you look at renewable energy, it makes little sense. Perhaps the best way to look at running the world
proposed. Aside from the mind-boggling cost,
exclusively on renewable power is that it would cost $33,500 for every man, woman and child on Earth. People in developed nations might be
willing to invest this much, but what of those living in under developed economies, where per capita yearly income can be less than $300?
Nobody but deep green zealots would call this a reasonable deal. If you are interested in a workable plan using currently available technology,
pick up a copy of The Energy Gap. The world's future energy needs can be met while reducing pollution and without bankrupting everyone on
the planet—it just cannot be done using wind and solar energy. Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.
160
“I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.” - Bas Rutten